|
So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie.
That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set.
On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown.
If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
|
On June 27 2011 23:12 Sm3agol wrote:
So....lets get this straight. You're criticizing the movies for not portraying certain aspects of the story well, while simultaneously admitting you don't even remember a major part of the story in the books.
This argument makes no sense. Why would I need to remember the details of the story *in the books* to have an informed opinion on the quality of the story *in the movies*? I'm criticizing the way the movies portray the story in the movies, the end result of the adaptation from the books, not the accuracy relative to the source material (which I frankly don't care much for since the mediums are completely different).
It should go without saying that the movies should stand on their own. The Balrog in the first movie was awesome because of the buildup and cinematic presentation, not because of the wording in the book.
|
On June 27 2011 21:51 Supamang wrote:
i see people every once in a while complain about the movies, but no one really gives a good reason why. can anyone give me some good reasons?
(please dont mention Tom Bombadil. that side story was completely pointless and very corny. it was, in fact, my least favorite part of the entire series and I read the books long before the movies came out) While I did really enjoy the movies, Tolkien's work is so overwhelmingly rich in backstory and details that it's almost impossible to carry that over to the movies. Of course, I perfectly understand the reasoning for that, you can't make a 100 hour long movie and I'm fine with that, but still, the movies didn't have that special 'feel' of the books. Tolkien's work is so masterfully created, every little piece connects to the story and when you botch some parts of the story and leave out some others it just doesn't make 'a whole' if you get what I mean.
Plus Merrin and Pippin ruined every scene they were in with their horrible acting.
I'll stress it again though, I found the movies entertaining and they certainly weren't bad.
|
in comparison to other film adaptation of other series, LOTR did a great job.
Go read the Harry Potter series and then watch the movies. It is almost unbearable to watch the movie. You can tell the director was just incompetent sometimes and just hashed and threw shit together at the last second ( Prisoner of azkaban: in the book Harry gets a new broomstick for his match but in the movie he gets the broom at the end of the movie when he is heading home). At least PJ didn't just throw shit together at the expense of the storyline.
|
I'm sorry for being a retard, but after reading a couple of pages, I still can't figure out when this is coming out. Is there any release date set?
|
It is gonna be in 2 parts, the first part is supposed to come out in 2012 and the second part in 2013.
|
Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment...
|
On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote:So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie. That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set. Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown. If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release.
No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions+ Show Spoiler + (remember saruman died in return of the king
The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil.
The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands.
Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie.
Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect.
The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned.
|
Well I've been looking for years for a decent place to gripe about Peter Jackson's LotR. Now he overall did a great job and got most of the important stuff right but:
In the extended edition the Witch King (head Nazgul) breaks Gandalf's staff in RotK when Gandalf is trying to run back to save Faramir from crazed Denethor. No, just no. Gandalf was more powerful than any of the ringwraiths, although not necessarily all 9 combined. For that matter, he didn't use quite enough magic in the 2nd and 3rd film, although I'm aware his generally didn't use it unless as a last resort and his specialty was actually as the "mover of great deeds" and "steward of the 3rd Age," etc.
Gimli and Legolas=too much comic relief focus and less friendship development, other than through their counting heads in battle. I really did like the scene after Helm's Deep when Legolas shoots the orc Gimli's perched on and Gimli's like, "that's 'cause MY AXE is embedded in his nervous system." But overall they were left undone.
I read someone say it wasn't serious and scary enough, and I'm like wtf? Did you see when they spawned the orc in FotR? That was completely disgusting. Then they're talking to him naked and still dripping with mud and waste and the orc's being about as scary and disgusting as possible. I thought that was too far and would turn off LotR virgins.
The representation of Sauron was kind of interesting at first but by RotK he should have had a corporeal body. In the books he had it the whole time ever since Gollum was captured by Sauron. Gollum specifically said there are only 4 fingers on Sauron's black hand. So I kind of understand them wanting to make a giant eye fireball, but Sauron should have eventually returned to humanoid form. I was almost expecting him to look up in the sky and make a Nazgul outline a la Gordon messaging Batman with the light over the city.
