48 Comments
Posted by PostArcade

The Return Of The Legolegolas

Posted by Rayeth

I really enjoyed Lego Lord of the Rings, maybe this will be good as well. It has been almost enough time for me to be interested in a Lego game again.

Edited by vikingdeath1

so does this cover the Whole Hobbit? Probably right?

Nevermind, those scenes are all from the first movie. Where would they get the other dialogue without a third movie being out I guess.

Posted by Dudacles

So, a separate game for the third Hobbit movie? That seems rather stupid.

Posted by kiwi_whisker

I saw one scene from the second movie with Lauriel and Legolas shooting arrows - so maybe all 3?

Posted by BlackLagoon

@dudacles: I'd guess they want to avoid what happened with the second LEGO Star Wars game, which came out before the third movie and spoiled the plot. Not to mention this time they're actually using the voice acting from the movie, and it probably wouldn't be ready in time for them to build the game around it.

Posted by CreepingDeath0

"At least they aren't trying to stretch this out into three individual video game releases."

No, but it will be 2 games. Because I guess they couldn't wait a year?

Saw the second film last week. What a mess.

Edited by Itwastuesday

that is one Alex Navarro-ass trailer title

Edited by Sweetz

I just played through LEGO Lord of the Rings and the story mode was fantastic, but the post-story mode content leaves a lot to be desired. It's basically a grindy collectathon that appeals to OCD sensibilities and isn't very fun. Hopefully they'll sort out that for this one.

Also, I saw the second movie this weekend and thought it was quite good. I make no "bad, but still entertaining" distinction like certain critics. If you were entertained, it's a good movie. I was very entertained.

Posted by Turkalurch

The Return Of The Legolegolas

You win

Edited by OldGuy

@sweetz: No, it won't be any different. That's the way every Lego game has ever worked.

@dudacles: I'd guess they want to avoid what happened with the second LEGO Star Wars game, which came out before the third movie and spoiled the plot. Not to mention this time they're actually using the voice acting from the movie, and it probably wouldn't be ready in time for them to build the game around it.

Unless they change the title (which they could) it's only going to be one game (I sure hope it's only one game)...

You can't "spoil" a 76 year old story (though there will be people who whine about that -- and I hate them with the buring fury of a thousand suns)... since all the filming was completed months ago (actually, almost a year and a half ago if you want to get pedantic about it -- obviously, I do) and they're just working on effects, scoring, rendering and final editing... so there's no reason that they can't release it before the final film...

Posted by BlackLagoon

@oldguy: Pretty sure the announcements specifically say the game covers the first two movies.

As for spoilers, they're not following the book completely, so I'm sure there will be concern about stuff coming out early. And even if the filming is done, the dialog will undoubtedly continue to be revised through editing and ADR until closer to release. They'd still need to wait if they want to game to reflect the final version of the movie.

Edited by MeatSim

Lego's seem to be ignoring the big moral question that is "should Legos talk?" and are talking anyway.

Posted by SlashDance

@oldguy said:

You can't "spoil" a 76 year old story (though there will be people who whine about that -- and I hate them with the buring fury of a thousand suns)...

So it's okay to spoil the third movie for people who haven't read the book just because it's old?

Posted by kindgineer

@oldguy: One can easily argue that you can spoil a 76 year-old story in a newly released format. Especially for our younger generation that maybe haven't had the chance, or didn't know about it's existence. It's a dick move to spoil a plot without precedence, and that precedence is usually disclosed with a spoiler tag or a little research. In terms of it being a fleshed-out game, I think it's fully within the responsibility of the consumer to use common sense and know that story will be *spoiled.*

Posted by skeletonlord

Looks similar to Lego LOTR. Excited to see how this turns out.

Posted by OldGuy

@slashdance: Yes. Jesus is betrayed and killed. Moby Dick takes Ahab down with him. There is nothing in The Black Bird. Rosebud is regret for lost innocence. Darth Vader is really just a whiny teenager...

Also: Spoilers are good for you.

@oldguy: Pretty sure the announcements specifically say the game covers the first two movies.

As for spoilers, they're not following the book completely, so I'm sure there will be concern about stuff coming out early. And even if the filming is done, the dialog will undoubtedly continue to be revised through editing and ADR until closer to release. They'd still need to wait if they want to game to reflect the final version of the movie.

Hrmm... I've only seen the trailer, and being titled just "The Hobbit" would lead one to think that it'd be the whole thing (though I do see [now that I look at it] that the wiki description mentions just o the first two films...)... maybe they're going to do something like they did with Lego Indy 2 and jam in some "unused" content from TLotR on The Hobbit 2...

