Lord of the Rings actually used significantly less CGI than one would expect. It was used for obvious stuff like the Eye of Sauron, Trolls, Ents, and various forms of magic. But they put a lot of work into perspective tricks to, for example, make the actors playing Hobbits appear Hobbit-sized without having to use any CGI.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here. If the characters in The Hobbit get their weapons from a treasure trove that originated in Gondolin, how is The Hobbit an "unrelated work"?



Policemen and China LOL.

No, I think the most obvious clue that it was meant to be set in modern-day Earth was the use of birthday presents. And dragons.

It doesn't. Neither does it make the fact those weapons are from Gondolin in any way shape or form relevant to the story of the book.

I as usually don't get the joke. And as someone who DOES live on modern-day Earth (if not the real one) and DOES have to deal with dragons from time to time I don't find that part of your point necessarily all that convincing.

*winces*

Thanks for pointing out that typo Spoonist...obviously I meant LOTR...

Lord of The Rings though shouldn't be much of a judge on the Hobbit. At least the parts that are actually from the Hobbit book. They are two very different stories, and it shows to those who read them. So for the actual Hobbit parts I'm going to judge Jackson on his talent, not how he did LOTR. The Ring War stuff though...that's closer to his older movies, so I can judge them compared to LOTR.

---

SDNW5: Republic of Arcadia...Sweden in SPAAACE

I guess that's true, although it does explain why Sting's enchantment is so reliable.

New trailer:

Looks tits. Can't wait.

I cannot wait for this movie to come out!