Posted on 12/02/2012 10:56:54 AM PST by Eurotwit
WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- There’s only one real wizard in Middle Earth - and it’s director Peter Jackson.
The auteur from Down Under unveiled “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” - the first installment of his prequel trilogy to his “Lord of the Rings” series - in his native New Zealand Wednesday.
It was an eye-popping night, from the celebrity-filled red carpet to, more important, the action on screen.
Based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1937 children’s tale which set the stage for the author’s much darker and heavier later books, Jackson’s “The Hobbit” harkens back to a more innocent time when men were men and gold-hoarding dragons were the biggest evils plaguing the land.
Martin Freeman stars as the titular reluctant hero, who’s tricked by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) into accompanying 13 dwarves — led by Thorin (a square-jawed Richard Armitage) — on a quest to reclaim their ancient homeland from the worst of those dragons.
The movie offers technological wizardry, thanks to a 48 frames-per-second format, twice the industry standard. Critics who saw a trailer earlier this year were unimpressed, but after a minute or two of adjusting, the higher resolution is eye-popping, similar to discovering HD television for the first time.
Gollum, voiced by Andy Serkis, makes a cameo in Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit.'
Alas, the higher resolution has one downside: it really makes you wince when you see the obscenely corpulent Goblin King in such crystal clarity.
Lighter and funnier than its “Lord of the Rings” predecessors, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” remains faithful to the fantasy world last seen in the 2003 Academy Award-winning “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”
The connections abound through the two-hour-forty-minute epic, including important cameos from Andy Serkis’ Gollum and Elijah Wood’s Frodo.
The result runs rings around most special-effects driven blockbusters.
The movie opens Dec. 14 on this side of the Pacific.
Having read the LOTR probably six times over the last 35 years...I thought the movies were very well done
I think Jackson did a outstanding job taking the book form into a movie format
Granted he left many important details out of the movies, but you are talking probably six movies to put everything in...
My biggest beef was he left out the the most important moral aspect of the story..
"The Scouring of the Shire"
Cinema-goers have complained of feeling sick and dizzy after watching early screenings of The Hobbit. Peter Jackson's eagerly awaited new film is the first to be shot using high-speed 3D cameras that capture twice the normal number of frames per second. But some viewers said the filming techniques made them feel nauseous and even caused migraines. etc.
Sorry I insulted your religion. LoL!
YES!!!!!THANKS NULLY!!! *HUG*
King Kong is a great movie if you watch the movie within the movie, or Adventure on Skull Island as I like to call it;-)
I love sci fi and fantasy epics and special effects, and have no problem making leaps of faith and “suspending disbelief”. But when I saw the girl getting flung around the jungle like a freaking toy rag doll only to emerge unscathed, and when I watched a pack of people running and talking as a herd of mammoth dinosaurs stampeded over their heads, it was all I could stand. My son looked at me and said, “I think I have homework.” I turned the movie off.
Sort of like he just fell over from a standing position..
I'm sure if I fell 1,454 feet to the ground...I would be basically a big red spot...
Peter Jackson did an excellent job on LOTR. Anything that wasn’t included either would have distracted from the main storyline or would have left most movie goer confused.
I’ve never read Tolkian but liked the movies until the end of Return of the King or some such. What did it have, 25 endings?
bookmark
No, I don't really feel I have grounds for complaining about Jackson's LOTR. But if I were to say one thing -- I would say that the character of Aragorn was too conflicted, too unsure of himself, and not nearly committed enough to Arwen. The whole point of the story of Aragorn and Arwen -- and the story of Beren and Luthien -- is that real love allows mortal men to achieve greatness beyond anything that might be reasonably expected of them. I think Jackson felt compelled to show "character growth and evolution" of Aragorn across 3 movies, and I think that this was regrettable.
Lol.. I still have the VHS of that cartoon/movie..
“The Scouring of the Shire”
Or the Tom Bombadil / Withywindle / Goldberry sequence
But I guess, it just didn't fit.
The LOTR movie was a rare instance where, to some degree, the Movie was better done than the Book
Tolkien really didn't do female characters well
The Movie fixed this without doing violence to the books
Can’t believe they broke “The Hobbit” into three parts.
I first read the books in 1970 as well. They came in a four-book boxed set and I had to get them at an office supply store, since they were “underground.”
I’ve read them on average of once every 14-17 months since then, and I’m reading them again. I just finished The Hobbit, and have started on The Fellowship.
:o])
Gee. Don’t be shy. Tell us what you really think. And remember: No one is forcing you to see the movie(e), read the book(s) or take part in the discussion of same.
Kinda like voting: If you didn’t vote, don’t complain.
They need to go back and do the last half of the third movie. They cut half of the last book out entirely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.