As for spoilers... content created from whole cloth to pad out a 95000ish word book to three 2:40+ films (not counting the [ugh] extended editions -- TLotR is almost five times as long) doesn't count (yeah, come at me) as it's not going to change anthing that makes one damn bit of difference. I actually really appreciated the way TLotR was condensed down into a manageable size that retained (for the most part) the characters and quieter parts whilst making sure it didn't drag. I can't say that for the first (interminable feeling) part of The Hobbit. I can read that whole book in less time than it's going to take to watch all three of those suckers.

Posted by Jabbawocky

@creepingdeath0: Wouldn't even have to wait that long since the third one is out this Summer so I was told.

Edited by radioactivez0r

@sweetz: That's...all LEGO games. Have you never played one before?

This is the first one that I can give a very definite "meh" to; I just don't care for the story as much as LotR or any of the other franchises they've done thus far. I'm sure I'll end up getting it on Steam anyway for $5 in 2 years.

Posted by WinterSnowblind

@meatsim said:

Lego's seem to be ignoring the big moral question that is "should Legos talk?" and are talking anyway.

I think that question was resolved when Lego Batman 2 was released and the voice work was amazing. (Most) of the Marvel game was top notch too. I don't particularly like the idea of just ripping the lines from the movies though, it really doesn't mesh well with all the comedy happening around them.

In fact, the games seem to be a whole lot better when they're just given free reign to tell their own stories, instead of specifically following a movie plot.

Posted by Variable_

@slashdance:

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought all the book plot points were supposed to be taken care of in the second movie. Smaug's death, The Battle of the Five Armies, the various major character deaths, and then the third movie was Peter Jackson's way of tying The One Ring trilogy to his The Hobbit movies. Is that not the case now?

Edited by fisk0

@variable_ said:

@slashdance:

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought all the book plot points were supposed to be taken care of in the second movie. Smaug's death, The Battle of the Five Armies, the various major character deaths, and then the third movie was Peter Jackson's way of tying The One Ring trilogy to his The Hobbit movies. Is that not the case now?

I'll kinda spoil the end of it here:

It ends with a prolonged battle with Smaug, it cuts to credits pretty much just after they've made him angry enough to go attack Lake-town, there were no major character deaths in this one and the all out war is just in it's build up phase. Most of the movie was set in Mirkwood and it's surroundings, with an added plot thread with the orcs from the first movie (they have a much larger and extended role than they had in the book), and the kinda weird addition of Legolas and a new character.

Online
Edited by Sweetz

@radioactivez0r said:

@sweetz: That's...all LEGO games. Have you never played one before?

Well, I played LEGO Star Wars I & II. They were simpler games without the larger "open world" hub and quests. There were also less collectibles, or at least it seemed like it.

In Star Wars, you get sufficient characters to fully complete the levels only by playing story mode So unless you start playing levels in freeplay after only completing 1 or 2 levels you don't have to worry that you won't be able to do everything in a level. In LotR I had completed the story, but I discovered that I still lacked the appropriate characters or items to do everything in those levels. This unfortunately happened on more than one occasion and I had to replay levels multiple times.

Even so, I don't mind replaying the levels with the additional characters and abilities so much in LotR as the hub world stuff, which just isn't very fun.

Also in the Star Wars games the minikits you completed could then be used as vehicles in the mini-games (which, ok, weren't worth playing that much, but still the collectibles "gave" you something), in LotR most of them are purely collectibles with no use beyond simply obtaining them.

Maybe it's just my changing game sensibilities or maybe it's a case of "too much of a good thing" but I had more fun doing the extra stuff in the Star Wars games.

In any case, I don't mean to complain too much, I got the game on sale for $20 and easily got my money's worth from the excellent story mode; so I'm fine skipping the extra stuff. The goofy bonus level is unlocked upon completion of the story so it was nice that I could play that and I'm not missing out on much (an improvement from the Star Wars games which required you to 100% the levels to unlock the bonus level).

Posted by fisk0


Saw the second film last week. What a mess.

It was way better than the first movie though, but, yeah, it's very evident that they're trying to draw out one relatively short book to three movies. The Lord of the Rings movies were a bit too contracted, since they were three fairly lengthy books condensed to one 3 hour movie each, but The Hobbit is getting kinda ridiculous, especially with all the added plot threads and characters that barely fit in, some of them kinda clashing with what happened later in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Online
Posted by ripelivejam

still wish jackson reined himself in and kept it to one kickass movie. would've complemented the LoTR trilogy nicely.

i should actually watch the hobbit movies and make up my own mind, but common opinion has dampened my enthusiasm to do so...