Tom Bombadil--sure leave him out, I used to think he was boring (I actually enjoy that part a lot nowadays <3). But the Scouring of the Shire is one of the best and funniest parts. Total failure by PJ not doing that. He should have scrapped all that extra Faramir BS in Two Towers and for that matter ended that one where it ended in the book.
I realize that might have looked lame since good ol' Harry Potter had some relatively pathetic giant spiders come out the same year as The Two Towers in Chamber of Secrets, but screw that and do LotR right. Shelob's lair was a massive disappointment. It was supposed to feel like hours of traveling through utter dark and in increasingly unbearable stuffy blackness. I realize it's hard to show complete dark in a movie, but a friggin' blue cave of wonders with spider webs is not the answer. Shelob herself looked about right at least, and when she re-emerged over the pass that was actually quite well done.
At the end of The Two Towers, there was no drama over Frodo being alive but in the hands of the enemy, instead all of that was somewhat rushed in RotK, just like much of RotK was rushed in order to omit Scouring of the Shire. Alright, it probably wasn't for that reason, but the story was so accelerated and they felt they had to please movie critics more than fans at a certain point.
What is possibly the saddest thing besides no Scouring of the Shire, was looking at how small Mordor, and Middle-Earth felt, compared to how it feels in the book. With the lighting of the beacons scene, I held out hope because that did actually make Gondor<->Rohan look pretty far. But then it took 1 1/2 days to cross the plains of Mordor. In the book it took about 10 days from the time Frodo and Sam escaped the tower of Cirith Ungol until the climactic scene at Mount Doom, I believe. I realize that could be boring to the new viewers and non-hardcore LotR fans, but they could have done a little more to convey the length of the journey and time it really took. Instead they made it look like a half day's journey from Cirith Ungol to the Black Gate, with the length of the Eye of Sauron searchlight reaching anywhere within a 15 mile radius. Mordor basically looked to be about 1/3 as large as it was supposed to be and that just kills the intimidation factor, imo.
I suppose that's a fundamental problem of the battle of the Pelennor fields...it's rather climactic in feel and they wanted to keep the pace going and basically shortened the duration of anything that happened between that and Mount Doom.
Sauron's final army was way more than 10,000 orcs, they should have left that line out of the movie, even though it was just a rhetorical comment. The book clearly states that the one in the attack on Gondor was just one "finger" of the hand of Sauron. They were implying it was about a fifth of Sauron's army, although a "fifth" isn't as important as, "this isn't nearly his full strength." They were also considering using the human/dark lord form for Sauron to fight Aragorn in this final battle, which probably would have been a bad thing, but it shows they were clearly considering whether or not to represent Sauron as the giant fiery eyeball until the very end.
Once again, I really did like the movies overall, but some things did and continue to drive me nuts.
TL;DR Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff. Gimli and Legolas development. Sauron the Eye in the Sky. The grossness of orcs got too much screen time. No Scouring of Shire, 2 minute Shelob's lair, no "cliffhanger" ending with Frodo in hands of enemy, and worst of all, Mordor was smaller than Denver. The final journey through Mordor felt totally rushed as well as the march north of the 6,000 led by Aragorn.
Here is a brief anecdote of me visiting my brother-in-law's brother in Washington state a couple weeks after RotK came out in theaters. We're driving home from restaurant and the movie comes up in discussion. I'm chillin' in the back with nerdy thoughts, as some of you may understand, but anyways the remark from my bro-in-law's bro was something like this: "Well, I guess we're done with that now, the big eye ball was destroyed, everyone's happy. We can all get on with our lives" This painful remark has stayed with me for years. He didn't understand I'm like a fanatic (I never met him before), and even more embarrassingly I think my bro-in law told him later it was a big deal to me. I don't really care about that anymore but the fact that newbies to LotR may have seen those movies and the end result for them was that the big eyeball was destroyed, can I stop caring now? That just makes me sad for them and anyone else who didn't get anything more from those movies.
Now to be fair, this was just one guy who probably has to put on macho airs like many men do. Crying at movies and hobbit goodbye scenes is most likely not his "style." But I'm still haunted by the fact that people might not read the Lord of the Rings because of Peter Jackson's portrayal being too focused on the battles, evilness of the orcs and the scary eyeball. It seriously bothers me and probably will until I'm dead, because there will very likely not be any initiative to re do these movies in my lifetime. Yes, they were that good on the whole, and the special effects aren't exactly going to improve enough. Gollum basically looked real, etc.
