Jump to content

Christopher Tolkien Resigns from Tolkien Estate


Bilbo

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Jackson is nothing like George Lucas. The main criticisms against Lucas are his lack of willingness to collaborate, and his poor interaction with actors.

 

Peter Jackson is the opposite: he allows actors to have input on the script to the point of rewriting the screenplay on an almost daily basis, he uses the workshop meetings as think-tanks for design; he rehearses scenes extensively with actors (to the point of sending the camera crew away and clearing as much as an hour out of his schedule to sit with the cast) and takes an insane number of takes until the performances are just right.

 

I'm sure you didn't understand what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barnald said:

like the insistence on terrible comic relief and juvenile humour, present also in LOTR), but I refuse to condemn him too harshly given the circumstances of the production. If he had a two year pre-production period (even a year), no stomach ulcer, and had two years between films, we undoubtedly would have seen a far better final product.

 

Yeah, I'm not a fan of a lot of the physical comedy in An Unexpected Journey (which, as you pointed out, originated with Gimli on Lord of the Rings) but rewatching the films I was surprised to see that this kind of humor disappeared in the later two films. Of course, The Battle of the Five Armies has Alfrid who is atrocious, but since he dies I don't mind it.

 

These films don't need two years between movies because they were written and shot simultaneously, which another oft-overlooked strength of this series. Longer preproduction would have helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Yeah, I'm not a fan of a lot of the physical comedy in An Unexpected Journey (which, as you pointed out, originated with Gimli on Lord of the Rings) but rewatching the films I was surprised to see that this kind of humor disappeared in the later two films. Of course, The Battle of the Five Armies has Alfrid who is atrocious, but since he dies I don't mind it.

 

These films don't need two years between movies because they were written and shot simultaneously, which another oft-overlooked strength of this series. Longer preproduction would have helped.

 

I didn't mind it at all in AUJ (by far my favourite), and at least most the Dwavish stuff in that I find agreeable. By far the worst offender for me is Alfrid, particularly in BotFA. With the mood much more serious and the stakes high, the film suffers greatly for it. You're trying to get into the battle and you just have his bullshit to deal with.

 

Gimli was brilliantly handled in FOTR; aside from the 'dwarf tossing' bit, his character was treated with great reverence, and he was all the more badass for it. But I hated how he became comic relief thereafter. The extended stuff in the Paths of the Dead is almost unwatchable, terribly cringeworthy.

 

You seem to be overlooking the obviously troubled post-production process. Had they had more time, we probably would have got better CGI (where lacking), and, most likely, a better score as used in the film, probably with Shore orchestrating and conducting it (Jackson surely would have been able to attend the recording sessions in London, for example).

 

As for the shoot itself, we'll never know of course, but I have to believe they ran out of time and cut corners, particularly not having shot much of the Battle of the Five Armies (if any) in the main block. More time would have helped a great deal. Even that couple of months lost at the beginning could have made a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Bilbo. I see you have the same avatar as the guy we call BS for short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barnald said:

I was referring to you and a certain World Cup qualifier.

 

I already announced that soccer was only my 3rd favorite sport behind hurling and football. Keep up Barney the Dinosaur!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Barnald said:

 

I didn't mind it at all in AUJ (by far my favourite), and at least most the Dwavish stuff in that I find agreeable. By far the worst offender for me is Alfrid, particularly in BotFA. With the mood much more serious and the stakes high, the film suffers greatly for it. You're trying to get into the battle and you just have his bullshit to deal with.[...]

 

You seem to be overlooking the obviously troubled post-production process. Had they had more time, we probably would have got better CGI (where lacking), and, most likely, a better score as used in the film, probably with Shore orchestrating and conducting it (Jackson surely would have been able to attend the recording sessions in London, for example).

 

As for the shoot itself, we'll never know of course, but I have to believe they ran out of time and cut corners, particularly not having shot much of the Battle of the Five Armies (if any) in the main block. More time would have helped a great deal. Even that couple of months lost at the beginning could have made a difference.

