Video: New “Hobbit” movie looking very Hobbit-y indeed

posted at 7:21 pm on June 12, 2013 by Allahpundit

To cleanse the palate, let me continue my sterling tradition of posts about movie franchises I’ve never seen and never will see by asking why Ace is so grumpy about this one. This is … precisely what you’d expect from a Peter Jackson production of Tolkien, right? Dragons and wizards and elves and dwarves and a mystical quest to find/rescue something or other plus lots of inventive make-up and lots of CGI. That’s “The Hobbit,” no? You already know the plot so there’s no worries there. You know you’ll like the actors because you’ve already paid a trillion dollars collectively to watch them in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. My sense of “The Hobbit” is that it probably operates vis-a-vis LOTR the way “Casino” operates vis-a-vis “GoodFellas”: It’s an inferior film but that’s only because the other one was perfect, and it’s still loads of fun in its own right because the personnel involved can really do no wrong. Am I right? What’s missing here that you were hoping to see? Legolas shooting flaming arrows at a dinosaur or something? I’m sure Jackson’s FX team can punch that up in post-production and slip it in there before the big opening.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good grief. Another one of these hobbit movies?

bluegill on June 12, 2013 at 7:23 PM

You watch chick flicks, don`t you AP? :)

ThePrez on June 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM

The bottom line is that the Hobbit isn’t such a long book that it needs to be split into three movies, and certainly not 3 2.5 hour movies. It’s an amazing book, but Jackson is doing much more to it than he has to, simply so he can pull off another trilogy.

If he wants a trilogy, use the Silmarillion for source material. But the Hobbit really doesn’t need 3 super long movies. 2 would do a fine job.

vegconservative on June 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Theme park in the making. Hollywood takes Tolkien and runs all the way to the bank.

Viator on June 12, 2013 at 7:31 PM

You watch chick flicks, don`t you AP? :)

ThePrez on June 12, 2013 at 7:24 PM

NTTIAWWT

Valkyriepundit on June 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

If he wants a trilogy, use the Silmarillion for source material. But the Hobbit really doesn’t need 3 super long movies. 2 would do a fine job.

vegconservative on June 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Jackson or affiliated companies don’t own the rights to the Silmarillion, and the Tolkien family wants to keep the rights away from him.

That’s probably all for the best. It would be nice to have a new interpretation/vision of Middle Earth when they finally get around to making the Silmarillion. There’s a lot in there that’s serious and dark, and Jackson has a tendency to add gratuitous comic relief and hokey action sequences (e.g., surfing on a shield).

Nessuno on June 12, 2013 at 7:32 PM

I’m glad they left in the part with the butterflies. That was always one of my favorite scenes in the book.

Kristamatic on June 12, 2013 at 7:33 PM

DO NOT USE THE SILMARILLION!

Good Lord, look what he’s done with a couple hundred pages and a pretty straight forward fantasy adventure!

The problem with Jackson’s Hobbit is it basically the same movie as the other movies. Wen I saw the first installment last year, that’s the first thing I thought when it started. same look, same cinematography, same everything pretty much. Oh, except for the made up stuff they put in there for absolutely no reason, whatsoever.

Each book in the original trilogy had their own movie.

Taking a single book and turning it into three movies just smacks of greed. Other than raking in another billion (not that’s there’s anything wrong with that) there’s no reason for a trilogy.

catmman on June 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

The bottom line is that the Hobbit isn’t such a long book that it needs to be split into three movies, and certainly not 3 2.5 hour movies. It’s an amazing book, but Jackson is doing much more to it than he has to, simply so he can pull off another trilogy.

If he wants a trilogy, use the Silmarillion for source material. But the Hobbit really doesn’t need 3 super long movies. 2 would do a fine job.

vegconservative on June 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

This. Frankly, it didn’t need to be in two parts, but I was okay with Jackson doing that when it was announced. But he’s trying desperately to turn The Hobbit into an epic on the same scale as LotR, which it simply isn’t.

