The new Hobbit movie
trappedslider
Legend
In a recent interview with Jackson that was mainly about what he plans and doesn't plan to do next PJ said the following regarding The Hobbit :
Full article here https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-hobbit-director-peter-jacksons-next-act-105871825637.html
Full article here https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-hobbit-director-peter-jacksons-next-act-105871825637.html
TrippyHippy
Hero
These things I liked about The Hobbit:
a) Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. A pretty much perfect casting. Indeed, honestly, I don’t think we’ve really seen a bad casting call amongst the whole series.
b) Smaug the Dragon - aside from a firework effect, one thing that was palpably missing from the LotR trilogy was a memorable Middle Earth dragon. Smaug was fully realised in The Hobbit.
c) A variety of Dwarves - not just one, but a whole diverse bunch of them with varying levels of beardiness. While still played up for comic effect, they broke down some of the stereotypes.
d) Wargs as giant wolves, rather than giant hyenas.
e) More Middle Earth. As a fantasy fan is worth noting that this will be the last time we have a Middle Earth movie on the big screen for an awfully long time (unless someone decides they want to remake them, god forbid…).
While there may be some criticism of The Hobbit, it is sobering to recall just how laughably bad fantasy movies were before the LotR kicked off. Go see the original D&D movie (released just a year before) if you want a reminder. We’ve come a long, long way since then - and if we eventually start getting decent D&D movies in the future, The Hobbit films will actually serve as a pretty good blueprint for how to go about it.
a) Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. A pretty much perfect casting. Indeed, honestly, I don’t think we’ve really seen a bad casting call amongst the whole series.
b) Smaug the Dragon - aside from a firework effect, one thing that was palpably missing from the LotR trilogy was a memorable Middle Earth dragon. Smaug was fully realised in The Hobbit.
c) A variety of Dwarves - not just one, but a whole diverse bunch of them with varying levels of beardiness. While still played up for comic effect, they broke down some of the stereotypes.
d) Wargs as giant wolves, rather than giant hyenas.
e) More Middle Earth. As a fantasy fan is worth noting that this will be the last time we have a Middle Earth movie on the big screen for an awfully long time (unless someone decides they want to remake them, god forbid…).
While there may be some criticism of The Hobbit, it is sobering to recall just how laughably bad fantasy movies were before the LotR kicked off. Go see the original D&D movie (released just a year before) if you want a reminder. We’ve come a long, long way since then - and if we eventually start getting decent D&D movies in the future, The Hobbit films will actually serve as a pretty good blueprint for how to go about it.
Last edited:
TrippyHippy
Hero
'Cos it was cool?
Yup. Remember the days when Willow was the benchmark for what an epic fantasy movie should look like?
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
From over a decade ago on these boards -
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?82555-Hobbit-movie-April-Fools-Joke-(I-hope!)
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?82555-Hobbit-movie-April-Fools-Joke-(I-hope!)
Thunderfoot
Hero
I kind of torn about this one. The additions of all the peripheral stuff doesn't bother me much (mostly because I didn't like "The Hobbit" as it was written (yeah, I know, just try and take away my geek card)), but the third one just seemed, there, it didn't really make a statement, it didn't really resolve anything, it didn't really deal with Thorin's madness so much as gloss it over, etc.
The mention of Ang Mar and the prodigious additions thereof, while interesting were unneeded. I don't know, I can't say it was a miss through total insanity (*cough* Lucas *cough) but it didn't feel like it was the story that needed to be told. Although I am glad that Bard actually shot Smaug with a bow (sort of) instead of that silly looking windlance; That whole seen with his son was something I thought the rest of the movies should have been like, thoughtful and lovingly crafted to the Professor's standards.
The mention of Ang Mar and the prodigious additions thereof, while interesting were unneeded. I don't know, I can't say it was a miss through total insanity (*cough* Lucas *cough) but it didn't feel like it was the story that needed to be told. Although I am glad that Bard actually shot Smaug with a bow (sort of) instead of that silly looking windlance; That whole seen with his son was something I thought the rest of the movies should have been like, thoughtful and lovingly crafted to the Professor's standards.
I still haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies, and I won't for a while yet - not until all three of them are on DVD and I can see them all over the course of three nights. I didn't like the year-long wait between movies of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, but at least those were movies of three different books. I refuse to pay cinema ticket prices three times to see a third of a movie each year for three years straight.
So I'm still looking forward to finally seeing Sylvester McCoy with bird crap all over him. I figure by next summer I'll have managed to finally see this trilogy.
Johnathan
So I'm still looking forward to finally seeing Sylvester McCoy with bird crap all over him. I figure by next summer I'll have managed to finally see this trilogy.
Johnathan
