The Hobbit

[KCWolfman]

Liked it, didn't love it.

It is natural that it is a lesser. Certainly, no one believed the energy and newness could be maintained?

[sd4chiefs]

Five things that are not in the Hobbit book.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/showbi...html?hpt=hp_t3

When people complain about the nearly three-hour length of the first installment of "The Hobbit" film trilogy because the source book is a slim 300 pages, they're forgetting that much of the story isn't from "The Hobbit" itself -- but expanded from the appendices to "The Lord of the Rings."

That extra material is what justifies the longer time on screen, and answers such questions as where does Gandalf go when he disappears? Why is the wizard helping the dwarves on their quest in the first place? What's so bad about dragons? And so, to put a stop to all those moments when you'd otherwise wonder, "But that wasn't in the book!" here are the five major changes from "The Hobbit" the book to "The Hobbit" the films.

Click on link to read more...

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by sd4chiefs

Five things that are not in the Hobbit book.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/showbi...html?hpt=hp_t3

When people complain about the nearly three-hour length of the first installment of "The Hobbit" film trilogy because the source book is a slim 300 pages, they're forgetting that much of the story isn't from "The Hobbit" itself -- but expanded from the appendices to "The Lord of the Rings."

That extra material is what justifies the longer time on screen, and answers such questions as where does Gandalf go when he disappears? Why is the wizard helping the dwarves on their quest in the first place? What's so bad about dragons? And so, to put a stop to all those moments when you'd otherwise wonder, "But that wasn't in the book!" here are the five major changes from "The Hobbit" the book to "The Hobbit" the films.

Click on link to read more...

Nice,thanks

[Hammock Parties]

I got the fever now.

[Hammock Parties]

We've come a long way.

[mnchiefsguy]

Here is another review that talks about what was added that was not in the book itself:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...p-of-the-ring/

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Here is another review that talks about what was added that was not in the book itself:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...p-of-the-ring/

Regarding Azog, and I haven't seen the movie yet, there was some speculation that Azog has been reincarnated to explain the time difference for when he appears in Tolkien's timeline. This is rationalized because Sauron is known as "The Necromancer" in the Hobbit. A Necromancer is a wizard that animates the dead. Has anyone who has seen the movie give their impressions of Azog and the possibility he is a reanimated orc by Sauron/Necromancer?

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Regarding Azog, and I haven't seen the movie yet, there was some speculation that Azog has been reincarnated to explain the time difference for when he appears in Tolkien's timeline. This is rationalized because Sauron is known as "The Necromancer" in the Hobbit. A Necromancer is a wizard that animates the dead. Has anyone who has seen the movie give their impressions of Azog and the possibility he is a reanimated orc by Sauron/Necromancer?

Nothing to that allusion at all. However, Sauron is definitely the source of the Necromancer. In fact, it is obvious that Azog is painfully alive and not reanimated in any fashion. He has all the scars, wounds, and pains of a living being.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Nothing to that allusion at all. However, Sauron is definitely the source of the Necromancer. In fact, it is obvious that Azog is painfully alive and not reanimated in any fashion. He has all the scars, wounds, and pains of a living being.

Thanks, can't wait to go see the film.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Thanks, can't wait to go see the film.

It is not LOTR, but it is beautiful. You can tell the story was meant for a younger audience to catch on as well, but it was a very good movie.

[icepick64]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Nothing to that allusion at all. However, Sauron is definitely the source of the Necromancer. In fact, it is obvious that Azog is painfully alive and not reanimated in any fashion. He has all the scars, wounds, and pains of a living being.

I don't think that is necessarily true, there was the whole back story with thorin, it actually makes for an interesting plot

[Hammock Parties]

also there's no way in hell that fat dwarf managed to make it out of the goblin kingdom alive. I can suspend my disbelief but only so much

[Urc Burry]

Alright I really have no idea what I'm talking about with kind of stuff. But is this 48 GPS something that you get used to? Because I remember watching a DVD that I've seen a million times and then watching it on a 120hz tv for the first time and wondering WTF was going on with the picture

[Hammock Parties]

It's 48 FPS. Frames per second is the number of video frames (one frame is like a still image) shown per second during the movie. Football is often broadcast at 60 FPS or 30 FPS, for example. Depends on the network.

And I'm guessing people will get used to it eventually. It's just a little jarring from what I hear.

More frames is never a bad thing.

[Urc Burry]

Oops yeah I meant FPS..autocorrect on the phone