And I don’t remember the exact scope of the lawsuits and copyright issues involved, but I believe Jackson does not have the right to use any source material from the Silmarillion or anything else outside of LotR and The Hobbit. He’s basically making sh*t up on his own.

nukemhill on June 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Because Jackson is stretching the Hobbit for y’know maximum $$$

Ace equates Jackson with Lucas at this point.

workingclass artist on June 12, 2013 at 7:35 PM

If he wants a trilogy, use the Silmarillion for source material. But the Hobbit really doesn’t need 3 super long movies. 2 would do a fine job.

vegconservative on June 12, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Seems like I remember reading somewhere that the Tolkien family won’t give Jackson the rights to it…

I like the LOTR movies but wow did they chop out some good stuff..and now they’re doing the opposite with The Hobbit…

Trailer looks good though….

BigWyo on June 12, 2013 at 7:38 PM

And I don’t remember the exact scope of the lawsuits and copyright issues involved, but I believe Jackson does not have the right to use any source material from the Silmarillion or anything else outside of LotR and The Hobbit. He’s basically making sh*t up on his own.

nukemhill on June 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Including fetching elven females…

workingclass artist on June 12, 2013 at 7:38 PM

To cleanse the palate,…

I think it is beyond cleansing…

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Can’t wait! But where is Viggo?

southernms on June 12, 2013 at 7:41 PM

My sense of “The Hobbit” is that it probably operates vis-a-vis LOTR the way “Casino” operates vis-a-vis “GoodFellas”: It’s an inferior film but that’s only because the other one was perfect, and it’s still loads of fun in its own right because the personnel involved can really do no wrong. Am I right?

No. An Unexpected Journey was far superior to any of the LOTR films — better script, better character development, better acting, better use of color, better setup.

By the end of Lord of the Rings, I was Bored of the Rings.

Stoic Patriot on June 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

…by asking why Ace is so grumpy about this one.

Lord of the Rings movies : Hobbit movies :: The Empire Strikes Back : The Phantom Menace

That do it?

ElectricPhase on June 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

What’s missing here that you were hoping to see? Legolas shooting flaming arrows at a dinosaur or something?

Now that you mention it, yes.

Patrick Ishmael on June 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Can’t wait! But where is Viggo?

southernms on June 12, 2013 at 7:41 PM

He made LOTR a chick flick. Yum.

Fallon on June 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Hey Hollywood, here’s a tip:

There a plenty of great book series out there – John Sanford’s PREY books, CJ Box’s Joe Pickett series just to name two.

I bet the HA gang could name a dozen more in the next 10 posts.

No more damn Hobbits or Star Wars or comic book crap.

Good grief..

Bruno Strozek on June 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I would like to see Donaldson’s “Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever” series made into movies, the best series I have ever read.

Rode Werk on June 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Whatevs.

I loved the books (Hobbit, LOTR, etc).

Loving the movies, too.

*shrug*

Midas on June 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Can’t wait! But where is Viggo?

He won’t be in attendance, sadly. He has a good reason for refusing – that Aragorn is not in the Hobbit book – but I’m sad nonetheless. It was good to see Bloom back, though.

mrsknightley on June 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Peter Jackson is now firmly on the George Lucas trajectory.

LOTR = Star Wars IV, V, VI
Hobbit = SW I, II, III

A shame. I thought LOTR was very very good.

Bat Chain Puller on June 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM

The picture looked like our next GOP nominee.

faraway on June 12, 2013 at 7:58 PM

BORING! Same ol’, same ol’. There’s not a decent dramatic movie to be found. It’s all rehashed action/animated junk. Fun to watch until you realize you keep watching the same old crap over and over again. Even the upcoming Man of Steel is the same with different actors and different dialogue. BORING!

HiJack on June 12, 2013 at 7:59 PM

@Midas – me too. I liked the movies first, read the trilogy and couldn’t believe how much better it was than the movies…but I still appreciate the movies because they give me a magnificent visual representation of a world that I love.

mrsknightley on June 12, 2013 at 8:05 PM

You want something good, far out, dark and relevant?

