EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/TheHobbitFilm13Dwarves.jpg)
LOTR The Hobbit
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Psyc
Canada11 Posts
| ||
|
Alryk
United States2718 Posts
Edit: First post  | ||
|
RyanRushia
United States2748 Posts
the nerd chills in me are intensifying by the minute | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27139 Posts
| ||
MrHoon
10183 Posts
| ||
|
Psyc
Canada11 Posts
 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
lizzuma
United States301 Posts
| ||
|
MrMotionPicture
United States4327 Posts
| ||
|
Toez
France167 Posts
| ||
|
Jeremyy
Canada182 Posts
| ||
|
Fu[G]u
United States187 Posts
Tom Bombadil is awesome in the books, I am not convinced that he would of come off well in the big screen. Beorn is most def in "the hobbit' rest assured though. I mean he is a wizard bear how the fuck could that not be awesome Great point. One of the reasons I loved Tom Bombadil so much was how strange and querky he was. A brilliant character in text, but a very difficult one to bring to life. theorycraft about who could play him? Id say someone like robin williams in his younger days, but not anymore.. tough question. And your comments about Beorn make me happy. God he is an awesome character, so much potential on the big screen too. | ||
|
Arthemesia
United States292 Posts
| ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
This should be awesome, I haven't read the book in a long-ass time though, only remember the general story and sort of who lives and who dies. On December 21 2011 13:04 Jeremyy wrote: Looks like a cool movie but sorta sucks that they're just re-using many of the same characters from the original movies... What does this even mean? That's like saying, "Man, it sucks that Spider-man 2 is reusing a lot of the characters from the original Spider-man film". This is a prequel based on a book that had these characters in it. | ||
|
Andrew2658
United States356 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wonder how long both films will be? Expect over 6 hours seeing how it is Peter Jackson... I'm hoping that they will both be similar in length to the LotR films. | ||
|
Eogris
United States148 Posts
| ||
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:04 Jeremyy wrote: Looks like a cool movie but sorta sucks that they're just re-using many of the same characters from the original movies... You posted the same exact statement on the previous thread not sure if serious | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
Oldfool
Australia394 Posts
Trailer looks good, hope it's not too dark of a movie, though. | ||
|
Herper
501 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:08 Andrew2658 wrote: I'm hoping that they will both be similar in length to the LotR films. I feel the same way and hope it is the case. | ||
|
Underoath
Peru113 Posts
I really hope it meets Peter Jackson's LOTR quality and expectations. Either way I'm already a fan so it will be a must for me! | ||
|
oldfartz
Philippines117 Posts
| ||
|
RosaParksStoleMySeat
Japan926 Posts
| ||
|
CounterOrder
Canada457 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:14 oldfartz wrote: heh, midgets no thanks. What are you doing in a LOTR thread then  | ||
|
Xirdain
United States28 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Wonder how long both films will be? Expect over 6 hours seeing how it is Peter Jackson... Doesn't seem like a problem to me.. I mean, do you honestly think anyone would be satisfied if he rehashed the Hobbit into an hour and a half of cinema? | ||
|
Iranon
United States983 Posts
OH WAIT. That's not the cold, it's Thorin fucking Oakenshield singing Over the Misty Mountains Cold. Marking my calendar. | ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
| ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
| ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:21 Happylime wrote: So let's ask this...who will watch both hobbit movies and the LOTR movies in one day after they come out? Do you really even need to ask?? :p Watching the 3 LOTR films back to back is up there with steak dinner and sex :D | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:12 Herper wrote: I feel the same way and hope it is the case. It's Peter Jackson. It's gona be a good length film. I honestly can't wait.... | ||
|
hai2u
688 Posts
| ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
| ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
it didn't show much tho, basically people walking then the trailer ends | ||
|
arfyron
518 Posts
| ||
|
ReturnStroke
United States801 Posts
| ||
|
blobrus
4297 Posts
| ||
|
klaxen
United States361 Posts
| ||
|
cmen15
United States1519 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:32 hai2u wrote: this will be the 1st movie im seeing in theaters in over 5 years! O come on you have to see The dark Knight Rises also : ) I can not freaking wait for this to come out, huge fan of Lotr. I must say though this was one of the few trailers i have watched that made me excited!! | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
| ||
|
Achilles306
Canada84 Posts
| ||
|
Denis Lachance
Canada162 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:19 SupLilSon wrote: Doesn't seem like a problem to me.. I mean, do you honestly think anyone would be satisfied if he rehashed the Hobbit into an hour and a half of cinema? God that would be a travesty. So glad peter jackson is doing this. | ||
|
lightrise
United States1355 Posts
| ||
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
The Hobbit has to be one of the easiest to read amongst all his books. Epic trailer is Epic | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
Based off how the trailer was progressing, I didn't think I'd get chills. But the ending with smeagol was perfect. Cannot wait! | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
looks soo goooood | ||
|
Brettatron
Canada159 Posts
Also: Silmarilion next please for the love of everything holy in the world let the epicness continue. | ||
|
StormShield24
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
Hekisui
195 Posts
I don't rate the LotR movies very highly ignoring the production value. I completely hate the modern day Hollywood style. | ||
|
Mataru
Norway356 Posts
| ||
|
hysterial
United States2044 Posts
| ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On December 21 2011 14:28 Hekisui wrote: Some dwarves are real actors, others are CGI? WTF. I don't rate the LotR movies very highly ignoring the production value. I completely hate the modern day Hollywood style. Pretty sure they all have real actors, might be a little bit of hollywood magic with the beards and whatnot. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
To dungeons deep and caverns old We must away ere break of day To seek the pale enchanted gold. FUCK YES | ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:02 lizzuma wrote: I've been waiting my entire life for this You and me both buddy, this has always been one of my favourite books, cant believe it is being directed with this cast and quality! great job | ||
|
Introvert
United States4718 Posts
| ||
|
Kurast
Australia35 Posts
| ||
|
Gimmickkz
154 Posts
| ||
|
LiamTheZerg
United States523 Posts
| ||
|
Shai
Canada806 Posts
This movie is not a prequel or sequel to The Lord of the Rings. LotR is a sequel to this. | ||
|
Hashbaz
United States340 Posts
| ||
|
paddyz
Ireland628 Posts
| ||
|
NoobieOne
United States1183 Posts
| ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
| ||
|
Regorr
306 Posts
| ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
| ||
|
Hamsterdam
New Zealand59 Posts
| ||
|
Spiffeh
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
Merany
France890 Posts
| ||
|
Chrispy
Canada5878 Posts
| ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
StormShield24
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
Pick
United States35 Posts
Although we might have a two year wait for him. He might not make his appearance until the second movie in 2013. | ||
|
MajuGarzett
Canada635 Posts
| ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
| ||
|
Hirmu
Finland850 Posts
| ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On December 21 2011 15:45 MajuGarzett wrote: Does anyone know if Christopher Lee will be playing Saruman? Christopher Lee Will be back as Sauroman. Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, and Cate Blanchette have all been confirmed as reprising their roles. Elijah wood will provide some sort of transition role. They will go with Gandalf when he leaves the party of dwarves and does random badassery around Middle Earth, unlike in the books where it just kinda half mentions it off hand. I don't understand. How is this any different than the Lord of the Ring movies that have already come out? Well quite simple LotR is based on the LotR trilogy, where as The Hobbit will be based upon The Hobbit. | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:14 oldfartz wrote: heh, midgets no thanks. Get out man, you're not fit to be in the company of Halflings and Dwarves. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
On December 21 2011 15:04 Shai wrote: Can we please change the title of this thread. The Hobbit is not a Lord of the Rings book. That's like saying Star Wars: A New Hope is a Return of the Jedi film. This movie is not a prequel or sequel to The Lord of the Rings. LotR is a sequel to this. i don't get it. sorry to argue logic with you? but.. this movie would be a prequel if LotR is a sequel. | ||
|
MajuGarzett
Canada635 Posts
On December 21 2011 15:52 feanor1 wrote: Christopher Lee Will be back as Sauroman. Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, Ian McKellan, and Cate Blanchette have all been confirmed as reprising their roles. Elijah wood will provide some sort of transition role. They will go with Gandalf when he leave the party of dwarves and does random badassery around Middle Earth, unlike in the books where it just kinda half mentions it off hand. Well quite simple LotR is based on the LotR trilogy, where as The Hobbit will be based upon The Hobbit. Okay, thanks for confirming that. I had heard he wouldn't be going to New Zealand because of his age but I'm glad he'll be in the film. | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
On December 21 2011 14:35 Introvert wrote: Just PLEASE continue book to movie accuracy. Some of the stuff in the trailer was suspect in that regard.... But still, Peter Jackson and LOTR. Should be amazing. A whole LOT of it will be suspect; just because they'll need to build on the White Council stuff. | ||