 

Sure, the film had postproduction stresses. But, has they had a longer preproduction period, it would have taken some stress off of principal photography and postproduction.

 

I still love the bloody thing. I like the story of The Hobbit, including a lot of the original material, and I love the characters. When those thinks work for you, you can overlook a lot of problems with production value.

 

As for humor, it's the most subjective element of film, so I tend not to look so much at the humor itself, but rather more at how it's used: So long as the humor is understated and spontaneous, those who will find it funny will laugh, but those who won't at least won't be offended because the film won't be halting to deliver the joke. A lot of the humor in the later two films, I was surprised to see, was very organic like that. I love Bilbo, having passed the enchanted river, turning back and going "oh" as the camera pans to the Dwarves already scrambling across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

I still like it. I like the story of The Hobbit, including a lot of the original material, and I love the characters. When those thinks work for you, you can overlook a lot of problems with production value.

 

Sadly they don't seem to work for many of us. :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Mark Ordersky!

 

But also Barrie Osborne, Ngila Dickson... Those were sorely missed, too...

 

I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but I think this is true!

 

Part of what I meant earlier when I said Jackson was turning into Lucas is that basically anyone who could have pulled PJ back from his worst instincts on LOTR was gone by the time The Hobbit rolled around. Jackson, like Lucas, had no one who could as "ah yeah...no" to him, and it showed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Barnald said:

Soccer? How dare you.

 

Given my Irish heritage I was rather disgusted, a shameful showing.

 

Losing out on the 2023 Rugby World Cup made up for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Jackson, like Lucas, had no one who could as "ah yeah...no" to him, and it showed.

 

Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens would disagree.

 

Peter Jackson is very collaborative. Totally unlike George Lucas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens would disagree.

 

They weren't in a position to tell Jackson what to do. Not really.  They didn't have the ability to fire Jackson, or control the budget, or override Jackson on any decision.

 

And judging from The Hobbit, their instincts may not have been the best either. If Walsh and Boyens were trying to pull Jackson from the ledge on The Hobbit, they didn't exactly succeed, at least not completely, which means Jackson did in fact have the final say. And the alternative is that Walsh and Boyens were part of the problem just as much as Jackson.  Indeed, a lot of The Hobbit's problems lie in the script, which is firmly in Walsh/Boyens territory.

 

Either way, the variable here is that the producers on The Lord of the Rings, the people that did actually have a say in what went on the screen, were gone for The Hobbit. It was 100% Jackson's show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not aware that Lucas was un-collaborative?

 

Besides, being collaborative was not PJ's problem. Someone needed to keep him and his indulgences in check. For that, the films needed an iron-fist producer (a la Osborne), a tighter budget and an uncompromising schedule. PJ, having signed on in more dire circumstances, and pretty much given "carte-blanche", produced disastrous results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're giving Barry Osborne too much credit. Jackson had artists control and final cut on The Lord of the Rings just as much as on The Hobbit. The only difference is that he wasn't called in at the last minute to direct, and hence had more time for preproduction. I also feel like he connects with The Lord of the Rings as a book more than he does with The Hobbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KK said:

Besides, being collaborative was not PJ's problem. Someone needed to keep him and his indulgences in check. For that, the films needed an iron-fist producer (a la Osborne), a tighter budget and an uncompromising schedule. PJ, having signed on in more dire circumstances, and pretty much given "carte-blanche", produced disastrous results.

 

 

Well, this is pretty much what I've been saying. He didn't have this on The Hobbit, and Lucas didn't have it on the PT.

 

It has nothing to do with how creatively collaborative they might be. I'm sure both directors were willing to listen to others on their team. It's about having someone in authority to keep them in check and focused.

 

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

I think you're giving Barry Osborne too much credit. Jackson had final cut on The Lord of the Rings just as much as on The Hobbit. The only difference is that he wasn't called in at the last minute to direct, and hence had more time for preproduction. I also feel like he connects with The Lord of the Rings as a book more than he does with The Hobbit.

 

It's not about "final cut."  You can cut and edit all you want, but if what you shot wasn't that good to start with, it's going to show.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, he had full control in either case. You're grasping at straws.

 

A film can be flawed (which The Hobbit undoubtably is) for many different reasons. This doesn't seem like one of the reasons, in this case.

 

And more importantly, a film can be quite flawed and still be good and enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he didnt have "full control" on LOTR. Where are you getting this? That's absurd. He had people he had to answer to, both creatively and budget wise. I'm not sure you understand what Peter Jackson's relative position in the film world was prior to, and while shooting, LOTR.

 

But perhaps we're not even starting from the same place...do you agree that the LOTR films are far superior to The Hobbit in terms of script, editing, tone, direction and pacing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think you're giving Barry Osborne too much credit. Jackson had artists control and final cut on The Lord of the Rings just as much as on The Hobbit. The only difference is that he wasn't called in at the last minute to direct, and hence had more time for preproduction. I also feel like he connects with The Lord of the Rings as a book more than he does with The Hobbit.

 

Like Nick says, its not about who has final cut. Films of this size are a massive undertaking. You're running a huge machine where multiple things are bound to go wrong, and that's why producers are usually there for, to keep everything in check. 

 

You can see from the appendices, how often Osborne was there, knocking on PJ's door, making sure he stuck to deadlines (as much as he could), keeping the film's ever-expanding costs in check.

 

Many of the problems that PJ struggled with during the making of LOTR, were largely extrapolated with the Hobbit, with an even bigger budget, and technical complications but with less restrictions to keep a handle on things. And we heard PJ himself admit how these films eventually just got ahead of him and he lost control over the production. 

 

Some filmmakers are incredibly economical and know how run the movie-making machine efficiently (ex. Spielberg, Ridley Scott, etc), others have bold vision but need the support of a strong team to help make the movie. Handling big productions is a different skill set than the technical and creative craft that goes into designing films. PJ happens to be stronger in the latter than the former. Which is fine, but clearly got in the way of The Hobbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hobbit had producers, as well.

 

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

But perhaps we're not even starting from the same place...do you agree that the LOTR films are far superior to The Hobbit in terms of script, editing, tone, direction and pacing?

 

Sure.

 

Before The Hobbit came out, were you expecting otherwise? And, perhaps more importantly, did you want it to be otherwise? To have a prequel be better than the film it is set to precede does a disservice to that film.

 

It has good character, an engaging story, some good drama, some very impressive special effects (including gargantuan practical sets) and excellent continuity with The Lord of the Rings. True, it also has some badly implemented humor, some pacing issues and several effects that weren't cleaned up as well. On the whole, the former overweighs the latter, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't expecting better, but I was expecting "good!"

 

Shore's scores are lovely, and AUJ and DOS both have great (or at least fun) moments within them, but after three watches (which is more than I give most movies!) I can say with certainty that I can count the good parts of BOFA on only one hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Sure.

 

Were you, at any point before The Hobbit came out, expecting it to be the other way around? I didn't.

 

Of course I was. Almost the entire team from LOTR, from art design to music, was brought back for the Hobbit. Was I expecting these films to be better than LOTR? Of course not. But I was expecting some great fantasy films and worthy companion-pieces. Neither of which could be used to describe any of the Hobbit films.

 

EDIT: nvm, just saw that you were responding to Nick. Sorry!

 

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Prequels that are better than the films that came before them are doing a disservice to those films.

 

You've lost me here. So just because they're prequels, they must inherently be designed as inferior films to their predecessors?

 

Besides, I think you're missing the point here. As per our discussion above, it has nothing to do with making one trilogy better than the other. It's about making great, or even solid films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are solid films. They're just flawed.

 

Again, I don't like them from a fan's point of view. I like them because there is a lot of good filmmaking to enjoy here: A lot of good cinematographic choices, good effects (for the most part), good character and an engaging story. I also enjoyed a lot of the editing choices on The Desolation of Smaug, and the scores are obviously brilliant. That's enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The Hobbit had producers, as well.

 

Every film does. Alas, The Hobbit wasn't blessed with very good ones it seems.

 

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It has good character, an engaging story, some good drama, some very impressive special effects (including gargantuan practical sets) and excellent continuity with The Lord of the Rings. True, it also has some badly implemented humor, some pacing issues and several effects that weren't cleaned up as well. On the whole, the former overweighs the latter, for me.

 

Unfortunately, it's the other way around for me. Everything you listed were in bits and doses throughout the trilogy, but were largely overshadowed by poor narrative framework, shoddy writing, cringeworthy CG, uneven pacing, etc. And what good are "gargauntuan practical sets" if they're largely built and shot in a studio backlot?

 

- KK, who hasn't talked about The Hobbit films in years and seems to be relapsing into Hobbit-years ranting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as it's a practical set, I don't care if it's studio bound or on location. Modern blockbusters are generally highly studio bound. The Lord of the Rings was, too.

 

I don't think the narrative structure is poor. There's good planting and payoff mechanisms here that aspiring filmmakers can learn from. An Unexpected Journey does suffer: it's a long first act, followed by a second act that continuously stalls, but since these were all made simultaneously they need to be judged as one undertaking, so within the framework of the whole trilogy, this slow 90-minutes are not too bad.

 

As an exercise in screenwriting, The Hobbit as a novel presents a lot of problems that the writers here stood to admirably. Take the way the book introduces Bard in what is literally the definition of Deus Ex-Machina, of how th Elvenking ostensibly becomes an entirely different character when he shows up at the Long Lake, or how it is reluctant to give the character of Thorin any real "win". The script rectified all of this. I'm not saying it's worth of a best screenplay nomination, but it isn't awful by any stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, KK said:

 

 

You can see from the appendices, how often Osborne was there, knocking on PJ's door, making sure he stuck to deadlines (as much as he could), keeping the film's ever-expanding costs in check.

 

 

 

Exactly.  It's not as if New Line was going to just toss the director of Braindead and Meet The Feebles 300 mil and say "have fun and send us a post card from Wellington" (though that's essentially what happened for The Hobbit).

 

Let's also remember that Osborne was no slouch. He was a guy with real gravitas who could speak for the studio.

 

44 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The Hobbit had producers, as well.

 

Before The Hobbit came out, were you expecting otherwise? And, perhaps more importantly, did you want it to be otherwise? To have a prequel be better than the film it is set to precede does a disservice to that film.

 

 

 

The Hobbit producers were all approved by Jackson...his version of Rick McCullum. Jackson really did have complete control on The Hobbit. In fact if you believe the rumors he specifically kept Osborne and, definitely Odesky, off The Hobbit.

 

And I wasn't expecting The Hobbit to be better than LOTR. The story wouldn't allow for that. But I was certainly expecting something better than we got. Jackson, despite all that experience on LOTR made a significantly lesser film. And all the discipline he showed in LOTR, and all the loving respect he showed for the source material...well that was mostly just gone.

 

That's not to say I can't find things to enjoy about those movies. I can. The films aren't bad (certainly not PT bad)..they're actually kind of good in some ways taken on their own. But you can't take them on their own, of course, they're not meant to be taken on their own.  And in that respect, they're definitely a step down from what came before.

 

24 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I don't think the narrative structure is poor. There's good planting and payoff mechanisms here that aspiring filmmakers can learn from. An Unexpected Journey does suffer: it's a long first act, followed by a second act that continuously stalls, but since these were all made simultaneously they need to be judged as one undertaking, so within the framework of the whole trilogy, this slow 90-minutes are not too bad.

1

 

See, I think the narrative structure of these films is a big part of the problem. I could almost overlook the slick look of the films if the story was told in a better way.