Make ‘The Forever War’.

trigon on June 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM

He won’t be in attendance, sadly. He has a good reason for refusing – that Aragorn is not in the Hobbit book – but I’m sad nonetheless. It was good to see Bloom back, though.

mrsknightley on June 12, 2013 at 7:56 PM

I’ll be surprised if they don’t shoe horn him in there somewhere…

BigWyo on June 12, 2013 at 8:15 PM

That do it?

LOL, yes. Yes, it does.

@BigWyo – not unless he rescinds his refusal.

mrsknightley on June 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

God, what a bloated looking mess. Naturally, Smaug looks like Godzilla. Is “subtle” even a word in Jackson’s filmic lexicon? And Legolas wasn’t even in The Hobbit.

rrpjr on June 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

mrsknightley on June 12, 2013 at 8:17 PM

You don’t suppose they have hours of stuff from LOTR that they couldn’t throw in somewhere???

BigWyo on June 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Movies We’d Like To See: “Stranger In A Strange Land”.

Who is John Galt on June 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Was the original 3 LOTR better than the first Hobbit installment? Probably, they are a bit too long and the thing with the rock-throwing stone giants was kind of silly, but I just don’t see the comparisons between the Hobbit and Star Wars Ep 1.

The Hobbit was fun, I didn’t regret spending 8 bux to see it, and it had no message. (Maybe this is a measure of my low expectations for anything Hollywood does…)

But I’m willing to bet that if the LOTR trilogy had never existed, people wouldn’t be so negative on the Hobbit movies. He just set the bar so high the first time around it’s kind of hard to top.

DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 8:39 PM

You want something good, far out, dark and relevant?

Make ‘The Forever War’.

trigon on June 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM

+1000

And when it’s done, make Armor by John Steakly.

WitchDoctor on June 12, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Movies We’d Like To See: “Stranger In A Strange Land”.

Who is John Galt on June 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM


YES

SO MUCH THIS

/Also Fallen Angels, but that’s never gonna happen
//And Ender’s Game is finally out of development hell, yay!

DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 8:41 PM

You want something good, far out, dark and relevant?

Make ‘The Forever War’.

trigon on June 12, 2013 at 8:12 PM

And this.

And a big budget version of Pratchett’s Going Postal, while we’re at it.

DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Although I’ve forgotten who here introduced me to them, let’s not forget Saberhagen’s Berserkers. The books were a bit shallow at times but the idea behind story is still a great one.

rogerb on June 12, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I would like to see Donaldson’s “Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever” series made into movies, the best series I have ever read.

Rode Werk on June 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I couldn’t get past the first couple of chapters of the first book, when he assaults (being euphemistic here) his host’s daughter. I wanted him stuffed with crabmeat and broiled, then.

clear ether

eon

eon on June 12, 2013 at 9:00 PM

God, what a bloated looking mess. Naturally, Smaug looks like Godzilla. Is “subtle” even a word in Jackson’s filmic lexicon? And Legolas wasn’t even in The Hobbit.

rrpjr on June 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Well, it avoids having to find somebody who can play Bard the Bowman convincingly. I’d have gotten Hugh Jackman. (See Australia for why.)

As for Smaug, the old Rankin-Bass animated version captured the b*****d perfectly. Especially with the late, great Richard Boone providing his voice. The only dragon on screen I thought was more impressive was Vermithrax Pejorative (lit. trans., “the worm of Thrace which brings disaster”) in Dragonslayer. Either one was more believable, and believably lethal, than all the dragons in Reign of Fire put together. (And they were the “least-worst” thing about that turkey.)

