Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's a scan of an image from a kids book so I'm happy enough to see how it all pans out.

Does put me in mind of Ron Perlman in the old beauty and the Beast Tv show though.

Orlanth wrote:Beorn looks too feline, this set up would make for a good were-lion.

You need something more heavy set and ursine, also from the setting and name, let alone Tolkiens own images of Beorns hall you need something more traditionally norse looking.

I always envisaged Beorn as heavy set broad and very brawny, not just hirsute, Brian Blessed would have make the perfect Beorn, and there ought to have been a younger version of him.

This Beorn doesn't even have a hairy chest.

But seeing as Smaug the golden, there is a clue in the name, looks half blue, I can expect Jackson to come up with anything.

Yeah, I imagined him as a really tall, brawny, massively bearded man- so basically a more grim Brian Blessed.

Brian Blessed would have been all kinds of epic.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Brian Blessed would have been all kinds of epic.

Bascially Vultan with fur instead of wings. Yep.

Just about anything with Brian Blessed is epic....

But to the OP.

I liked the trailer, even though I am quite sceptical of how good the film will be. the first film was entirely mediocre, with some great moments.

Must remember that the main goal here is to make a great film/ trilogy. I think PJ was successful with LOTR, even though there were some poor plot decisions(Elves at Helms deep, Dwarf tossing, shield surfing, saruman exorsism...etc.) these didn't totally ruin the films.

I can't say that poop eating radagast totally ruined the film, but it certainly was a detraction IMO. I would have rather seen a more serious radagast than that characture PJ turned him into. But thats just me.

I watched the hobbit film twice. First time by myself, 2nd time with my two boys, and I fell asleep during the 2nd watching, which I never do.

GG



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Beorn looks too feline, this set up would make for a good were-lion.

You need something more heavy set and ursine, also from the setting and name, let alone Tolkiens own images of Beorns hall you need something more traditionally norse looking.

I always envisaged Beorn as heavy set broad and very brawny, not just hirsute, Brian Blessed would have make the perfect Beorn, and there ought to have been a younger version of him.

Agreed....I had envisioned large and in charge..not lionel from thundercats.

GG

 Manchu wrote:
I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. In fact, I like it better than the LotR movies. I like that they're stretching it out. Hurr hurr, Hollywood wants to make money and we're all clearly geniuses for pointing it out ... but on the other hand Middle Earth is a big place and having three movies makes me feel like there is time to really explore it and get into it. If anything, it wouldn't have been terrible to have more than three LotR movies.

My thoughts exactly.

They want to cram in extra stuff into the movie? Hell yes I'm all for it. The hobbit was genuinely fun to watch, kind of like watching a d&d adventure in movie form. I fully support them "bloating" it as much as possible.

 Ahtman wrote:

It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.

Cohesive narrative?

The opening of the film establishes Bilbo as the narrator. Everything that follows must be told from his POV. So any time Jackson diverges from Bilbo's POV (to tell these other stories), he automatically breaks the narrative. It has little to do with changing or adding things. Jackson is simply a garbage storyteller.

Watching Peter Jackson films is like going to Jurassic Park. At first (Fellowship) it's all ooooh and ahhhh, but after that it's running and screaming.

If we are talking about narrative, it took WELL over a year for the events of the lord of the rings to finish.

In order for the transition to screen, there are going to be trade-offs. Personally, I would've liked to have seen perhaps a little less padding with the Necromancer storyline, perhaps telling story in another film rather than The hobbit. Radagast I felt was suitable, but needed to be slightly less silly, however one would presumably lose the sense of "mushroom addled brains"....

The newest film. I don't know....it does deviate a lot from the book, but I'll reserve my judgement for when the movie actually comes out rather than base it on a trailer.

I agree, I'm gonna wait until I've actually seen the movie to decide what I think of the film as a whole.

 Cadorius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

It also isn't that complicated to realize they have taken from other Tolkien sources and integrated them in to a larger cohesive narrative. Sort of like when Tolkien went back and rewrote "Riddles in the Dark" to make it fit with the Lord of the Rings.

Cohesive narrative?

The opening of the film establishes Bilbo as the narrator. Everything that follows must be told from his POV. So any time Jackson diverges from Bilbo's POV (to tell these other stories), he automatically breaks the narrative.

Actually all that means is what we are seeing is how Bilbo believes those events to have transpired. As you say, these events are being related from the future about the past. Some of it he would have heard about later, other bits he could have invented himself.

I went back and watched the first part of the Hobbit last night again, and still enjoyed it as much as the first time. I'm excited for DoS. Radagast....yeah, a bit odd. He's better portrayed in the LotR Battle of the North game by Snowblind studios (no poo on his face). He gets taken by the spiders, but he's not a complete putz. Radagast is the only part that I'm "eh" about with the movie. If he's the only issue for me, then I consider that a damn good movie.

They also held a fan event which revealed further aspects -- it is very spoilery so yadda yadda etc etc void where prohibited blah blah

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/11/05/81726-all-the-spoilery-details-from-the-20-minutes-of-previously-unseen-footage-screened-at-the-desolation-of-smaug-fan-event/