And back to my original first gripe, why the heck would the With King break Gandalf's staff in the "FOR FANS" Extended Edition. Hellooooo!? Fans are the ones who know Gandalf is more powerful than said Witch King.
Please do the Hobbit even better. I still consider LotR as my "favorite movies" based on the fact they are representations of my favorite book. So they're my "cop-out favorite movies," if you will.
Oh, and Sam loves rope, not daggers thank you. Give him his magic elf-earth miracle gro soil box too please. I guess you'd have to have Scouring of the Shire to make that fit properly. Woops. So yea, I really shouldn't get started on this issue or I'll be attempting to beat Artosis's Zelda rant.
|
On June 28 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote:
Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment...
Google up Tom Bombadil. There's some mind boggling articles about him. Some people argue he is Aule, one of the Valars. Some other say he can't be categorized in Tolkien's legendarium. Anyways, I read those articles a long time ago, not so fresh in my memory right now, so I can't say more.
|
Pretty much agrees with most of the Lotr gripe of Ansinjunger, but I still enjoyed the movies a lot while taking them for what they are, and I am seeing forward to the next movies. 
|
On June 28 2011 00:31 PetitCrabe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote:
Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment... Google up Tom Bombadil. There's some mind boggling articles about him. Some people argue he is Aule, one of the Valars. Some other say he can't be categorized in Tolkien's legendarium. Anyways, I read those articles a long time ago, not so fresh in my memory right now, so I can't say more.
I always thought he was an ancient Maiar (the lesser race of Valars) whose story was just never told. He would have to have been one of the first to ever come to Middle-Earth (from Eru) and simply made his home and kept to himself. Or perhaps he has a disturbed backstory from the first Age or before and decided not to involve himself anymore. Him being Aule doesn't make sense when you consider Aule's power>>>Sauron's, in theory. Any of the original 14 Valar should be stronger than Sauron, even tho Sauron was originally one of, if not the strongest Maiar.
Or I've also wondered if he indeed is some separate creature that is neither Maiar, Valar, Elf, or Man. I don't think we'll ever really know. I wonder why there was a theory he was Aule, when Aule's specialty was essentially the same as that of dwarves (blacksmithing, mining, metal and stone working, etc.), the race he created.
So who is really older, Tom Bombadil or Fangorn (Treebeard)? I don't mean Treebeard after the elves "woke up the trees" and taught them to speak but rather the implication that he was alive as a tree for a very long time before Elves. Gandalf refers to Treebeard as the "oldest of all living things" while Tom Bombadil calls himself "Eldest" and says he was "here before the river and the trees" and that he remembers "the first raindrop and the first acorn." I think if it came down to it, Bombadil would end up being older than Treebeard.
|
I consider Peter Jackson's cutting out of the parts with Tom Bombadil from the movies, as a blessing.
|
On June 28 2011 01:01 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 00:31 PetitCrabe wrote:On June 28 2011 00:24 Kukaracha wrote:
Tom Bombadil was awesome. I never quite fully understood that guy. Reading the books at that moment was a succession of "WTF".
And no, battles weren't useless cutscenes. You don't understand that it was the introduction of a new technology with a huge commercial potential. Let's be realistic for a moment... Google up Tom Bombadil. There's some mind boggling articles about him. Some people argue he is Aule, one of the Valars. Some other say he can't be categorized in Tolkien's legendarium. Anyways, I read those articles a long time ago, not so fresh in my memory right now, so I can't say more. I always thought he was an ancient Maiar (the lesser race of Valars) whose story was just never told. He would have to have been one of the first to ever come to Middle-Earth (from Eru) and simply made his home and kept to himself. Or perhaps he has a disturbed backstory from the first Age or before and decided not to involve himself anymore. Him being Aule doesn't make sense when you consider Aule's power>>>Sauron's, in theory. Any of the original 14 Valar should be stronger than Sauron, even tho Sauron was originally one of, if not the strongest Maiar. Or I've also wondered if he indeed is some separate creature that is neither Maiar, Valar, Elf, or Man. I don't think we'll ever really know. I wonder why there was a theory he was Aule, when Aule's specialty was essentially the same as that of dwarves (blacksmithing, mining, metal and stone working, etc.), the race he created. So who is really older, Tom Bombadil or Fangorn (Treebeard)? I don't mean Treebeard after the elves "woke up the trees" and taught them to speak but rather the implication that he was alive as a tree for a very long time before Elves. Gandalf refers to Treebeard as the "oldest of all living things" while Tom Bombadil calls himself "Eldest" and says he was "here before the river and the trees" and that he remembers "the first raindrop and the first acorn." I think if it came down to it, Bombadil would end up being older than Treebeard. I believe that Tom is some sort of representation of Eru, who doesn't know it himself, Treebeard is just a really really old Ent.