The ideal length for The Hobbit is about two and three-quarter hours. That being about how long it takes to read it cover-to-cover. OK, I did it in an hour and a half, but like Spock, I read somewhat faster. ;-)

cheers

eon

eon on June 12, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I’m with most folks here – The Hobbit was a smaller more personal story that took place in a smaller sliver of Middle Earth, and it worked very well. A valid complaint about the LOTR trilogy was that the bigger the story got the harder it was to get it on the screen in a way that would involve us on a personal level. Compare the fight at Balin’s tomb with the last battle at the Black Gate. Same here. I’d rather see a plausible escape from a hundred goblins in a scary cave involving some personal bravery, than the almost accidental escape from several thousand in a huge underground complex, with pirates-of-the-Caribbean-style antics.

Let’s remember too that after the dragon goes down, politics threatens to spoil everyone’s day, until men, elves and dwarves are forced to ally. As someone said, Jackson never errs on the side of making any character -more- noble. I really fear that this will be just too tempting for Jackson, who’ll deliver a heaping helping of What’s Wrong With Us.

wkgdyw on June 12, 2013 at 9:11 PM

wkgdyw on June 12, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Agree just about 100%. I find it ironic that Jackson feels the need to “stretch” The Hobbit, when he left so much out of LoTR. (Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire, etc.)

About the most “workmanlike” movie he’s done was his remake of King Kong. But frankly, the original is still better, IMHO.

cheers

eon

eon on June 12, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I would like to see Donaldson’s “Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever” series made into movies, the best series I have ever read.

Rode Werk on June 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I once read a joke online where people retitled various very well-known fantasy and sci-fi books with what they felt were more appropriate and descriptive titles.

The series of which you speak was renamed “Unlikeable A**hole Protagonist”

DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I enjoyed all three LORT movies, and the Hobbit.

I will most likely enjoy the next one or two, however he does it.

For crying out loud, at least he isn’t doing a repeat of the third or fourth order because most morons writing in Hollywood don’t have any imagination!

Can we have just one more Superman movie?

Remaking Gone with the Wind?

Batman?

King Kong?

How many remakes have been done in the last twenty years when there is virtually an unlimited supply of already written books and more being written every day, plus just the stories riding on the ether out there begging to be done!

At least Jackson is doing movies that have not been done before (ok, skip that goofy cartoon Hobbit movie – doesn’t count).

And sorry to pick a bone, but how does not having seen one or more of these movies give one the wherewithal to comment on them?

Just my two cents.

Tenwheeler on June 12, 2013 at 9:28 PM

ah, ok, he did do a Kong move, but that blonde…..

Tenwheeler on June 12, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Let me guess. Dwarves, right? And they’re goofy, right?

Cleombrotus on June 12, 2013 at 9:32 PM

+1 For Stephen R Donaldson

Texasheli on June 12, 2013 at 9:35 PM

He made LOTR a chick flick. Yum.

Fallon on June 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I don’t know, Arwen is pretty hot when she gets all pouty and tears up………….

Tenwheeler on June 12, 2013 at 9:36 PM

The Pelbar Cycle, anyone?

How abut Saberhagen’s Swords series?

James on June 12, 2013 at 9:38 PM

And a big budget version of Pratchett’s Going Postal, while we’re at it.
 
DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 8:42 PM

 
I remember being surprised that no one tried to capitalize on the Harry Potter craze by releasing a Tiffany Aching movie, especially since it gave a distinctly different take on wizards.
 
I was indifferent about the Potter series but Tiffany, Granny, and the gang were probably my favorites in Pratchett’s world. I doubt I was the only one.

rogerb on June 12, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Can’t wait! But where is Viggo?

southernms on June 12, 2013 at 7:41 PM

He made LOTR a chick flick. Yum.

Fallon on June 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Girls… please.
Keep some discerning taste.
“Yum” is nice, but liberalism will kill you.

egmont on June 12, 2013 at 9:49 PM

It would seem that Peter Jackson is a NeoCon!

Tolkien was one of the more insightful and profound anti-Nietzschean intellectuals of the 20th century. Jackson, seems a worthy interpreter of Tolkien.

