|
Post by teazia on Jun 9, 2014 14:51:32 GMT
Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by Muze on Jun 9, 2014 15:28:36 GMT
thank you
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Jun 9, 2014 15:39:11 GMT
Thank you, teazia. That was cool!
|
|
|
Post by wildagreenbough on Jun 9, 2014 19:44:11 GMT
Brilliant! Makes me proud to be a Kiwi
|
|
|
Post by bloodchoke on Jun 9, 2014 20:21:57 GMT
Man, those models are just stunning. And...PEOPLE DO THIS FOR A LIVING!!! Update your resumes, folks.
|
|
|
Post by teazia on Jun 10, 2014 0:10:05 GMT
It's worth picking up the extended cuts dvd for the docs. Seeing Rivendell as a playable D&D layout is mindblowing.
Note that this was 15 years ago and all those folks were already old. I imagine miniatures are less common now. What did they use in the Hobbit?
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Jun 10, 2014 1:35:14 GMT
The 'Hobbit' was visually stunning, though; I don't know what story Peter Jackson thought he was telling, it was NOT the Hobbit by JRR Tolkien! I've been reading and re-reading those books since they first came out, I know the story very well.
|
|
|
Post by bloodchoke on Jun 10, 2014 2:12:30 GMT
Honestly, I haven't read anything Tolkein in 15 years or so, but it seems like some of the material Jackson added to the Hobbit came from other sources, like the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Been a long time and a ton of books since, so I could be completely wrong. I kinda thought it was dumb to split the Hobbit into 3 movies, but I'm glad he did. There really aren't a lot of great fantasy movies, so I appreciate the hours Jackson has given us. And, the first good remake of King Kong...
|
|
|
Post by dragon722 on Jun 10, 2014 5:07:14 GMT
The 'Hobbit' was visually stunning, though; I don't know what story Peter Jackson thought he was telling, it was NOT the Hobbit by JRR Tolkien! I've been reading and re-reading those books since they first came out, I know the story very well. J.R.R. 's family handed over 1,500 unpublished pages from the original hobbits story that never made it to the final cut as the fantasy genre had not taken off yet. One of the reasons why it took them two extra years to finish the movie before Jackson finally decided to step in and do it. He originally said no to doing it at first. Plus they also used some cliff notes from the other books the Great and Powerful Tolkien wrote to set a stage for characters that originally did not make any of the cuts, but does make sense now that their tales have come out to explain who they were other just a mention of their names.
|
|
|
Post by adamantinedragon on Jun 10, 2014 5:17:29 GMT
First, thanks for the great video link. That was really fascinating. It is somewhat intimidating to see what the pros can do with techniques and materials I've attempted to learn myself. But I enjoyed the heck out of it.
As far as The Hobbit movies are concerned, I too sort of roll my eyes at the book being made into a movie trilogy, and I can't help but recognize that the primary reason for that is good old fashioned financial self-interest. But in the end I don't mind that he's added a bunch of stuff to the movie. Movies are a different medium than books, and so long as he maintains the core themes and vision of the story, I'll be OK with watching nine hours of it instead of three.
The only thing I don't like is when Jackson violates something that I personally think is central to the story and that seems to reveal that Jackson either didn't understand what Tolkien was doing, or didn't care to stick to it. When Frodo turned on Sam and Sam left him, or when Farimir tried to take the ring, those things bug me. But adding in bits about Gandalf and Radagast exploring Dol Goldur, or bringing in an elf-dwarf romance, or having Legalos show up in the story (makes sense, he would have been there after all), those are fine. But get on with the story, eh?
|
|