I also secretly believe that Tolkien didn't actually wrote the story himself, but merely retold real events that happened in another dimension/distant past/universe/other planet. I'd be surprised if I'd be the only one to think that 
|
On June 28 2011 01:02 Bibdy wrote:
I consider Peter Jackson's cutting out of the parts with Tom Bombadil from the movies, as a blessing.
Sir,I demand your head on a pole.
|
On June 28 2011 01:02 Bibdy wrote:
I consider Peter Jackson's cutting out of the parts with Tom Bombadil from the movies, as a blessing.
in a strange way me too....
Bombadil was awesome in the books, but it would have slowed the film down sooooooo much
and they didnt really cut him out, hes kind of seen in treebeard - having alot of his lines and stuff
im happy that they picked peter jackson for this, he did an increible job with LotR i think
|
On June 28 2011 00:26 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote:So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie. That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set. On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown. If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release. No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions + Show Spoiler + (remember saruman died in return of the king) . There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions. The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil. The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands. Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie. Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect. The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned.
Legolas will probably appear in the second movie, being the son of the Elven King Thranduil as (most likely) a captain in the army during the Battle of the Five Armies. Possibly Gimli as well, as he was already 62 and probably present with Dain Ironfoot's force as well when the Battle occured. Aragorn MIGHT have a cameo appearance as a ten-year-old boy in Rivendell while Bilbo and the Dwarves are there; maybe Elladan and Elrohir as well (who appear as extras during Arwen's marriage in RotK). Frodo is still unborn as of 2941 T.A I however fully expect Galadriel, Radagast AND Saruman to appear among the people that will be clashing with the Necromancer Sauron along with Gandalf when they film that part.
|
On June 28 2011 05:13 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 00:26 Darpa wrote:On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote:So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie. That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set. On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown. If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release. No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions + Show Spoiler + (remember saruman died in return of the king) . There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions. The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil. The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands. Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie. Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect. The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned. Legolas will probably appear in the second movie, being the son of the Elven King Thranduil as (most likely) a captain in the army during the Battle of the Five Armies. Possibly Gimli as well, as he was already 62 and probably present with Dain Ironfoot's force as well when the Battle occured. Aragorn MIGHT have a cameo appearance as a ten-year-old boy in Rivendell while Bilbo and the Dwarves are there; maybe Elladan and Elrohir as well (who appear as extras during Arwen's marriage in RotK). Frodo is still unborn as of 2941 T.A I however fully expect Galadriel, Radagast AND Saruman to appear among the people that will be clashing with the Necromancer Sauron along with Gandalf when they film that part.
Thats exactly my point, but Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortinson have both been confirmed for reprising their roles (albeit short) in the movies. Aragorn would still be a grown man at that point would he not? the Hobbit took place 50 years before Lord of the rings, which would put Aragorn in his late twenties, early thirties. Gimli on the other hand might be with Dain Ironfoot, but it would simply be for the cameo appearence. Gimli's line is not from the Iron hills east of River town (where Thorin and Dain are). His family resides in the blue mountains west of the shire (at least I thought from the andex at the back of RotK. Correct me if I'm wrong).