Mike OMalley on June 12, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Lord of the Rings movies : Hobbit movies :: The Empire Strikes Back : The Phantom Menace

That do it?

ElectricPhase on June 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

To be more precise, what I ended up explaining to others after the first Hobbit movie came out:

Radagast the Brown : Tolkien films :: Jar Jar Binks : Star Wars films

VekTor on June 12, 2013 at 9:54 PM

I remember being surprised that no one tried to capitalize on the Harry Potter craze by releasing a Tiffany Aching movie,
rogerb on June 12, 2013 at 9:43 PM

There are some assorted made-for-tv movies that came out recently. You’d have to buy the DVD if you wanted to see them, as they were for the BBC and don’t have wide release over here, but the quality is kind of meh. They are a bit entertaining, but more in a trainwreck sort of way.

They did:

Going Postal, Hogfather and Color of Magic.

Monstrous Regiment would make an awesome movie too. (Kathy Bates could be Jackrum, she’s one of the few people I can think of who would be capable of being terrifying enough to pull it off.)

DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 9:55 PM

The Pelbar Cycle, anyone?
 
James on June 12, 2013 at 9:38 PM

 
Never heard of this. Thanks.

rogerb on June 12, 2013 at 9:55 PM

It’s just a movie. Can’t people just have fun with stuff anymore? It seems like everyone is so pissed off all the time that all they can do is complain.

I’m a Tolkien fan. I love the stories. I love the LOTR movies. I enjoyed the first installment of The Hobbit. Was it true to the book? Not exactly, but I knew that going in.

This one looks like it’s got a good bit of action in it so I’m looking forward to that.

I’ve already seen The Hobbit in my mind’s eye about 10-15 times. It’s fun to see how someone else imagines the story and if they throw a few extra things in, that’s OK by me. It’s not going to ruin the “film” that I’ve watched every few years since I was 10 years old.

AScott on June 12, 2013 at 10:00 PM

BigWyo on June 12, 2013 at 8:29 PM

I’d be fine with it, but I figure they blew all that on the extended edition DVDs.

mrsknightley on June 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM

They are a bit entertaining, but more in a trainwreck sort of way.
 
DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 9:55 PM

 
Ha. Nicely put. Someone let me borrow Hogfather and, while I enjoyed it, I knew better than to put my wife through it and still believe she’d have any passing interest in perhaps one day reading any of his books.

rogerb on June 12, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Monty Python In Search of the Holy Grail.

Now THAT was entertainment.

I have the Director’s Cut with 37 additional seconds!

Tenwheeler on June 12, 2013 at 10:40 PM

I enjoyed the hell out of The Hobbit. I expect I will probably enjoy DOS as well. I enjoyed the first 2 Narnia movies too, even though they widely diverged from Lewis’s books.

They are children’s fantasies.

As for Jackson should JUST STOP making these movies because you personally don’t want to see them, then sod off. I want them. Lots of other people do too. The Hobbit didn’t exactly bomb. Neither will the next two I suspect.

Ozwitch on June 12, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Can’t wait! But where is Viggo?

southernms on June 12, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Many decades later in middle earth lore…

workingclass artist on June 12, 2013 at 11:19 PM

I would like to see Donaldson’s “Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever” series made into movies, the best series I have ever read.

Rode Werk on June 12, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I once read a joke online where people retitled various very well-known fantasy and sci-fi books with what they felt were more appropriate and descriptive titles.

The series of which you speak was renamed “Unlikeable A**hole Protagonist”

DangerHighVoltage on June 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM

lol

He was a marooned leper…so he was pretty angry

workingclass artist on June 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Looking forward to it. Screw the h8ers. ;)

AH_C on June 12, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Lord of the Rings movies : Hobbit movies :: The Empire Strikes Back : The Phantom Menace

That do it?

ElectricPhase on June 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

No. Strike that, reverse it to a much, much lesser extent, and then yes.