|
Rodiel3
France1158 Posts
| ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
| ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:04 Jeremyy wrote: Looks like a cool movie but sorta sucks that they're just re-using many of the same characters from the original movies... Oh for the love of god!!!! You know LOTR/Hobbit were books loooong before they decided to make movies right ?! | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On December 21 2011 16:11 Humanfails wrote: G-dalf is older. Hobbit is after LOTR? No....Hobbit is before LOTR. You can see Bilbo was young, Bilbo finding the ring... And Gandalf actually can't age. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
But I expect the movie be awesome just because it is LoTR and Peter Jackson. | ||
|
Detwiler
United States239 Posts
PS. Why couldn't they just make the Similarion? | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
| ||
|
GenesisX
Canada4267 Posts
| ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
I CANT WAIT !!! | ||
|
Essbee
Canada2371 Posts
| ||
|
NekoFlandre
United States497 Posts
CANNOT WAIT! | ||
|
ChinaWhite
United Kingdom239 Posts
On December 21 2011 16:21 Detwiler wrote: I may be the only person not really looking forward to this. Its a lose lose to me.Don't get me wrong I loved LOTR but it was a serious movie and book. The Hobbit was a kids book. I don't want to watch a kids movie I have no interest in it. On the other hand if they tried to make it serious I would despise it for straying so far from the book... Don't hate me TL =( PS. Why couldn't they just make the Similarion? I really hope they do at some point. The Silmarilion actually has the most potential of all of his works, but it will need an excellent script writer to fill in the gaps and turn it into an audience friendly narrative. It will probably work best being released last anyway when people have a better understanding of the world already. | ||
|
HoodedAvatar
Canada115 Posts
| ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
| ||
|
icclown
Denmark270 Posts
| ||
|
BeaSteR
Sweden328 Posts
| ||
|
adiga
495 Posts
On December 21 2011 16:39 Humanfails wrote: I hope the book follows the movie after it is published. You serious? -.- OMG I CAN'T WAIT to see Smaug on the big screen! It's actually coming true, my dream, It is! :O:O:O:D:D Well now that I thought about it, At least we will the first movie few days before the world comes to an end... :D | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
| ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
Dbars
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
Never really liked the LotR movies as they are to grimdark and stale for me. The Hobbit looks to be alot more fun and colorful. Hopefully there will be more character interaction and banter a la SW ep 4-5-6 and less bland "noble warrior"-types a la LotR. | ||
|
Caryc
Germany330 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
Obvious joke is obvious, I know, I know. I am super excited to see this movie. I'm a reformed book purist who has come around to realize the movie adapation is an adaption and the books remain the same no matter what changes are made in the film. As such, I greatly enjoy the LotR's and The Hobbit can't come out soon enough for me. I think it's quite neat how they're actually incorporating some of Tolkien's songs in and it looks like visually it will be similar and will maintain the seriousness. However, there will be some more comic relief as they will be throwing dishes and falling through the door on top of each other. That last trailer has got me super pumped. Oh and I would totally love someone to take a shot at a couple of Tolkien's stories (take Turin Turambar or the Fall of Gondolin or anything really and you have the makings of an epic story. Given the sorts of things they're making movies out of these days- Battleship, Where the Wild Things Are (actually a genuinely good movie, but consider there's like 9 sentences they made a movie out of.) it's not entirely unreasonable. The one thing is I would like someone else to direct it other than Jackson. Not because of his movies- I quite like what he has done. I just don't want Jackson to turn into a one trick pony like George Lucas. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
| ||
|
Smaug.GR
Greece95 Posts
| ||
|
KryptoStorm
England377 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On December 21 2011 16:52 stormtemplar wrote: The main problem with the sillmarilion as I read it is that you can't just DO the silmarillion. It would take three films of its own. There is such a vast oversupply of characters, places, wars and dates in first and second age history, even when narrowed down to the stories of the simarills that despite spending the vast majority of the non-LOTR/Hobbit writing time on that time period, Tolkien was nowhere near completing it when he died. Agreed. I read re-read silmarillion quite recently and I have a hard time seeing how you'd turn that into a working movie. The only way it would work is to take one small part of the book and expand on that. | ||
|
iSometric
2221 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:04 Jeremyy wrote: Looks like a cool movie but sorta sucks that they're just re-using many of the same characters from the original movies... Lol... Are you trolling? | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
I bet he'll rage when he sees the eagles. | ||
|
Regime
Australia185 Posts
| ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10301 Posts
| ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
At least when hollywood sodomizes one of my favorite childhood stories they can't make another after this. Of course I'll watch it. But the LOTR trilogy failed to rewrite the epic memories and replace the actual characters images in my mind with the actors. Yay for everyone liking LOTR. If 1/5 people read the books for the first time then I'll buy a ticket and the DVD. But I don't have to be particularly impressed. | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3674 Posts
| ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
Can't even begin to describe how much this means to me. Hope P.J delivers once again. | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
Ive read the hobbit maybe 25 times over my life it is simply one of the best books ive ever read, all those memories as a child. I cannot wait for this film!! HYPED! | ||
|
Amestir
Netherlands2126 Posts
| ||
|
Bloodash
Netherlands1384 Posts
On December 21 2011 18:02 Smaug.GR wrote: 2,5min trailer, not a single shot of Smaug. meh. I think Smaug doesn't get any screentime in this part, its been a long time since I've read the book but I'm pretty sure Smaug was at the very end, so we'll have to wait another year for part 2 | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
On December 21 2011 18:11 gruff wrote: Agreed. I read re-read silmarillion quite recently and I have a hard time seeing how you'd turn that into a working movie. The only way it would work is to take one small part of the book and expand on that. I honestly think that if you take History of Middle Earth material as well, you can easily make 5 movies out of the First Age, and that there's enough material for the Akallabeth and the Last Alliance for another movie as well. I'll repost something I typed up on Reddit with respect to splitting the Silmarillion and dividing it into films. Here's how I would split the book to movies: The Fall of Feanor could encompass his creation of the Silmarils, the destruction of the Trees then ramp to the Kinslaying as its greatest tragedy, leading ultimately to the march across the Helcaraxe and ends with the Dagor-nuin-Giliath with the death of Feanor. The Lay of Leithian will cover Beren and Luthien, with a prologue of the Battle of Sudden Flame, ending with the forging of the Union of Maedhros. Narn i Chîn Húrin then covers everything from the Union all the way to the death of Turin; the presence of Glaurung sets the tone for the following movie. The Fall of Gondolin will be the penultimate in the series; showing Tuor's journey, his marriage to Idril, Maeglin's betrayal and the Fall of Gondolin and Glorfindel's battle with the Balrog! It will end with Earendil and Elwing meeting in Arvernien, then we proceed to the last. The Rise of the Morning Star is a dual-pronged name, referring to Earendil and his journey to the West, the War of Wrath, the opening of Eressea, and the raising of Numenor for the Edain. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Oh and I just finished watching the bonus documentaries for the production of the LOTR films. You wouldn't believe how much blood, sweat and tears thousands of people put in to make them what it is. I have absolute confidence that this will be just as good. Oh, and I hope Andy Serkis gets more recognition as Gollum. Just imagine how much better the character will be after Weta Digital's work on Avatar and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. They'll really be able to fully capture Andy's performance. | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On December 21 2011 16:52 stormtemplar wrote: The main problem with the sillmarilion as I read it is that you can't just DO the silmarillion. It would take three films of its own. There is such a vast oversupply of characters, places, wars and dates in first and second age history, even when narrowed down to the stories of the simarills that despite spending the vast majority of the non-LOTR/Hobbit writing time on that time period, Tolkien was nowhere near completing it when he died. You could make ten films of it and it would still be a mess. Even a chapter in silmarillion is often on the same scale as the entire LotR, and that took 3 movies. You could probably make a movie about Beren and Luthien or some other story from the silmarilion, but I doubt there's an audience for a big budget movie (and it woud suck as a low budget movie) | ||
|
EdSlyB
Portugal1621 Posts
| ||
|
CAPSLOCKED
563 Posts
| ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
With "The Hobbit" I hope that they delve a bit more into the depth of the world to create the sense that this is a complete new world, not just a story with a setting it's housed in. | ||
|
NeonFox
2373 Posts
