Yeah I'm not really digging it as much as I'd hoped, but I'll wait till we see him in full bear form.
**** Official The Hobbit Info Thread ****
142,240 Views |
982 Replies |
Last: 9 yr ago by Fat Bib Fortuna
Looks like Ben Stiller as teen wolf.
It is staggering to know a guy looks that much like Orlando Bloom but isn't him.
If it were me, I would have just picked a huge dude and give him a big black lumberjack beard. Doesn't need to be all tricked up.
Same here, chip. Always imagined someone like Nick Brimble's Little John for Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, but in flannel.
Agreed.
The guy from the Dr. Pepper 10 commercials?
[This message has been edited by jeffk (edited 10/25/2013 6:59a).]
[This message has been edited by jeffk (edited 10/25/2013 6:59a).]
Not a fan of the casting of Beorn at all. Too scrawny. The teen wolf references are sadly right on.
Would y'all have preferred this route?
But seriously, once **** hits the fan, you know he's gonna bring it.
[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 10/25/2013 9:05a).]
[This message has been edited by sharkenleo (edited 10/25/2013 9:05a).]
quote:
Same here, chip. Always imagined someone like Nick Brimble's Little John for Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, but in flannel.
Yeah, basically. Maybe a little less homeless-y looking, but that's the general gist. But huge. Some big 6'8" dude. So he towers over Ian McKellan (although I guess they can force perspective to make him seem any size).
Kevin Costner?
That looks like the cover of a werewolf book by Danielle Steel.
...and Beorn should have looked like an angry Hagrid. That was so easy. On first glance, Bard shouldn't look so... Orlando Bloom-like. He should be another craggy, battered Viggo Mortenson type character.
I was initially ok with the Hobbit being a three parter and thought the first one was good, but I'm hearing/seeing more and more things that don't look that good and that stray from the book... almost like they are trying to steer the story to appeal more to the teenage girl demographic.
[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 10/25/2013 12:36p).]
I was initially ok with the Hobbit being a three parter and thought the first one was good, but I'm hearing/seeing more and more things that don't look that good and that stray from the book... almost like they are trying to steer the story to appeal more to the teenage girl demographic.
[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 10/25/2013 12:36p).]
Bard isn't as bad as Beorn, but it's not right either. Thought the cast was done really well prior to these two.
I don't pick up on that at all Ulrich.
I could be wrong, there are really only two pieces of evidence. Orlando Bloom's character gets a romance written in. Bard should be a weathered warrior, instead he's an Orlando Bloom lookalike.
quote:
Orlando Bloom's character gets a romance written in.
Already confirmed that's not the case. May be a love interest for one of the younger dwarfs though.
Lotta new tv spots been dropping lately. Getting close...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLikUn-pIOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB2BaAFPhz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLikUn-pIOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB2BaAFPhz4
Does Jackson or New Line really need to tell us that the Hobbit is from "the Director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy"? Wouldn't pretty much every single person either A) Already know that B) Assume that to be the case or C) Not care at all?
Can't hurt. Directors change all the time within series these days. Even this movie came pretty close with Del Toro.
[This message has been edited by Brian Earl Spilner (edited 11/5/2013 9:27a).]
[This message has been edited by Brian Earl Spilner (edited 11/5/2013 9:27a).]
i finally was able to sit down and watch the first movie from beginning to end (hey, I've got twin toddlers) - and well, uh, it kinda sucked. I hate to be the guy Jim Gaffigan warns you about, but suddenly I have no interest in seeing the second movie ... what the hell happened to me?
Finally just watched the first one this week as well, the extended edition. I liked it but it was very slow. And my biggest gripe?
Hey Gandalf, thanks for rescuing us with these huge birds, but, um... WTF?!?!?! You are friends with huge birds? Why the hell have we been walking this entire time? And why the hell did they drop us off here instead of right by the damn mountain we are trying to get to???
Hey Gandalf, thanks for rescuing us with these huge birds, but, um... WTF?!?!?! You are friends with huge birds? Why the hell have we been walking this entire time? And why the hell did they drop us off here instead of right by the damn mountain we are trying to get to???
I was not a fan of the first movie either. I'll try the second, but I'm not terribly optimistic.
If I recall correctly, the eagles don't exactly involve themselves in things unless they really have to and then only as much as is absolutely necessary. That's the one thing about this and The Lord of the Rings, I think a lot of what seem to be plot holes are sewn up if you've read the books. Shouldn't be that way as probably most haven't read them, but it is what it is.
I liked the first one quite a bit, but I'll admit it's no Lord of the Rings. I think once you temper your expectations just a bit, you can enjoy it much more.
That said, it does seem like the new one is much more in the vein of the "epic" scope of the LOTR trilogy, so I'm excited to see if they pull it off.
That said, it does seem like the new one is much more in the vein of the "epic" scope of the LOTR trilogy, so I'm excited to see if they pull it off.
Yes otherwise the Eagles could have just flown Frodo from the Shire to Mount Doom and the story would have been 10 minutes long.
Eagles would've met their doom at the hands of the Nazgul and the Witch King.
I figured there was some magical reason to explain the birds, but not having read the books it just cracked me up.
The first one was a whole lot of setup I think and the next one should be better. Still a good movie.
The first one was a whole lot of setup I think and the next one should be better. Still a good movie.
actually they would not have met their doom, they are the ones who dealt with the dragons in the Silmarillion as well, I think they can handle some snake with wings.
The deal with the Eagles is that they aren't servants and they aren't all that concerned with the affairs of men, elves, dwarves, hobbits, etc., sort of like the Ents. They're only going to do something drastic if it is they really, really think it worthwhile. If you've read the Harry Potter books, think of them like Firenze and the centaurs.
However, Gandalf is not a man nor anything else, he's something a little higher up the chain and when he asks for their dire help, they've been known to send aid, but only to the degree that they feel necessary.
However, Gandalf is not a man nor anything else, he's something a little higher up the chain and when he asks for their dire help, they've been known to send aid, but only to the degree that they feel necessary.
quote:
Hey Gandalf, thanks for rescuing us with these huge birds, but, um... WTF?!?!?! You are friends with huge birds? Why the hell have we been walking this entire time? And why the hell did they drop us off here instead of right by the damn mountain we are trying to get to???
That's the problem with changing book material.
Featured Stories
See All
85:33
10h ago
4.3k
Texas A&M earns top-25 win over Creighton in Las Vegas, 77-73
by Luke Evangelist
7:22
15h ago
7.3k