Dunedainn on June 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Can’t wait! But where is Viggo?

Bilbo and Thorin & Company were too busy to notice the ten year old boy then known as “Estel” hanging around and marveling at the strange visitors to Rivendell. Elrond didn’t get around to telling him his real name for another decade.

M. Scott Eiland on June 13, 2013 at 12:48 AM

Tolkien said of the LOTR, that “the story grew in the telling”, and yet later he also said the criticism he most noted [liked?] was “it [LOTR] is too short.” It is love when the fans say that of a really long trilogy. It is still a dangerous thing to step out into Tolkien’s Road. When you come back you might not be quite the same. That is what exceptional literature can do.

As to Jacksons ‘The Hobbit’, it also is “growing in the [re-]telling.” Just perhaps not so well. But if he can show us some of Tolkien’s “beauties which burn/pierce like cold iron”, or whatever Peter S. Beagle said in that oft-quoted foreword, I’ll be there.

etaoinshrdlu on June 13, 2013 at 1:54 AM

Let’s remember too that after the dragon goes down, politics threatens to spoil everyone’s day, until men, elves and dwarves are forced to ally. As someone said, Jackson never errs on the side of making any character -more- noble. I really fear that this will be just too tempting for Jackson, who’ll deliver a heaping helping of What’s Wrong With Us.

wkgdyw on June 12, 2013 at 9:11 PM

In Tolkein’s “The Hobbit”, politics DID spoil things, leading to what could have been a war between dwarves, elves, and men over the treasure left by the dragon, until they were forced to ally against an army of goblins. Also, Bilbo the hobbit, originally assigned by Gandalf to be a “burglar”, takes Thorin (the leader of the dwarves) down a peg by stealing the Arkenstone and giving it to men.

It will be interesting to see how Jackson renders that scene.

Interestingly enough, Jackson’s version of Lord of the Rings left out a “political” story where, after the fall of Mordor and the coronation of Aragorn, the four hobbits Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin have to fight a mini-war to re-conquer their homeland in the Shire after fighting other people’s wars. In this battle, Frodo the Ringbearer becomes more pacifist than Merry and Pippin, who had minor roles in the battles for Gondor and Rohan, but become true military leaders in the battle for the Shire.

As for the length of the Hobbit movies–the book has plenty of adventure and battle scenes, but which are told more concisely in The Hobbit than in the Lord of the Rings.

Steve Z on June 13, 2013 at 1:58 AM

And when it’s done, make Armor by John Steakly.

WitchDoctor on June 12, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I just reread it a few weeks ago. It is basically a hardcore version of Starship Troopers. I would love to see The Tactics of Mistake by Gordon Dickson or any of The Dorsai novels.

dddave on June 13, 2013 at 5:19 AM

Someone commented about breaking the Hobbit into three? parts as “greed” above.

Well that is capitalism in action and greed is okay.

Besides the book is wonderful and one film cannot do it justice. Of course one must have actually read the book to know this.

The first part of the book is not nearly as exiting as the rest of it, including Murkwood as seen in the trailer.

I will watch the first part on DVD etc and head to the theaters for the second.

Ain’t capitalism great?

Sherman1864 on June 13, 2013 at 5:52 AM

I post over at The One Ring.net and we are having the same arguments over there as here. The Hobbit is a small book. But for those of us who have read it, we have ourselves expanded what we read in our imaginations. Why do we deny Jackson that right? Because he has millions of dollars and can put his imaginings on screen? Did anyone really mind the visualization of Gandalf’s escape from Orthanc in FOTR even though it was not in the book? Probably not. But they are all over the “additions” in The Hobbit.

The big concern is of course the CGI. But the old saying “to a hammer everything looks like a nail” applies here. Does AUJ and DOS look like video games as some claim? Sure, if your frame of reference is video games. But not so much if you like me have never seen a video game. CGI can look cheesy and frequently does. But we suspend our disbelief for other things. Why not this?

IdrilofGondolin on June 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM