• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
I recall following the production of the first of Jackson's Lord of The Rings film from the very first gossip that a production was in the offing to the actual theatric release. One of the most exciting stages was the endless casting speculation and the name Sean Connery kept cropping up in the early days as the preferred Gandalf. I always assumed that this was merely fan-generated chatter, but it seems that he was actually offered thd part--and he might even regret having turned down:

Connery stated in interviews that he was offered a role in The Lord of the Rings series, declining it owing to his "not understanding the script". CNN reported that the actor was offered up to 15% of the worldwide box office receipts to play Gandalf, which—had he accepted—could have earned him as much as $400 million for the trilogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery#Beyond_Bond

For what it's worth, much as I like a lot of Sean Connery's work, I think he would have made a rubbish Gandalf--we'd have got Sean Connery playing Sean Connery playing what Sean Connery thinks Gandalf might be.

And also for the record, I think the first instalment of the trilogy is a masterwork. The next two parts are still solid, but the incremental pacing and shifting tones of Fellowship are truly masterful; The Hobbit films were a tediously long computer game.
 
I'm sure I used to read LOTR once a year when I was about 18 (so, probably did it about 3 times since I first read it as a 15 year old or something like that), but I don't remember reading it in the last 15-20 years, so I bought the Audible version of Fellowship of the Ring and I am LOVING it all over again. Tolkien really created a work of true genius with LOTR.
I have a couple of the swords from the movie - Sting, and the Witchking's sword which is about 5ft long, it's a monster, like it's owner (not me, the ringwraith!)
 
I recall following the production of the first of Jackson's Lord of The Rings film from the very first gossip that a production was in the offing to the actual theatric release. One of the most exciting stages was the endless casting speculation and the name Sean Connery kept cropping up in the early days as the preferred Gandalf. I always assumed that this was merely fan-generated chatter, but it seems that he was actually offered thd part--and he might even regret having turned down:

Connery stated in interviews that he was offered a role in The Lord of the Rings series, declining it owing to his "not understanding the script". CNN reported that the actor was offered up to 15% of the worldwide box office receipts to play Gandalf, which—had he accepted—could have earned him as much as $400 million for the trilogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery#Beyond_Bond

For what it's worth, much as I like a lot of Sean Connery's work, I think he would have made a rubbish Gandalf--we'd have got Sean Connery playing Sean Connery playing what Sean Connery thinks Gandalf might be.

And also for the record, I think the first instalment of the trilogy is a masterwork. The next two parts are still solid, but the incremental pacing and shifting tones of Fellowship are truly masterful; The Hobbit films were a tediously long computer game.

I agree on Connery, he'd have been crap. Mckellen was perfect. I loved how I never knew who any of the people in the LOTR movies were - it allowed them to BE the characters for me. It was more than just a series of movies.
The Hobbit on the other hand - well, it's that clown from The Office isn't it? I've never even seen those films because I can't get past that bit of casting.
 
The Hobbit on the other hand - well, it's that clown from The Office isn't it? I've never even seen those films because I can't get past that bit of casting.
That's a shame - for all the films' faults, Martin Freeman is pretty good!
 
I agree.

He wasn't the problem as far as I'm concerned.
For me, the problem wasn't even the CGI or the comedy. I found much to enjoy (unlike many, many people!) throughout, but the whole thing would've been far better as one long (3 hours or so?) movie, 2 shorter ones at a push. Too much goat in part 3, for instance!
 
For me, the problem wasn't even the CGI or the comedy. I found much to enjoy (unlike many, many people!) throughout, but the whole thing would've been far better as one long (3 hours or so?) movie, 2 shorter ones at a push. Too much goat in part 3, for instance!

I generally agree and said as much for a good while after seeing them (although I have to say that the last was just a downright awful film of its own).

In hindsight, however, I've decided that the problem was more fundamental: it's that need to turn The Hobbit into a sort-of-prequel to the Lord of the Rings. The additional scenes to forge links were kind of, sort of all right (like the stuff culled from Unfinished Tales), but the big issue was tone. My first experience of The Hobbit was having it read to me, a chapter at a time, each Wednesday afternoon at school (wonderful experience, would be out the window in the current educational climate). I read The Lord of The Rings soon after and it was beyond me, but then I read it again the next year and again two years later and fell in love with it. When I subsequently returned to give The Hobbit another visit in my late teens, I found something very different to what I recalled: I'd retrospectively summarised the events correctly, but I'd given them a tonal veneer to match the later trilogy; the re-read showed me that this was very wrong--the book is very different linguistically (that doesn't only mean simpler) and very different in mood. The whimsy and, dare I say, faerie of Jackson's vision of The Hobbit has been completely stripped out. The book manages to somehow remain folksy and parochial even in spite of the ever expanding adventure--it never loses track of Bilbo as the lens through which events are seen and the unconscious focal point around which Middle-Earth rotates. The films, however, range over Middle-Earth with an eagle's eye and Bilbo becomes just another character, albeit a central one.