 

And sadly, as disappointed as I was with AUJ the first time I saw it, I now think its the best of the three, if for no other reason than you can at least see some of Tolkien's spirit in the early scenes (the ponderous prologue excepted).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KK said:

LOTR was a cocktail of miniatures, outdoor sets, and studio shooting. A combination of all of the techniques filmmaking had to offer, and that's where PJ got creative.

 

 

And let's not forget the bigatures!!!  Something Jackson specifically abandoned b/c of the HFR.

 

The result is that LOTR has a grounded, earthy look which makes it feel like historical fiction, whereas The Hobbit looks like a fantasy film. And let's remember Jackson was specifically aiming for consistency between the two trilogies.  I'm a firm believer in the idea that the more fantastical the story is, the more naturalistic the look of the film should be.

 

Del Toro was apparently planning on more of a "dark fairy tale" look to the films, and in this case a more fantastical look might have worked. It's funny...I remember being happy and relieved when I heard Jackson was directing (as much as I liked Del Toro's work). Now I wish Del Toro would have just stuck with it.  Imagine what that would have looked like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to point to a film that's "better" out of the three is not an easy feat. Since they were made simultaneously, they have a much greater unity than other film trilogies do. It's more like you can prefer one of the acts of a single film more than the other two.

 

Still, I'd have to point to An Unexpected Journey as the least favorite. While I like the prologue, it doesn't do good enough a job as a grand action opening to "hook" the viewer enough to keep him/her interested throughout the slow pace that sadly plagues most of the film.

 

The first act actually isn't that bad: it's not much longer than the first act to the original Star Wars, for instance, but it lacks a sense of urgency. Has the tale of the Battle of Azanulbizar been inserted into the Bag End scenes, it would help interject that part of the film with action while also giving us a "promise" of good action even before we reach the dragon.

 

But really, the issue is with the second act. It starts, and than stops for the flashback to Moria; it starts again, but stops to segue to Radagast; Again it starts with the Trolls, but stops when we reach Rivendell. But since this trilogy is essentially one film split three ways, than I can forgive a slow 90 minutes within the framework of a nine hour trilogy, or a 21-hour sextet.

 

But since I lik Bilbo and Thorin and even some of the other Dwarves (anakin, Bofur), and even find some of their arcs to be moving, I'm along for the ride, flaws and all.

 

The Desolation of Smaug has to be my favorite. It's well paced, and it takes the story to a darker place and embraces that tone fully. It helps that it's less CG heavy than some of the Battle footage in The Battle of the Five Armies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Laketown looks great!

 

 

 

Laketown was one of the sets I was most disappointed in.  Otherwise, I thought the set designs on The Hobbit were actually pretty good (even if they weren't utilized or photographed as well as they could have been).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Laketown looks great!

 

Indeed. As does Dale (which is an outdoor set), the Goblintown walkways, Gollum's Cave (100% practical), the Treasure Hoard, the Wine Cellar, Beorn's House, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Laketown looks great!

 

Laketown looks like a good CG creation in certain shots, but it will age poorly, as many of its shots already have (look above).

 

Maybe a better comparison:

iyZxf2w.jpg

 

bree+-+dos.png

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Indeed. As does Dale, Goblin Town, the Treasure Hoard, the Wine Cellar, Beorn's House.

 

Of those, only Goblin Town was cool, in a PJ CG roller-coaster extravaganza sense.

 

But then again, it's one thing to build sets, it's another thing to shoot them well. And since PJ did much of the set-building/shooting indoors, most of them required more CG embellishments and artificial lighting, and so they don't translate very well on screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of that establishing shot of Bree, either. But the shot from Fellowship isn't any better. It's CG, too. The camera just doesn't linger on the effect, so it's not as noticeable in the film, but the effect itself isn't superior in any way. 

 

Once we move away from that, however, we get a long take of the streets of Bree and another long take inside the Prancing Pony, both entirely practical, and in both cases the camerawork allows us to appreciate it. The same is true of the scene in Bag End in An Unexpected Journey and of some of the shots inside Beorn's house. These long takes stand out within the overall cinematographic language of the series, so there's a nice bit of contrast there.