Posted by BisonHero

@fisk0 said:

@variable_ said:

@slashdance:

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought all the book plot points were supposed to be taken care of in the second movie. Smaug's death, The Battle of the Five Armies, the various major character deaths, and then the third movie was Peter Jackson's way of tying The One Ring trilogy to his The Hobbit movies. Is that not the case now?

I'll kinda spoil the end of it here:

It ends with a prolonged battle with Smaug, it cuts to credits pretty much just after they've made him angry enough to go attack Lake-town, there were no major character deaths in this one and the all out war is just in it's build up phase. Most of the movie was set in Mirkwood and it's surroundings, with an added plot thread with the orcs from the first movie (they have a much larger and extended role than they had in the book), and the kinda weird addition of Legolas and a new character.

Wow, that is some real bullshit. Talk about dragging it out.

After watching the first part of the Hobbit, I pretty much decided I'm not going to watch the rest. A) They're kind of boring because of how much they have to pad out each event, and B) I really don't want to support studios splitting up book adaptations into way too many movies because they know fans are suckers who will pay for it.

Not this fan! Fuck the Hobbit trilogy.

Posted by crithon

i still feel weirded out by talking lego, or even just using audio clips from the movie that feel really hallow or distance from the general goofiness of the game's design.

Posted by ripelivejam

should hobbits talk?

No.

Posted by Cretaceous_Bob

Man. The LOTR movies and the LOTR Lego game were all so good.

And then all this Hobbit shit is garbage. Why did you have to Lucas us, Peter Jackson?

Edited by TechnoSyndrome

Remember when they released Lego Indiana Jones around the time Crystal Skull came out, and it only covered the first three movies, and then like a year later they released a "sequel" that was the first game plus new levels based on the fourth movie?

Maybe keep that in mind when this comes out. Maybe pass on it until the third Hobbit movie has been released, and get the "full" game.

Posted by Klei

@fisk0 said:

@variable_ said:

@slashdance:

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought all the book plot points were supposed to be taken care of in the second movie. Smaug's death, The Battle of the Five Armies, the various major character deaths, and then the third movie was Peter Jackson's way of tying The One Ring trilogy to his The Hobbit movies. Is that not the case now?

I'll kinda spoil the end of it here:

It ends with a prolonged battle with Smaug, it cuts to credits pretty much just after they've made him angry enough to go attack Lake-town, there were no major character deaths in this one and the all out war is just in it's build up phase. Most of the movie was set in Mirkwood and it's surroundings, with an added plot thread with the orcs from the first movie (they have a much larger and extended role than they had in the book), and the kinda weird addition of Legolas and a new character.

Wow, that is some real bullshit. Talk about dragging it out.

After watching the first part of the Hobbit, I pretty much decided I'm not going to watch the rest. A) They're kind of boring because of how much they have to pad out each event, and B) I really don't want to support studios splitting up book adaptations into way too many movies because they know fans are suckers who will pay for it.

Not this fan! Fuck the Hobbit trilogy.

They're good movies. I prefer The Hobbit to the Fellowship of the Ring. And man was I glad not to see another Frodo/Golum love/hate triangle and sexgasm about the one-ring. I guess I prefer simpler tales.

Posted by fisk0

@klei said:

@bisonhero said:

@fisk0 said:

@variable_ said:

@slashdance:

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought all the book plot points were supposed to be taken care of in the second movie. Smaug's death, The Battle of the Five Armies, the various major character deaths, and then the third movie was Peter Jackson's way of tying The One Ring trilogy to his The Hobbit movies. Is that not the case now?

I'll kinda spoil the end of it here:

It ends with a prolonged battle with Smaug, it cuts to credits pretty much just after they've made him angry enough to go attack Lake-town, there were no major character deaths in this one and the all out war is just in it's build up phase. Most of the movie was set in Mirkwood and it's surroundings, with an added plot thread with the orcs from the first movie (they have a much larger and extended role than they had in the book), and the kinda weird addition of Legolas and a new character.

Wow, that is some real bullshit. Talk about dragging it out.

After watching the first part of the Hobbit, I pretty much decided I'm not going to watch the rest. A) They're kind of boring because of how much they have to pad out each event, and B) I really don't want to support studios splitting up book adaptations into way too many movies because they know fans are suckers who will pay for it.

Not this fan! Fuck the Hobbit trilogy.

They're good movies. I prefer The Hobbit to the Fellowship of the Ring. And man was I glad not to see another Frodo/Golum love/hate triangle and sexgasm about the one-ring. I guess I prefer simpler tales.

I'm not opposed to making a movie of the Hobbit, which doesn't have any of that stuff you mention, what I am opposed to is drawing a relatively short story out over the course of three movies. There just isn't enough content in the book to warrant that.

Online
Posted by Dark_Lord_Spam

I just realized I never checked when I played the LEGO LotR demo, but are hobbits, dwarves and the like scaled appropriately in these games? They can't be because of the standardized legoperson size, right?

Also, I really enjoyed the first Hobbit film, and I imagine I'll enjoy the next two. Sure, the CGI is lame compared to the Rings trilogy's incredible practical effects, and a couple of sequences were rather self-serving, but slow-burn plotting just doesn't put me off like it seems to have a majority of people. Extended stays in wondrous places are exactly that.

Edited by Nasar7

Sick burn, bro.

Edited by fisk0

I just realized I never checked when I played the LEGO LotR demo, but are hobbits, dwarves and the like scaled appropriately in these games? They can't be because of the standardized legoperson size, right?

They have the same upper bodies but shorter legs, apparently based on a LEGO set I didn't know of:

Online
Posted by courage_wolf

@fisk0 said:

@dark_lord_spam said:

I just realized I never checked when I played the LEGO LotR demo, but are hobbits, dwarves and the like scaled appropriately in these games? They can't be because of the standardized legoperson size, right?

They have the same upper bodies but shorter legs, apparently based on a LEGO set I didn't know of:

Lego has been using those shorter legs since 2004, if not earlier. The first time I saw them was on a Yoda minifigure from the 2004 X Wing set.

Posted by BisonHero

@klei said:

@bisonhero said:

@fisk0 said:

@variable_ said:

@slashdance:

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought all the book plot points were supposed to be taken care of in the second movie. Smaug's death, The Battle of the Five Armies, the various major character deaths, and then the third movie was Peter Jackson's way of tying The One Ring trilogy to his The Hobbit movies. Is that not the case now?

I'll kinda spoil the end of it here:

It ends with a prolonged battle with Smaug, it cuts to credits pretty much just after they've made him angry enough to go attack Lake-town, there were no major character deaths in this one and the all out war is just in it's build up phase. Most of the movie was set in Mirkwood and it's surroundings, with an added plot thread with the orcs from the first movie (they have a much larger and extended role than they had in the book), and the kinda weird addition of Legolas and a new character.

Wow, that is some real bullshit. Talk about dragging it out.

After watching the first part of the Hobbit, I pretty much decided I'm not going to watch the rest. A) They're kind of boring because of how much they have to pad out each event, and B) I really don't want to support studios splitting up book adaptations into way too many movies because they know fans are suckers who will pay for it.

Not this fan! Fuck the Hobbit trilogy.

They're good movies. I prefer The Hobbit to the Fellowship of the Ring. And man was I glad not to see another Frodo/Golum love/hate triangle and sexgasm about the one-ring. I guess I prefer simpler tales.

I'm not saying they're bad movies (though I do think they choreograph longer action sequences to make up for the fact that fewer plot events happen in each movie). But that's besides my point, as is the slowness of Fellowship of the Ring or the Frodo/Gollum thing.

I'm just really tired of the scummy business practice of studios knowing they have a built-in audience for book-to-film adaptations and abusing it (the last Twilight and Harry Potter movies, for example). The Hobbit is ~300 pages. Hollywood can turn a 300-page book into a single movie. It happens all the time. But they'd certainly love to bill something as "The Next Great Tolkien Film Trilogy, Directed by Peter Jackson", and then get 3 ticket stubs/DVD purchases out of you instead of 1. They added a bunch of Gandalf and His Wizard Friends sidestory stuff to pad it out, but meh.

It could've been one movie with much better pacing. The story of The Hobbit is a fun adventure that they're trying so hard to make epic and grandiose, and it's just sad to see how desperate they are to keep that Middle Earth gravy train rolling. I gave them one ticket stub, but upon further reflection, I don't feel like giving them anything else. Maybe I'll pirate the other Hobbit films later or watch a friend's DVDs.

Edited by Krystal_Sackful

@vikingdeath1:
Yeah but Legolas in in it and he wasn't in the first movie at all.