He made it an epic; it has a couple of epic scenes, but the book is not an epic.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with the films of the hobbit is that they were too long and just not the book, the problem with the book is that it just isn't fast paced or epic enough to be turned into 9 hours of visual entertainment, no matter how good it looks (and they did look good). frankly if i didnt already know the out come i would have hoped that Smaug would fry and eat the lot of them.

Ps. The mythguard institute podcasts are well worth listening to
 
Last edited:
Always liked the Jackanory version of The Hobbit, with Bernard Cribbins - told over two weeks of episodes! Was a big deal at the time.
 
That's a shame - for all the films' faults, Martin Freeman is pretty good!

Maybe.
Now he's in adverts for some mobile firm.

I'm sorry but I can't suspend my disbelief and imagine that guy as Bilbo.

He's also punching way above his weight in those ads.
 
Maybe.
Now he's in adverts for some mobile firm.

I'm sorry but I can't suspend my disbelief and imagine that guy as Bilbo.

He's also punching way above his weight in those ads.

Not seen the ads, but generally you have to accumulate a lot of credibility before you can expend some on advertising and not be lessened as a professional for it.

Did Lemmy do any TV ads? If so, he would have got away with it as you know the money would be spent at the bar, on his mates or buying military memorabilia--and who can begrudge a man that?

Likewise, John Cleese. Several ads--some faintly amusing at least--and you know he has to pay off all those grasping ex-wives.

I'm not quite at the Bill Hicks level, but if it looks like you'll do anything your agent throws at you, you're off the artistic register. I like Cederic Bandersnatch, but he's become painfully ubiquitous in recent years.
 
Likewise, John Cleese. Several ads--some faintly amusing at least--and you know he has to pay off all those grasping ex-wives.
That's probably the real reason why he's emigrating. 3 ex-wives! A glutton for punishment.
 
I also dislike Martin Freeman as an actor but he was actually really good in the Fargo television series. Not Bilbo material though.

I tried watching the Hobbit films. The Lord of the Rings movies were so well interpreted from the books it seems surprising to me that all involved in the Hobbit films so totally misinterpreted that book. The attempt at Radagast particularly stands out in my memory as egregiously misinterpreted. Despite trying to watch all 3 films I couldn't make it to the end of any of them.
 
Not seen the ads, but generally you have to accumulate a lot of credibility before you can expend some on advertising and not be lessened as a professional for it.

Did Lemmy do any TV ads? If so, he would have got away with it as you know the money would be spent at the bar, on his mates or buying military memorabilia--and who can begrudge a man that?

Likewise, John Cleese. Several ads--some faintly amusing at least--and you know he has to pay off all those grasping ex-wives.

I'm not quite at the Bill Hicks level, but if it looks like you'll do anything your agent throws at you, you're off the artistic register. I like Cederic Bandersnatch, but he's become painfully ubiquitous in recent years.

I don't think I've ever seen that before, but yeah, looks like he did some ads. He was also in some movies like "Eat The Rich" which I remember being okay although I was a teenager when I saw it.
You'd think a man that played Bilbo in a massive movie wouldn't need to play a guy in an ad for Vodafone or whatever it is.
 
I only got this for the pictures, and they are not that good.
IMG_20180916_0706121.jpg
 
Really?

I rate Alan Lee quite highly. His pictures always seem 'tonally' right--in both senses of the word.

Can you give us a peek?
 
Really?

I rate Alan Lee quite highly. His pictures always seem 'tonally' right--in both senses of the word.

Can you give us a peek?
This is the worst offender in my eyes, glorfindal and the balrog, the balrog looks pathetic, and there is no sense of action or movement .
IMG_20180916_0757574~2.jpg
 
I agree. I like the background and setting, but not the figures.
 
Alan Lee is normally pretty good.
I met him once, years ago.
That picture above...the human figure is not so believable, but the Balrog is OK.
 
Back
Top