 

And I also appreciate that scene on the level of atmosphere. It's not an action opening like most of those films, but it has very low-key lighting and rain that give it atmosphere and an ominous feel, which really sets the stage for the film that we are about to watch. Even before those shots, the title first fades to black and for a few seconds you can only hear rumbling thunder. Very effective!

 

And Laketown still looks great. The wideshots were never going to be anything other than greenscreen, so I don't understand the complaints here. How is one supposed to create a full scale city without resorting to digital effects?

 

Most of the LOTR sets were indoors as well; and many of them required a CG background, as well. When we are navigating the walkways of Goblintown, it's perfectly practical, and the lighting comes from ambient torches, which gives it a fitting hellish quality, and a nice contrast to the dim but warm candle-light of Bag End.

 

So, I'd say the sets are well shot.

 

I'm not trying to convert anyone: people rarely change their mind on anything. But I think the way criticism is leveled at films across the internet puts movies into boxes of "best/worst thing ever" so that if a film isn't well regarded, those who do enjoy it - even if they have good arguments - are forced to be apologetic about their enjoyment of said film, which saddens me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Not a fan of that establishing shot of Bree, either. Although the shot from Fellowship is CG, too. The camera just doesn't linger on the effect, so it's not as noticeable, but the effect itself isn't superior.

 

Not quite. A large portion of homes was built for the foreground, and then the image was replicated and cleverly manipulated to create the rest of the town in the background.

 

19 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And Laketown still looks great. The wideshots were never going to be anything other than greenscreen, so I don't understand the complaints here. How is one supposed to create a full scale city without resorting to digital effects.

 

No one said to not use digital effects. CGI is one tool in a large toolbox. PJ and team knew this when making LOTR, and used it to compliment the scope and expansive visual imagery they aimed to achieve. Whereas with the Hobbit, it became a crutch and large parts of the film were finished in studio backlots and computers. Funny enough, that turns out to be more expensive than building old-fashioned practical sets.

 

Below are just some of the most iconic images of LOTR, some of which has come quite iconic in cinema itself. You'll have to forgive the poor resolution. None of them were full-blown cities built across New Zealand. Neither are they exclusively CG images. They're products of filmmaking at its best, using all the tools available at their disposal to best build the world they need to. That is why these images will age better than anything that's come out of The Hobbit

 

The Hobbit has some good CG work, of course it would, but it never quite captures the imagination like these images do.

 

lotr1-movie-screencaps.com-10195.jpg

 

ni5wnOC.jpg

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

J1VskqM.jpg

 

Z_Orthanc_03.jpg

 

HelmsDeep.jpg

 

Minas-Tirith-minas-tirith-9563582-960-40

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I always pictured Laketown (for obvious reasons)...

 

jrrt_26.jpg

 

A rotting, decaying, dark, frozen hell-hole is not what I had in mind when I read the book. And clearly not what Professor Tolkien had in mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the design of Laketown itself, at least for the services of the film. It works well in its context. As with most of the Hobbit designs/visuals, my issues are more with its shoddy execution.

 

5 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Well, since we're talking about that, how about... a bigature? You know, so that the town, while not created in full scale, still have a physical reality to it.

 

In-freaking-deed.

 

These films could have greatly benefited from some bigatures. Especially for all the Erebor stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigatures are a lost art to contemporary filmmaking. At no point was I expecting Peter Jackson of all people to be the one to revive them. Laketown looks good, to me, even in the CG shots.

 

I like the darker tone, and as a result the decayed image of Laketown is much more fitting to me.

 

Having done Lord of the Rings first, I couldn't expect Peter Jackson to adapt the Hobbit in a way that wasn't informed by his work on Lord of the Rings. In that sense, it's not a straightforward adaptation of The Hobbit, it's an adptation/interpertation of it as a part of Tolkien's overall body of work.

 

Whatever you'd call it, I like it. I don't want a light, children-oriented fairytale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.