|
On June 28 2011 05:18 Darpa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 05:13 Ciryandor wrote:On June 28 2011 00:26 Darpa wrote:On June 27 2011 23:45 strongandbig wrote:So I'm also a fan of the movies, but I do think that the critics' position isn't being treated fairly; most criticism I've heard from fans of the books isn't about what parts got left out, everyone knows that the books had to be abridged a bit to fit in a movie. The criticism usually focuses on how specific characters were mis-represented in the movies to fit the simplified plotlines. Examples I've heard were Faramir, who was made into a douche, and Denethor, who had redeeming qualities in the book but none in the movie. That said, it seems like most of the anti-movie posts in this thread are, like mine, from a "devil's advocate" or "I like the movies but this is one argument against them" point of view. Y'all should probably read this part of the thread less as an actual attack on the movies and more as a discussion of the arguments on both sides; it seems like there are only one or two posters who actually oppose the Hobbit movie because they didn't like the first set. On June 27 2011 21:15 zatic wrote:
Didn't they have the cleansing of the Shire or do I remember the movies wrong?
I agree the adaptation was very very good overall. Except for Gimli. I won't forgive them making my favorite character a retarded clown. If memory serves me right, they included a version of the scouring of the shire in the extended edition of the movies, but cut it out of the theatrical release. No, there was no cleansing of the shire in the extended versions + Show Spoiler + (remember saruman died in return of the king) . There were two parts of the book that were significant that were not included at all or even mentioned in the theatrical or extended versions. The first was the Barrow downs and Tom Bombadil. The second was the cleansing of the shire from Sarumon and his brigands. Personally I cant wait, I loved the first set and I think the hobbit will be great. My only concern is they have announced a ton of characters who were never actually in the book that are appearing in the movie. Legolas, Frodo, Aragorn, ect. The only one that makes sense is legolas, given his father led the elves in the battle of 5 armies, so there is a fairly good chance he was actually present at the battle but not mentioned. Legolas will probably appear in the second movie, being the son of the Elven King Thranduil as (most likely) a captain in the army during the Battle of the Five Armies. Possibly Gimli as well, as he was already 62 and probably present with Dain Ironfoot's force as well when the Battle occured. Aragorn MIGHT have a cameo appearance as a ten-year-old boy in Rivendell while Bilbo and the Dwarves are there; maybe Elladan and Elrohir as well (who appear as extras during Arwen's marriage in RotK). Frodo is still unborn as of 2941 T.A I however fully expect Galadriel, Radagast AND Saruman to appear among the people that will be clashing with the Necromancer Sauron along with Gandalf when they film that part. Thats exactly my point, but Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortinson have both been confirmed for reprising their roles (albeit short) in the movies. Aragorn would still be a grown man at that point would he not? the Hobbit took place 50 years before Lord of the rings, which would put Aragorn in his late twenties, early thirties. Gimli on the other hand might be with Dain Ironfoot, but it would simply be for the cameo appearence. Gimli's line is not from the Iron hills east of River town (where Thorin and Dain are). His family resides in the blue mountains west of the shire (at least I thought from the andex at the back of RotK. Correct me if I'm wrong).
No, Aragorn would be 10 years old during the Battle of the Five Armies. The Hobbit takes place in T.A. 2941, LotR takes place in TA Autumn 3018 - Spring 3019, which is 77 years later. Yes, my mistake, a quick look at Gimli's history (Quest of Erebor - Unfinished Tales) shows him to have been left behind by Thorin Oakenshield's expedition in Ered Luin. The likeliest explanation for a Frodo appearance would be his presence in Balin's last visit to Bag End at approximately T.A. 2984, at age 16, he was living in Bag End with Bilbo after his parents drowned four years prior. This makes me wonder how they'll shoehorn in Aragorn's appearance, maybe in a few scenes showing his leadership of the Dunedain of Arnor in protecting The Shire, or meeting Gandalf and commencing the Hunt for Gollum.
|
In the LOTR extended edition appendices, Peter Jackson specifically states that Tom Bombadil scenes could have happened, they just weren't shown. With the way the screenplay was written, Frodo and gang could easily have run into Tom.
So who knows, maybe in some future super extended version, they can film a Tom Bombadil scene for the lulz.
Whereas Scourging of the Shire could not have happened, with Sarumon getting killed off in the earlier scenes of ROTK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