On December 21 2011 18:41 3clipse wrote: Hmm... hate to be a buzzkill, but the trailer didn't really thrill me. I might see it, but I just can't get excited for it like I could with the LOTR trilogy. Same, I actually like the Hobbit book more than the lotr ones, I guess this is more a teaser than a trailer, there's none of the epic moments. Edit : On second thought for once a trailer that doesn't show all the movie beforehand is a great thing. | ||
|
ZergX
France436 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:19 SupLilSon wrote: If one of the movies is less than 2.5 hours I will personally go to Jackson's house and force him to remake them*.Doesn't seem like a problem to me.. I mean, do you honestly think anyone would be satisfied if he rehashed the Hobbit into an hour and a half of cinema? *this might actually just be me being tough on the internet I can actually understand Cartman in that episode where he froze himself now. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
I wonder if/how they will make each of the 13 dwarfs unique. In the book, most of them had no personal backstory and no real individuality. I believe Tolkien missed some interesting possibilities here. I do not like the look of Thorin Oakenshield. I always thought of him as one of the oldest of the dwarfs, with a beard longer than his hair. He looks more like an arrogant leader in the prime of his strength and more like a small human than a huge dwarf. Not like the king of a lost kingdom, who turned bitter through a live of disappointments, who feels superior to everyone around him and who now tries to have one last shot to restore the long lost glory of his family. At least that was he used to be in my memory. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
| ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
 | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On December 21 2011 17:39 SilverLeagueElite wrote: You can't do Silmarillion as a movie. Too many short stories. You'd need a TV mini series or something. Yea and even the short stories are waaaaay too confusing. A third of the book is just genealogical trees! | ||
|
blubbdavid
Switzerland2412 Posts
| ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
| ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
| ||
|
NeWeNiyaLord
Norway2474 Posts
| ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
Oh well, hoping for a great movie! | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On December 21 2011 21:33 Lebzetu wrote: Yay, time to ruin an amazing series with a half assed sequel! yay, about time the idots come out of their holes. This is no sequel in fact the book "the hobbit" is older than LOTR and takes place before the events that happen in LOTR | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On December 21 2011 21:33 Lebzetu wrote: Yay, time to ruin an amazing series with a half assed sequel! ![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S4YfI3NbMb0/TaXv2NhMvJI/AAAAAAAABjE/hqKRb4JgRu0/s1600/haha_oh_wow.jpg) User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Shortynut
Australia78 Posts
| ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
| ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On December 21 2011 21:33 Lebzetu wrote: Yay, time to ruin an amazing series with a half assed sequel! Time to show the world you've read 2 books total in your life! | ||
|
idonthinksobro
3138 Posts
i dont really know if the people in this thread are trolling but how can anyone claim it will suck because its a bad sequel or it will suck because they reuse characters from the first movie. The hobbit is the "original novel" and based on its success tolkien decided to write lord of the rings. | ||
|
frantic.cactus
New Zealand164 Posts
Fans of the story will like it, hardcore fans of the BOOK will dislike it and a good time will be had by all. (Martin Freeman as Bilbo was an inspired piece of casting and the Dwarves all look badASS) | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On December 21 2011 21:33 Lebzetu wrote: Yay, time to ruin an amazing series with a half assed sequel! User was warned for this post | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On December 21 2011 21:45 Skilledblob wrote: yay, about time the idots come out of their holes. This is no sequel in fact the book "the hobbit" is older than LOTR and takes place before the events that happen in LOTR It was also meant as a children's book and is not nearly as good as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Even Tolkien himself said so. I read "the hobbit" but since I hardly remember anything of the book, I don't think I found it that interesting. Still, The Hobbit sure looks like it could be a good movie. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:12 Herper wrote: I feel the same way and hope it is the case. Fuck, I'd be ecstatic if each film was 6 hours in length for a net of 12 hours. I would pay to sit through that, and I would have the biggest goddamn grin on my face the entire time. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:30 maartendq wrote: It was also meant as a children's book and is not nearly as good as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Even Tolkien himself said so. I read "the hobbit" but since I hardly remember anything of the book, I don't think I found it that interesting. Still, The Hobbit sure looks like it could be a good movie. Many would disagree. The Hobbit is more accessible than LOTR which many (sadly) find too descriptive and slow paced these days. I personally prefer LOTR and it is my favourite book of all time. However, I can understand why it turns some off. On December 21 2011 22:40 Boonbag wrote: I hope he does the silmarillon someday after or even some of the unfinished tales The Silmarillion would be almost impossible to adapt to screen. There's just too much stuff going on that require proper explaining to be good. I guess he could pick out more standalone-ish stories to convert into films like The Children of Hurin and The Tale of Beren and Lúthien. I suppose he could also construct stories for the fall of numenor, the fall of gondolin and other important tales like that of Earendil. I'm not sure how motivated Peter Jackson would be after finishing The Hobbit though. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
or even some of the unfinished tales | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
But damn did you see al the fake trailers on youtube ? It's a feast. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51472 Posts
| ||
|
purpose
Sweden1017 Posts
The hobbit is alot more simple and easy to access and people like that. In any case, i think this movie will be epic. | ||
|
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:40 Telcontar wrote: Many would disagree. The Hobbit is more accessible than LOTR which many (sadly) find too descriptive and slow paced these days. I personally prefer LOTR and it is my favourite book of all time. However, I can understand why it turns some off. The Silmarillion would be almost impossible to adapt to screen. There's just too much stuff going on that require proper explaining to be good. I guess he could pick out more standalone-ish stories to convert into films like The Children of Hurin and The Tale of Beren and Lúthien. I suppose he could also construct stories for the fall of numenor, the fall of gondolin and other important tales like that of Earendil. I'm not sure how motivated Peter Jackson would be after finishing The Hobbit though. See my post in Page 7 on how a 5-movie set can cover the whole of the Silmarillion. On December 21 2011 19:44 Mafe wrote: Will probably a great movie. Period. I wonder if/how they will make each of the 13 dwarfs unique. In the book, most of them had no personal backstory and no real individuality. I believe Tolkien missed some interesting possibilities here. I do not like the look of Thorin Oakenshield. I always thought of him as one of the oldest of the dwarfs, with a beard longer than his hair. He looks more like an arrogant leader in the prime of his strength and more like a small human than a huge dwarf. Not like the king of a lost kingdom, who turned bitter through a live of disappointments, who feels superior to everyone around him and who now tries to have one last shot to restore the long lost glory of his family. At least that was he used to be in my memory. He was arrogant as fuck, if you've read the Unfinished Tales section on The Quest of Erebor (which is basically more backstory to how Bilbo ended up accompanying them), and wanted NOTHING to do with the hobbit until Gandalf nearly forced him to bring him along. I WANT to see that part expounded upon after we see them singing, as it adds dramatic gravitas to his initially bumbling presence. Arrogance and a hint of bitterness after all can come in one great package. | ||
|
Esto
Germany54 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/72/hdrfinal2.jpg/) | ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
| ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8333 Posts
| ||
|
Kznn
Brazil9072 Posts
On December 21 2011 21:33 Lebzetu wrote: Yay, time to ruin an amazing series with a half assed sequel! really? lol. the hobbit > LOTR trilogy | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Had to wait some years until I finally read LOTR. | ||
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:04 Jeremyy wrote: Looks like a cool movie but sorta sucks that they're just re-using many of the same characters from the original movies... Haha, this is the most stupid thing on TL I've read in 2011, good job! | ||
|
Bloodash
Netherlands1384 Posts
| ||
|
Am0n3r
United States254 Posts
| ||
|
HereBeDragons
1429 Posts
| ||
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
| ||
|
PlayX
Germany79 Posts
| ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
| ||
|
adiga
495 Posts
On December 21 2011 23:55 PlayX wrote: Really 3D? That's kinda dissapointing... Nevertheless I AM TINGLING WITH EXCITEMENT!!! At first I had the same thoughts but than Jackson said at the blog videos that they have small special 3D cameras to shoot even at narrow place so I think that aspect of filming won't be hurt. Though I think I will first enter the non 3D screening if there will be one. I share your fears, I'm not a fan of the 3D films at all. | ||
|
Zaranth
United States345 Posts
I remember going to the LotR films opening day with all my buds ... getting there an hour early to obtain perfect seats ... I'm looking forward to doing it again! | ||
|
wOrD yO
Australia119 Posts
| ||
|
R!!
Brazil938 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:30 maartendq wrote: It was also meant as a children's book and is not nearly as good as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Even Tolkien himself said so. I read "the hobbit" but since I hardly remember anything of the book, I don't think I found it that interesting. Still, The Hobbit sure looks like it could be a good movie. I had infinitely more fun reading The Hobbit(in the multiple times I read it) than I did reading LOTR, most of the parts were overly environment descriptive with no action/interaction and they almost made me want to stop reading altogether. | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
On December 21 2011 23:36 bubblegumbo wrote: Haha, this is the most stupid thing on TL I've read in 2011, good job! LOL, I almost fell of my chair xD Trailer looked awesome anyway, sooo looking forward to this, The Hobbit was one of my most memerable childhood novels. | ||
|
Kaien
Belgium178 Posts
On December 22 2011 00:18 HaXXspetten wrote: LOL, I almost fell of my chair xD Trailer looked awesome anyway, sooo looking forward to this, The Hobbit was one of my most memerable childhood novels. its not stupid, cuz they are going to use char that didnt show up in the hobbit book, like legolas and some others. | ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:40 Boonbag wrote: I hope he does the silmarillon someday after or even some of the unfinished tales I think Silmarillion would make a terrible movie. =/ Totally looking forward to The Hobbit though. ^__^ Gonna be great. | ||
|
L3g3nd_
New Zealand10461 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On December 22 2011 00:33 Holgerius wrote: I think Silmarillion would make a terrible movie. =/ Totally looking forward to The Hobbit though. ^__^ Gonna be great. Yeah, how do you adapt that weird thing? It's because of those same reasons that there were no Tom Bombadil on LOTR. It's just too abstract. | ||
|
Jiyakku
England19 Posts
| ||
|
Sandtrout
243 Posts
| ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 22 2011 00:45 L3g3nd_ wrote: it wont be the same without viggo or orlando, but should still be a good watch, glad they got ian back : ) Legolas makes an appearance in the films. It isn't clear how big of a role it is or whether he'll be in both films, but Orlando Bloom has been cast. + Show Spoiler + It does make some sense since he did indeed live in mirkwood at the time of the dwarves' imprisonment. So far nothing about Aragorn. I'm not exactly sure what he was doing doing during the events of The Hobbit + Show Spoiler + ( On December 22 2011 01:01 Jayjay54 wrote: I tell this upfront. PLEASE don't spoiler anything in this thread. PLEASE As you wish. I had just assumed everyone here had read the book. | ||
|
Termit
Sweden3466 Posts
| ||
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
| ||
|
Jayjay54
Germany2296 Posts
| ||
|
Swwww
Switzerland812 Posts
| ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On December 22 2011 00:15 R!! wrote: I had infinitely more fun reading The Hobbit(in the multiple times I read it) than I did reading LOTR, most of the parts were overly environment descriptive with no action/interaction and they almost made me want to stop reading altogether. This is by far the most common complaint people have with LOTR. Imo it's just one of the things which made the series amazing. I loved the writing style and devoured every single description Tolkien put there. It just made my imagination fly really, really far away. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:03 mordk wrote: This is by far the most common complaint people have with LOTR. Imo it's just one of the things which made the series amazing. I loved the writing style and devoured every single description Tolkien put there. It just made my imagination fly really, really far away. I know right? I just started on the audiobooks yesterday and I can practically see the shire right in front of my eyes. | ||
|
McNulty
Norway184 Posts
In the name of all that is holy I hope I'm wrong. | ||
|
StarVe
Germany13591 Posts
| ||
|
Jeremyy
Canada182 Posts
| ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:22 McNulty wrote: Anyone else getting a "Jar Jar Binks"-feeling here? =) In the name of all that is holy I hope I'm wrong. A "Jar Jar Binks" feeling from which character? Not sure how you can get a Jar Jar Binks feeling from a whole movie. | ||
|
McNulty
Norway184 Posts
| ||
|
Laids
United Kingdom596 Posts
From the slapstick humour dwarves or whatever they are. Either way I didn't get a hard on, like I did when watching the LOTR trailer at the movies the first time. The unexpected party in the book is a fun and silly part of it, it's supposed to be funny. | ||
|
StarVe
Germany13591 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:28 McNulty wrote: From the slapstick humour dwarves or whatever they are. Either way I didn't get a hard on, like I did when watching the LOTR trailer at the movies the first time. Well, it'll have a different tone than LOTR, that's for sure, but I don't think it's necessarily worse, it just follows the style of the books. I didn't get the feeling that the films are done wrong from this trailer. | ||
|
atmuh
United States246 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:01 Jayjay54 wrote: I tell this upfront. PLEASE don't spoiler anything in this thread. PLEASE read the book On December 22 2011 01:28 McNulty wrote: From the slapstick humour dwarves or whatever they are. Either way I didn't get a hard on, like I did when watching the LOTR trailer at the movies the first time. read the book | ||
|
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
On December 22 2011 00:33 Holgerius wrote: I think Silmarillion would make a terrible movie. =/ Totally looking forward to The Hobbit though. ^__^ Gonna be great. To make a move about the whole Silmarillion would be impossible. But there is a lot of good stories in there. A movie about Turin or Beren & Luthien would be awesome. | ||
|
dolvlo
United States99 Posts
| ||
|
InFdude
Bulgaria619 Posts
| ||
|
Sandtrout
243 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:28 McNulty wrote: From the slapstick humour dwarves or whatever they are. Either way I didn't get a hard on, like I did when watching the LOTR trailer at the movies the first time. Well, the Hobbit is kind of a children's story. So the way the dwarves are presented just shows that it's not going to be as dark as LOTR was. I can't stop watching the trailer atm... especially the song is just too awesome. | ||
|
Kuja
United States1759 Posts
| ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
| ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:28 McNulty wrote: From the slapstick humour dwarves or whatever they are. Either way I didn't get a hard on, like I did when watching the LOTR trailer at the movies the first time. That actually suits well with the book. To me the change to Gimli in LotR is way way worse. The films change Gimli from the great dwarven fighter to the dwarf equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, saying stupid stuff and falling over while comically defeating enemies. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On December 22 2011 02:01 InFdude wrote: Personally I am not hyped at all.I enjoyed watching LotR but when I saw the Hobbit was going to be in the past i lost interest instantly. Why..? | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
| ||
|
atmuh
United States246 Posts
On December 22 2011 02:14 SuperYo1000 wrote: correct me if I'm wrong but I thought aaragon was in the hobbit?!? you know since he is one of those rare humans that live for like 250 years. In LOTR he was 80 so I assume that he was to be like 30 in the Hobbit. They make reference to this in the fellowship of the ring read the book he has absolutely nothing to do with the story | ||
|
StarVe
Germany13591 Posts
On December 22 2011 02:14 SuperYo1000 wrote: correct me if I'm wrong but I thought aaragon was in the hobbit?!? you know since he is one of those rare humans that live for like 250 years. In LOTR he was 80 so I assume that he was to be like 30 in the Hobbit. They make reference to this in the fellowship of the ring Aragorn is like 10 or 11 in the hobbit. | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
really?hmm I did start reading the hobbit and could sworn aragorn had some small part in it.I guess I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification. I stopped reading cuz dear lord was that book boring | ||
|
Khaine
Sweden75 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
On December 22 2011 02:07 dukethegold wrote: *browsing through youtube comments* I love how people believe this is actually a continuation of LOTR... *browsing through youtube comments... first couple pages on anti-white, anti-racism, and genocide??? Oh youtube, why are you so dumb. To those worried about Peter Jackson ruining it, I don't know. I do understand because I came full circle from liking the LotR movies though being frustrated with the changes to disliking it entirely to accepting that the books themselves had not changed and I can enjoy LotRs as movies and book separately. There are still things that irritate me- Gimili's devolution, the missed opportunity to have Pippen and Gandalf watching the levies march through Minas Tirirth from the outlands (such an epic build up moment) to the nonsensical charge against a wall. But in the end it's still enjoyable. | ||
|
Xivsa
United States1009 Posts
| ||
|
sOda~
United Kingdom441 Posts
| ||
|
gregnog
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 02:26 SuperYo1000 wrote: really?hmm I did start reading the hobbit and could sworn aragorn had some small part in it.I guess I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification. I stopped reading cuz dear lord was that book boring Bilbo's birthday party in Lotr is 61 years after the events of the Hobbit, but then it actually takes 17 years before Frodo starts his journey and meets Aragorn in Bree. This is not reflected in the movie, where this is just portrayed as a few months. So even though Aragorn is 88-89 in Lotr, he is only 10 in the Hobbit. He wasn't even mentioned in that book because Tolkien hadn't concieved of him at the time. While he was first writing Fellowship, the character that later became Aragorn was actually a hobbit called Trotter. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
| ||
|
Ashworth
United Kingdom185 Posts
he will be in the film, wasn't in the books probably an epilogue? I don't know | ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
Looking forward to the movie so much but refuse to follow it too closely until release as I don't want to over-hype myself on it. Really glad they are keeping with Peter Jackson though! | ||
|
daemir
Finland8662 Posts
| ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
They're using a lot of stuff from appendices, and even Silmarilion I think, in the Hobbit film, hence the need for two films | ||
|
crazyweasel
607 Posts
| ||
|
ZergX
France436 Posts
Great news ! | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:10 Ashworth wrote: he will be in the film, wasn't in the books probably an epilogue? I don't know Del Toro's intention was for the 2nd Hobbit film to lead straight into The Fellowship of the Ring. I don't know if Jackson is doing the same, but if he is, then we'll most likely see Aragorn meet and befriend Gandalf. We'll also probably see him hunt Gollum down and Gandalf interrogate him. If you remember, in the Fellowship we see Gandalf disturbed when Bilbo calls the ring his precious saying "it's been called that before". We also see Gandalf explain to Frodo how Gollum was captured by Morder and gave up the names Baggins and Shire. How he came by this information is left unexplained, so Jackson could very well tie this up by showing this. It would certainly be wonderful to see Viggo involved in the films in some capacity. | ||
|
kobrakai
175 Posts
The Hobbit = Reserving judgement, but after the trilogy...... I don't have high hopes. I cant stand to see good books ruined. Just like Game of Thrones. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
Does anybody else love the animated version that was done in 1977? Remember this song? | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
| ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:51 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I was really hoping to catch a glimpse of Smaug. I suppose that would've been too much of a spoiler though. Does anybody else love the animated version that was done in 1977? Remember this song? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogTDa-vG2MQ Of course!!!! 15 birds.... in 5 fir trees.... there feathers were burned... in the fiery breeze... what funny little birds... they had no wings... oh what shall we do... with the funny little things... Or "Dirty the dishes and crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!" I actually own the VHS of it and I think the DVD too lol | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:43 Telcontar wrote: Del Toro's intention was for the 2nd Hobbit film to lead straight into The Fellowship of the Ring. I don't know if Jackson is doing the same, but if he is, then we'll most likely see Aragorn meet and befriend Gandalf. We'll also probably see him hunt Gollum down and Gandalf interrogate him. If you remember, in the Fellowship we see Gandalf disturbed when Bilbo calls the ring his precious saying "it's been called that before". We also see Gandalf explain to Frodo how Gollum was captured by Morder and gave up the names Baggins and Shire. How he came by this information is left unexplained, so Jackson could very well tie this up by showing this. It would certainly be wonderful to see Viggo involved in the films in some capacity. Originally Del Toro and Jackson both thought the hobbit didn't have enough source material and had a bridge film idea. After rereading the books they changed their minds. Now both films are focused on the events of the hobbit. Also if you follow JRR Tolkiens timeline Aragon is 10 in the hobbit. Jackson switched some things in the LotR and according to his timeline Aragon would be in his late twenties i think. Anyhow its irrelevant, because as far as I have seen Viggo Mortensen has not been asked to reprise role. | ||
|
TheHansBecker
United States117 Posts
| ||
|
Keype
Sweden455 Posts
| ||
|
JayConn
United States408 Posts
On December 21 2011 14:28 Hekisui wrote: Some dwarves are real actors, others are CGI? WTF. I don't rate the LotR movies very highly ignoring the production value. I completely hate the modern day Hollywood style. They're all real... | ||
|
Tehkilla
Sweden75 Posts
| ||
|
Stiluz
Norway688 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
| ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
| ||
|
Powdercake
United States19 Posts
I guess I need to get my elf cosplay ready! | ||
|
mrscheng
Sweden658 Posts
| ||
|
Iranon
United States983 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:44 kobrakai wrote: Lotr = ok The Hobbit = Reserving judgement, but after the trilogy...... I don't have high hopes. I cant stand to see good books ruined. Just like Game of Thrones. Wait, what? Nobody is ruining Game of Thrones. | ||
|
rapidash88
United States194 Posts
| ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Apparently he has a christmas gift for us. Can't wait | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:08 rapidash88 wrote: I'm guessing the movie is going to involve Gandalf and the wizards more when it comes to the Necromancer? (AKA Sauron) that would be coooolio Sauron is a Mayar, like Gandalf There are no *necromancers* in tolkien's world edit : and if remember correctly there's almost no mention of sauron in the hobbit as he is still deep asleep and the ring's influence is muted within gollum's cave | ||
|
TemplarCo.
Mexico2870 Posts
| ||
|
Audemed
United States893 Posts
OMFG it's going to be sick. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:14 Boonbag wrote: Sauron is a Mayar, like Gandalf There are no *necromancers* in tolkien's world You need to reread the books, during the events of the Hobbit, a powerful dark wizard known as The Necromancer took over the abandoned fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. The council of the wise later found out that it is was in fact Sauron. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote: You need to reread the books, during the events of the Hobbit, a powerful dark wizard known as The Necromancer took over the abandoned fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. The council of the wise later found out that it is was in fact Sauron. Only deads under sauron's influence are the 9 kings that are bounded to him through the rings, and they're not exactly dead they're more like immortal ghosts realm of the dead are under valar's influence Sauron is a corrupted Valar hand, not a wizard lol He's a spirit, like gandalf, just his master used to be morgoth before he was vanquished edit : pretty sure sauron is still asleep when hobbit takes place | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:21 Boonbag wrote: Only deads under sauron's influence are the 9 kings that are bounded to him through the rings, and they're not exactly dead they're more like immortal ghosts realm of the dead are under valar's influence Sauron is a corrupted Valar hand, not a wizard lol He's a spirit, like gandalf, just his master used to be morgoth before he was vanquished edit : pretty sure sauron is still asleep when hobbit takes place Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". | ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
Going to re-read it again, such an awesome tale. The dark forest and the spiders, the weeks spent in the elven castle under the ring, the dragon laying waste to the entire town and bilbo telling riddles, even the trolls at the beginning with all their mutton! | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Oh and Sauron was a Maia not a Vala. He was of the same order as the five istari that came to middle earth (saruman, gandalf, radagast, 2 blue wizards). He was corrupted by Morgoth who was a Vala (or of the same order). | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:28 Maginor wrote: Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did that's his presence they drove out it's different | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:32 Telcontar wrote: Sauron (aka the necromancer) is indeed awake during the events of the hobbit. Perhaps not fully, but enough to cast a shadow over the lands and gather forces to him. That is why the white council meets and discuss ways to drive him out. Oh and Sauron was a Maia not a Vala. He was of the same order as the five istari that came to middle earth (saruman, gandalf, radagast, 2 blue wizards). He was corrupted by Morgoth who was a Vala (or of the same order). i never said he was a valar, i said a mayar, not a maia btw also mayars are reffered to as "valar's hand" and no he wasn't one of the five istaris Valar / Mayars aren't 'orders' Valar's are the childrens of Eru and Mayars are their servants And the istaris are a little younger than a old (albeit weak) Mayar like Sauron. | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote: you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr that's his presence they drove out it's different It was still Sauron... | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war | ||
|
Gyger
Norway18 Posts
| ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote: no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Anyway, the point was that the Necromancer was indeed a character in that world, and it was a form of Sauron whatever you want to call it. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote: But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
This is like arguing whether Gandalf the Grey is the same being as Gandalf the White. The form is not what makes Sauron, Sauron. It's the spirit, his essence. That remains the same (albeit severely diminished without the ring). | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:39 Telcontar wrote: This is like arguing whether Gandalf the Grey is the same being as Gandalf the White. Gandalf the grey is different than gandalf the white, as he is turned into the head of the istaris upon being resent to the middle earth after saruman's failure gandalf the white is closer to beeing saruman the white than gandalf the grey it's quite twisted actually | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On December 22 2011 03:56 tehemperorer wrote: Of course!!!! 15 birds.... in 5 fir trees.... there feathers were burned... in the fiery breeze... what funny little birds... they had no wings... oh what shall we do... with the funny little things... Or "Dirty the dishes and crack the plates, that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!" I actually own the VHS of it and I think the DVD too lol So goddamned good... | ||
|
mtmf
Brazil420 Posts
Can't wait for the movies. On December 22 2011 07:32 Telcontar wrote: Sauron (aka the necromancer) is indeed awake during the events of the hobbit. Perhaps not fully, but enough to cast a shadow over the lands and gather forces to him. That is why the white council meets and discuss ways to drive him out. Oh and Sauron was a Maia not a Vala. He was of the same order as the five istari that came to middle earth (saruman, gandalf, radagast, 2 blue wizards). He was corrupted by Morgoth who was a Vala (or of the same order). About that,+ Show Spoiler [Book/movie spoilers] + they actually drive him out of Mirkwood during the events of The Hobbit. And iirc, they said they will find a way to somehow show it in the movie. That would be really amazing!!! | ||
|
debasers
737 Posts
| ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
Hopfully the lenght is like the LotR movies | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote: Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" And by "form" i meant manifestation. He had some kind of recognizable presence. It didn't have to be physical. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote: Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into his old shape and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is edit : the misleading thing is that 3rd age protagonists are pussies and weak sauce, always scared about every single thing, so they make things appear "big", when they're far from actually beeing "big" just like screaming "it's sauron omg !" when it's a half assed mid awaken nazgul without any backup that guards an abandonned gate at some remote non strategic location | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote: it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. I would therefore claim that the name Sauron is tied to the core of the being and not the manifestation. What we saw in the 2nd age was one manifestation of Sauron. What we see in the 3rd age is another, weaker and different one. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote: Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho edit : nono 2nd age is true sauron, after beeing defeated he never came back, he's not taking "different forms" | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote: Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote: Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. no, i'm using post Lotr lore Tolkien published afterwise it's more like, what he published later (tho he did write everything but the hobbit, about the same time) doesn't sync so well with Lotr that has alot of weird things in it that don't always fit in the world he designed edit : goes like this > the hobbit > lotr > silmarillon / unfinished tales | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:02 Boonbag wrote: no, i'm using post Lotr lore Tolkien published afterwise it's more like, what he published later (tho he did write everything but the hobbit, about the same time) doesn't sync so well with Lotr that has alot of weird things in it that don't always fit in the world he designed edit : goes like this > the hobbit > lotr > silmarillon / unfinished tales Give me concrete sources written by Tolkien that say that this being should not be called 'Sauron'. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
go read silmarillon / unfinished tales although silmarillon contains most of it edit : and is much more entertaining than lotr is | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:04 Boonbag wrote: go read silmarillon / unfinished tales although silmarillon contains most of it edit : and is much more entertaining than lotr is I have read Silmarillion. It calls Sauron for Sauron also at the time when he is in Dol Guldur. | ||
|
DD_The_Shmey
United States22 Posts
Stephen Colbert is a huge Lord of the Rings fan Here's the link if you haven't seen it ==> http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402385/november-15-2011/elijah-wood | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:05 Telcontar wrote: This argument is oh so pointless. Gollum is both Gollum and Smeagol. Gandalf is both Gandalf and Olorin. Morgoth is both Morgoth and Melkor. The formless and diminished spirit of Sauron is still Sauron. He is not exactly the same Sauron of the previous ages, but he retains the essence that makes him him. Arguing about Tolkien lore is never pointless when you role player-ed it twice a week for years :D learning maths through it's masochist rocket science combat rules | ||
|
hnQ
113 Posts
 | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
Hope this is good I've read the Hobbit twice, hope they make it as awesome as the book What a pointless argument though. Sauron is referenced as the Necromancer in the Hobbit.. they are the same guy! 'Strider' isn't different than 'Aragon' just because of what they're called. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote: And you also have to realise that Tolkien's universe virtually has no superheroes. Everyone can be killed relatively easy. A stab in the face by a sword is deadly. It's better this way because it doesn't create DBZ scenarios where one character is completely powerless against another.Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:16 hnQ wrote: this isn't LOTR though i still remember the day our game master decided it was time to get my 1st age elf killed along with the rest of the party I felt like a part of me died there oh well best things had to come to an end eventually >.> | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:19 Thorakh wrote: And you also have to realise that Tolkien's universe virtually has no superheroes. Everyone can be killed relatively easy. A stab in the face by a sword is deadly. It's better this way because it doesn't create DBZ scenarios where one character is completely powerless against another. witch king of angmar is still a fucking upset | ||
|
Cops
United Kingdom172 Posts
I'm going to like the parts where the hobbit does things and there are other things happening as well like talking fauna and plants. I enjoyed the hobbit book and now there's a film. I watched lord of the rings in the cinema with my friends. I enjoy threads about james bond movies and the hobbit too. I am finally happy | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
| ||
|
StarVe
Germany13591 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:23 Boonbag wrote: witch king of angmar is still a fucking upset Well, he overextended himself, attacked too carelessly and fell victim to a brilliant flank. | ||
|
hongo
207 Posts
| ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
| ||
|
HazMat
United States17077 Posts
On December 22 2011 08:08 DD_The_Shmey wrote: Did you guys catch the interview with Elijah Woods on The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert is a huge Lord of the Rings fan Here's the link if you haven't seen it ==> http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/402385/november-15-2011/elijah-wood Haha Elijah Woods is awesome. I'm surprised he's actually done an okay job not getting typecast considering how Frodo was the perfect role for him and it's kind of hard to see him as anyone else. | ||
|
atmuh
United States246 Posts
| ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
Looks fuckin sick. This one will probably be the weaker of the 2 films but should still be good. Looks like it goes into the Mirkwood scenes so thats pretty far. 2nd one will be the last of the quest and war Im guessing. Can someone tell me the dude who turns into the bears name? I hope he's in it. That guy fuckin rocked my 10 year old world. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
| ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
| ||
|
Nitrogen
United States5345 Posts
| ||
|
iamcaustic
Canada1509 Posts
I can't wait to see Peter Jackson's rendition of the unexpected party on the silver screen. This was my favourite book as a kid, until it got replaced by Lord of the Rings. | ||
|
UndoneJin
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
Arkless
Canada1547 Posts
Im glad its being done in two parts, hopefully to not miss alot of awesome/important shit. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On December 22 2011 10:28 Mindcrime wrote: I hope they don't fuck up Beorn like they did the Mouth of Sauron. Beorn's much more important. I'm not too worried. Plus with two movies there should be plenty of time to get some things right. Shelob's lair is what I truly lament. The tunnel felt like five minutes. There are a lot of shorter adventures (as far as chapter/read length) in The Hobbit, and hopefully they can flesh these out without everyone being a battle with orcs being extra disgusting. The nerd chilliest part of the trailer, for me, is the riddle scene. | ||
|
sesma
Germany37 Posts
| ||
|
CaptainBoner
Vatican City State81 Posts
| ||
|
Macabre
United States1262 Posts
| ||
|
vilehelm
10 Posts
| ||
|
ArtThouAngry
Canada146 Posts
I'm glad they made it 2 parts, otherwise they would have been at risk of butchering it.... | ||
|
ArtThouAngry
Canada146 Posts
On December 22 2011 09:35 Forikorder wrote: well see how well it turns out cant say im opimistic but then im never optimistic about books becoming movies especially after Eragon Eragon was disturbing bad I agree, but i think that Peter Jackson can pull this off really well, after all, he did a fairly good job with the Lord of the rings trilogy, even if there were some moves I didn't agree with, it was overall very well done | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU >_< | ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
| ||
|
Flipside
United States141 Posts
| ||
|
kaisen
United States601 Posts
-_- | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
 Then I saw next December and was like | ||
|
sjschmidt93
United States2518 Posts
can't wait | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
Lynda
649 Posts
| ||
|
SkullZ9
Belgium2048 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:07 Mordiford wrote: What does this even mean? That's like saying, "Man, it sucks that Spider-man 2 is reusing a lot of the characters from the original Spider-man film". This is a prequel based on a book that had these characters in it. Hum in fact this is not a prequel based on LOTR, the hobbit has been written before LOTR | ||
|
Azriel
Mexico462 Posts
Heck, I'm not even going to watch the trailer, I'd rather not be spoiled. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 23 2011 01:34 SkullZ9 wrote: Hum in fact this is not a prequel based on LOTR, the hobbit has been written before LOTR No need to pick it apart that hard, since the post he was responding to made no fucking sense, haha. Also, he said it was based on the book not based on LotR directly, meaning you misinterpreted what he wrote, but the fact still stands that not understanding why this movie has some of the same characters as LotR in it makes you a lost case. | ||
|
scDeluX
Canada1341 Posts
| ||
|
Tennet
United States1458 Posts
| ||
|
Hoon
Brazil891 Posts
On December 23 2011 01:38 Amaranthine wrote: I loved this book, so I have high hopes for this movie. It'll be great. Heck, I'm not even going to watch the trailer, I'd rather not be spoiled. "I read the book but I don't wanna watch the trailer so I don't get spoiled". ................wat? You already know that story, dude. Since the movie is still being filmed, there is no big revelations in it. Most of the scenes are from the first chapter of the book (the scene in Bilbo's house). | ||
|
Rexking
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
remedium
United States939 Posts
| ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/ I always thought Necromancer was the Witch King of Angmar, Er Murazor I was wrong, arda says Necromancer is indeed Sauron. "A 'necromancer' is technically a magician with power over the spirits of the dead, but Tolkien almost certainly intends the more general sense of 'black magician'." | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
Btw, the trailer is awesome and I really hope it turns out as well as LOTR. | ||
|
Narcind
Sweden2489 Posts
| ||
|
Xela
Canada203 Posts
On December 23 2011 07:02 tehemperorer wrote: I always thought Necromancer was the Witch King of Angmar, Er Murazor I was wrong, arda says Necromancer is indeed Sauron. From what I remember in the books, when the white council found out there was an evil presence(necromancer) in mirkwood, they thought it was the witch king only to disover later that it was Sauron himself who came back because the ring was found. | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 23 2011 07:35 Xela wrote: From what I remember in the books, when the white council found out there was an evil presence(necromancer) in mirkwood, they thought it was the witch king only to disover later that it was Sauron himself who came back because the ring was found. It was Sauron all along, and he situated himself in Dol Guldur almost 2000 years before the story of the Hobbit. A little after that, the Witch King became active in Angmar, so the council had to know it wasn't him. They didn't know it was Sauron, but they suspected it at least as early as 800 years before the Hobbit. | ||
|
KryptoStorm
England377 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
Banno
Australia44 Posts
On December 21 2011 13:22 feanor1 wrote: So I really think the song in the trailer is just incredible. For someone who is terrible at music of any nature like me, I almost ignored them completely while reading the books. Skimmed through them at best. That song just makes the trailer, so peaceful and yet so much power. This is me 100% - reading most books I skim through the songs / poems if any are in them, but the trailer was awesome with that song (misty moutains?). So good. | ||
|
Adron
Netherlands839 Posts
I suppose things only referenced in the books and later expanded upon like the siege of Dol Goldur. Quite important things in the greater scheme of things yet so little things to build upon. | ||
|
StinkyBoots
Canada76 Posts
| ||
|
Karakaxe
Sweden585 Posts
On December 22 2011 12:52 Macabre wrote: OH man... I must survive until this comes out. That is all. Golden post. Made me laugh because I was actually thinking the same thing. | ||
|
StarVe
Germany13591 Posts
On December 23 2011 12:36 Adron wrote: have had the hobbit illustrated by alan lee for, like, 10 years or so. Oh man, i hope alan lee is on board on this one as well. He is on board, you can see him in one of the production diaries. | ||
|
StinkyBoots
Canada76 Posts
| ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
Reading some of the comments on this thread reminds me that there are actually people who have never read The Hobbit. An inconvenient truth that I seem to forget from time to time. Does everybody else think that they're going to do the stuff with Gandalf and Dol Guldor? I know that stuff was never in the books but it was hinted, and it's something I think I'd enjoy seeing. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
I am quite glad about this I loved the Hobbit more than LotR. I hope they don't pull much stuff out of their ass like LOL GHOSTS and stick closer to the lore. Wish they showed Smaug in the trailer though... I can't wait to see the battle of the 5 armies on Screen | ||
|
Bobble
Australia1493 Posts
On December 23 2011 15:10 windsupernova wrote: ^ Yeah they will probably do the Dol Guldor stuff so that they have more Action scenes to show. I am quite glad about this I loved the Hobbit more than LotR. I hope they don't pull much stuff out of their ass like LOL GHOSTS and stick closer to the lore. Wish they showed Smaug in the trailer though... I can't wait to see the battle of the 5 armies on Screen Unless they decide to screen the whole battle... from Bilbos point of view! But seriously, that would be awesome. And the part with the trolls. That will be enjoyable. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Sweet3a
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
| ||
|
Bobble
Australia1493 Posts
On December 23 2011 15:48 Sweet3a wrote: Is it just me or does it seem darker than the book was? I thought the book was way more happy go lucky and the dwarves were just regular grumpy dwarves not as dark as Thorin seemed...Still gonna be awesome! Well, they were more focused on their quest than Bilbo at the start, so they really just didn't care about him, whether he lived or died or whatever. Hell, some of the time you think they only brought him along to avoid being 13 in number (of course, they had Gandalf too, but he made it clear that he would be leaving them). Halfway through, most notably after Bilbo saves them from the spiders, they warm up to him, but you can still see that some of the dwarves (mostly Thorin though) are insatiably money-hungry and only focused on that, rather than their friends. This comes through when the dwarves protect their money pile from the villagers. | ||
|
Thingdo
United States186 Posts
On December 23 2011 12:37 StinkyBoots wrote: THe only concern I have is the look of some of the Dwarves. Don't get me wrong, they all look awesome, and different and unique. However, the beards are a little lacking. Good Job though. Can't wait. I felt the same way. It seems a little more acceptable on the younger dwarves, but I really dislike the lack of beard on Thorin. | ||
|
SpaceFighting
New Zealand690 Posts
| ||
|
Xela
Canada203 Posts
The Shire? Perfect. Characters (Aragorn, Sam, Gandalf, Saruman) ? Perfect. Elfs (Elrond, Arwen, Galadriel)? Perfect. Helm's deep fight? Perfect. Gollum? Perfect. Atmoshpere? Perfect. Like every other reader, I had all the story in my mind well defined before the movies, but after the movies, when I read LOTR again, the images that came in my head were those of the movies, which means PJ did a very good job of portraying the world of Tolkien as strictly as possible. The book is always gonna be better than the movie, there's way more details and descriptions in a book, but a movie has to be entertaining for the public and I think Peter Jackson just hit that sweet spot between entertainment and book adaptation. There's only so much you can film in 3 hours. Just go watch Harry Potter or Narnia and thank god we had such an awesome producer for LOTR. It isn't a coincidence he won so many oscars. On The Hobbit: I'm not sure I understand correctly...It will be in 2 parts? One in 2012 and one in 2013? | ||
|
Silv.user
59 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On December 23 2011 10:36 Xiphos wrote: Just watched the entire LoTR trilogy again and was wondering if you hardcore fans out there can tell me the based on the scale 1 to 10, rate how much action are we going to get from the Hobbit. It'll be the same as in the LoTR movies: a lot of (potentially boring) events ultimately climaxing in a huge battle. Then again, I'm the person that found The Fellowship of the Ring to be the best movie of the trilogy by a landslide. The other two were downright boring at moments. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10323 Posts
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol. Anyways I'm glad the dwarves look unique and distinguished | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10323 Posts
It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol. Anyways I'm glad the dwarves look unique and distinguished "John, Paul, George, and Ringo, they are not relatives of mine" hahaha xD Edit: Wait december 2012? =/ so long... lol also wow they are so good at copying each other, when they draw the blue and the red picture lol. One of them has to be exactly the same as the other but only slightly shifted right? Or is it more complex than that, so they don't need to be exact? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10323 Posts
Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:44 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol. You know that Gandalf isn't human, right? | ||
|
Cedstick
Canada3336 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: It would have been really cool to see an older version of Gandalf, lol. trufax, he wouldn't look any older, 'cause he's already older than Middle-Earth. | ||
|
Thingdo
United States186 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:44 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ah, so the creature thing is indeed also gollum? i never understood the hobbit, seemed like it was not a prequel at first, cus the over-arcing story seems to be just the same as the other 3 books. If someone can explain that would be cool xD It is indeed the prequel, set 61 years before the start of LotR. The story isn't really the same at all, the trailer just tends to focus on things that people will recognize from the LotR movies like Gandalf, Gollum (who plays a really minor role in the book, only appearing in one or two chapters), and the Ring. The plot is basically that Gandalf and 13 dwarves show up at the home of Bilbo Baggins and convince him to join them on an expedition to reclaim their lost treasure from the dragon Smaug. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC. Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut. Wait, they're splitting a book that's barely 300 pages into two parts? Really???? Let's milk it some more, folks! | ||
|
RosaParksStoleMySeat
Japan926 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:25 Torte de Lini wrote: So when is this coming out? Are they going to keep The Hobbit light-hearted like in the book? It looks like it'll be a mix, similar to the book. While the book had a lot of lighthearted segments, it was also a little dark in certain parts, and as far as I can tell from the preview, it'll be the same mix but the opposite... with more of the darkness and less of the lightheartedness. Of course, this is all speculation and we won't know until we see the movie . | ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Alright wtf? they are splitting 1 book prequel into 2 movies? I know the books are huge but really I don't think the hobbit is something you can do that too. There isn't even much of any climax in the book until the end, IIRC. Seems like they just want to milk it. Why not split all the other 3 books each into 2 movies too then? They had so much material anyways that was only in the director's cut. They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR. Another reason is the tone of the Hobbit changes significantly halfway through. It starts off very light-hearted then becomes quite serious. Splitting it into two films will make that less jarring. | ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
On December 23 2011 18:25 Silv.user wrote: icant help to think, the elven queen or whatever isnt same actor as in movie. Kinda gives it a B movie feeling If you're talking about Galadriel then it is the same actress as in LOTR (Cate Blanchett) | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On December 23 2011 19:26 Cedstick wrote: And Wizards don't age a lot according to the books. That might be because he's a Maiar :ptrufax, he wouldn't look any older, 'cause he's already older than Middle-Earth. They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR. Where did you get this information? I already thought they would be doing stuff like that since the Hobbit is pretty short to fit into two movies, but I haven't seen any official information on that. | ||
|
Karakaxe
Sweden585 Posts
will be in a fridge in japan | ||
|
Forester
United States116 Posts
On December 23 2011 21:05 Spitfire wrote: They're incorporating stuff from the appendices and The Silmarilion into it. They're also gonna be showing stuff thats only hinted at in the book, such as Gandalf and the White Council driving Saurons presence out of Dol Guldur. Theres a lot of potential for exploring the depth of Middle Earth and foreshadowing events in LOTR. Another reason is the tone of the Hobbit changes significantly halfway through. It starts off very light-hearted then becomes quite serious. Splitting it into two films will make that less jarring. Wait, there's going to be two parts? Is it really necessary to draw out a short novel like the Hobbit? There really isn't much meat to the book unless you delve far deeper than a movie of this kind would allow... But if they do show the battle in Dol Guldur I would forgive them, I've always wanted to see what the other rings were capable of. And the sonf the dwarves sang in the trailer gave me the sickest nerd chills, omfg. So stoked for this movie. | ||
|
Shai
Canada806 Posts
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins "[The Hobbit] was published on 21 September 1937" -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "[Lord of the Rings was released] over the course of a year from the 21st of July 1954 to October 1955" -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Hobbit as a work is not a prequel. Perhaps one could call this movie a prequel, but The Hobbit itself is not a prequel. Please stop making that mistake, it drives me absolutely bonkers. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
| ||
|
nichan
United States158 Posts
| ||
|
ArtisaBang
195 Posts
can't wait for this!!!!!!! | ||
|
Deletrious
United States458 Posts
On December 23 2011 23:43 Forester wrote: Wait, there's going to be two parts? Is it really necessary to draw out a short novel like the Hobbit? There really isn't much meat to the book unless you delve far deeper than a movie of this kind would allow... But if they do show the battle in Dol Guldur I would forgive them, I've always wanted to see what the other rings were capable of. And the sonf the dwarves sang in the trailer gave me the sickest nerd chills, omfg. So stoked for this movie. I think of lots of events in The Hobbit, to do them all faithfully can definitely create 6 hours of film. The Hobbit was much more of an adventure novel compared to LOTR, imo. | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 23 2011 23:51 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Oh man the cgi faces of the dwarfs or whatever they are look really bad. Noticed within a split second that they are not real... Same concern in the new The Thing, it looked really bad.... kinda like plastic. For environment or building cgi looks ok but I wish for living things movie makers would use masks or puppets more again they work way better. It's not cgi... It is physical prosthetics on real actors, just like in the Lotr trilogy. And not all the dwarfs even wear prosthetics. And most of the buildings that are not sets are actual scale models, like Rivendell. Gollum is fully cgi though, but they have gone to great lengths to use puppets/costumes and scale models wherever possible. | ||
|
Copymizer
Denmark2083 Posts
On December 23 2011 23:51 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Oh man the cgi faces of the dwarfs or whatever they are look really bad. Noticed within a split second that they are not real... Same concern in the new The Thing, it looked really bad.... kinda like plastic. For environment or building cgi looks ok but I wish for living things movie makers would use masks or puppets more again they work way better. ![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/003/194/001.jpg?1279062308){kind=icon} User was warned for this post | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
Newest production blog is up!!! Check it out | ||
|
wishbones
Canada2600 Posts
| ||
|
Tialuram
Netherlands51 Posts
Other then that hearing the soundtrack and seeing some of the scenes got me pretty excited for this film! | ||
|
HackBenjamin
Canada1094 Posts
On December 24 2011 05:31 Tialuram wrote: The dwarfs look.. odd. Gimli looked much better. And if that scene between Gandalf and Galadriel turns out to be some weird romance scene I might have to punch Peter Jackson in the face Other then that hearing the soundtrack and seeing some of the scenes got me pretty excited for this film! Not that there was a direct romance or anything, but I seem to recall a degree of tenderness between the two. Don't worry, I'm sure it doesn't go any further than that | ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
| ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Bilbo survives and comes back with the ring. Gandalf survives too. | ||
|
HackBenjamin
Canada1094 Posts
On December 24 2011 05:38 Requizen wrote: SPOILER ALERT: + Show Spoiler + Bilbo survives and comes back with the ring. Gandalf survives too. I can't believe I clicked that spoiler tag. Hating myself right now... | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On December 21 2011 19:44 Mafe wrote: I do not like the look of Thorin Oakenshield. I always thought of him as one of the oldest of the dwarfs, with a beard longer than his hair. He looks more like an arrogant leader in the prime of his strength and more like a small human than a huge dwarf. Not like the king of a lost kingdom, who turned bitter through a live of disappointments, who feels superior to everyone around him and who now tries to have one last shot to restore the long lost glory of his family. At least that was he used to be in my memory. I agree. I don't like how he looks at all. He is king of Durin's folk aka the Longbeards and is described in the book as having a very long beard. So wtf is this tiny beard shit? Also he just looks too good for a dwarf imo, not at all how I imagined him and how he is described.. | ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
On December 23 2011 21:22 Thorakh wrote: Where did you get this information? I already thought they would be doing stuff like that since the Hobbit is pretty short to fit into two movies, but I haven't seen any official information on that. Peter Jackson said Dol Guldur and the White Council will feature heavily in the movies, and said he's using stuff from the appendices to flesh out the story. To be honest dont know how much is being used from Silmarilion or Unfinished Tales, but Radagast the Brown is listed amongst the cast so they must be using some influence from those. On December 24 2011 05:31 Tialuram wrote: The dwarfs look.. odd. Gimli looked much better. And if that scene between Gandalf and Galadriel turns out to be some weird romance scene I might have to punch Peter Jackson in the face ! Doubt it, pretty sure its just Galadriel being all motherly and sympathetic to how much Gandalf works his ass off to save Middle Earth while the other wizards do feck all. | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 24 2011 07:30 Spitfire wrote: Peter Jackson said Dol Guldur and the White Council will feature heavily in the movies, and said he's using stuff from the appendices to flesh out the story. To be honest dont know how much is being used from Silmarilion or Unfinished Tales, but Radagast the Brown is listed amongst the cast so they must be using some influence from those. Doubt it, pretty sure its just Galadriel being all motherly and sympathetic to how much Gandalf works his ass off to save Middle Earth while the other wizards do feck all. They don't have the filming rights to Silmarillion or unfinished tales, so they can't use anything from that unless it is also mentioned in the Hobbit or Lotr+appendix. Most of the important events and characters are in that appendix, though, including Radagast. | ||
|
hai2u
688 Posts
| ||
|
Kaien
Belgium178 Posts
but in my eyes peter jackson films > tolkiens books (and yes i have read all the books: lotr, the hobbit, sillmarillion, children of Húrin and the unfinished tales) | ||
|
Zenislev
United States280 Posts
On December 24 2011 05:31 Tialuram wrote: The dwarfs look.. odd. Gimli looked much better. And if that scene between Gandalf and Galadriel turns out to be some weird romance scene I might have to punch Peter Jackson in the face Other then that hearing the soundtrack and seeing some of the scenes got me pretty excited for this film! I have to agree, only like 3 or 4 of them look good to me, a few of them don't even look like dwarves and the rest look like cartoon characters or something. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10323 Posts
On December 23 2011 23:45 Shai wrote: prequel - a film or book about an earlier stage of a story or a character's life, released because the later part of it has already been successful. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins "[The Hobbit] was published on 21 September 1937" -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "[Lord of the Rings was released] over the course of a year from the 21st of July 1954 to October 1955" -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Hobbit as a work is not a prequel. Perhaps one could call this movie a prequel, but The Hobbit itself is not a prequel. Please stop making that mistake, it drives me absolutely bonkers. Ah, interesting note. Also guys sorry I meant to say it would be cool to see a younger version of Gandalf, not older. And I thought he was a human wizard o.o I guess not. Also I did read the Hobbit, I know the trailer wanted to appeal to LotR fans but I honestly felt like the hobbit was just a shortened alternate version of the other three books. There's a ring and a hobbit goes on a journey and comes back alive and changed. I know that's pretty vague but like Shai noted the hobbit was written before so it's as if the author was like, hm, i have a lot more ideas, let's re-write the story and split it into 3 books with a lot more depth. Also about the book being split into 2 prequels. Ok that does make a little more sense then. The book is only 300 pages apparently but I did forget about all the other material the author wrote about in other works/books they could use. That would be interesting, hopefully. But I still think it's milking xD | ||
|
MooLen
Germany501 Posts
| ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On December 24 2011 09:39 MooLen wrote: Is the story of this movie from a book or they came up with own stuff? It's from a book, The Hobbit. Prequel to LOTR, it was written for a younger audience. | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34486 Posts
edit: oh nvm I guess you would call it the first book. :< | ||
|
MooLen
Germany501 Posts
On December 24 2011 09:53 neobowman wrote: It's from a book, The Hobbit. Prequel to LOTR, it was written for a younger audience. On December 24 2011 09:59 Firebolt145 wrote: Curiously, if prequel = book that was written afterwards about events that happened before the first book, what do you call a book that was written first about the events that happened before the second book? edit: oh nvm I guess you would call it the first book. :< So in total there are 4 LOTR books? | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On December 24 2011 09:32 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Also guys sorry I meant to say it would be cool to see a younger version of Gandalf, not older. And I thought he was a human wizard o.o I guess not. Well, he's a maiar, not human at all, and he's been there for over 3k years, so it wouldn't be a hobbit's lifetime that would visibly change his looks | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10323 Posts
On December 24 2011 09:59 Firebolt145 wrote: Curiously, if prequel = book that was written afterwards about events that happened before the first book, what do you call a book that was written first about the events that happened before the second book? edit: oh nvm I guess you would call it the first book. :< Hmm yea. Thing I wonder is if the hobbit was intended to be a "before" story or he only made it so after decdiing to wriote 3 more books | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On December 24 2011 10:35 MooLen wrote: So in total there are 4 LOTR books? The Hobbit is not a Lord of the Rings book. The Lord of the Rings is one book divided into three parts because of the economic problems in the time period. It's a sequel. On December 24 2011 11:32 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hmm yea. Thing I wonder is if the hobbit was intended to be a "before" story or he only made it so after decdiing to wriote 3 more books Lord of the Rings was made after The Hobbit since it was popular. | ||
|
Valenius
United Kingdom1266 Posts
Thanks for the production video linked on the last page, hadn't noticed that one had been released yet <3 | ||
|
Dreamgzer
United States17 Posts
| ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On December 24 2011 11:32 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Hmm yea. Thing I wonder is if the hobbit was intended to be a "before" story or he only made it so after decdiing to wriote 3 more books The Lord of the Rings was written after The Hobbit, because his publishers asked for more. He wrote the LoTR as a serial for his son while he(his son) was serving in WWII, a cool fact about it. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
Even the shortened cartoon hobbit is epic...Probably add four hours of length to what you have there, and then divide it into two movies, with ridiculous budgets, and 2011 CGI type stuff rather than 2001...basically it's going to be amazing. | ||
|
Bazzyrick
United Kingdom361 Posts
Oh... please give me this film <3 Edit: In the trailer the guys all start singing in a deep tone. Does anyone know if that style of music has a name? Or where I can find anything similar to it? I don't mean regular choir music, I want stuff like that. One or more deep voices singing in that slow pace. About medieval of fantasy type things as well. | ||
|
Karakaxe
Sweden585 Posts
On December 24 2011 14:06 wei2coolman wrote: All I know is, for 500 million dollar production, this has better be the most amazing movie, EVER. sprayed my coke on the screen | ||
|
Ympulse
United States287 Posts
On December 24 2011 15:34 Tristran wrote: Edit: In the trailer the guys all start singing in a deep tone. Does anyone know if that style of music has a name? Or where I can find anything similar to it? I don't mean regular choir music, I want stuff like that. One or more deep voices singing in that slow pace. About medieval of fantasy type things as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirge Off the top of my head, that's the closest genre I could class it with. someone more educated in music might have a better insight. | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On December 24 2011 14:03 feanor1 wrote: The Lord of the Rings was written after The Hobbit, because his publishers asked for more. He wrote the LoTR as a serial for his son while he was serving in WWII, a cool fact about it. No he didn't. There is a quote from Tolkin himself that states it's bs that he wrote it while in the war. Also, he stated that he didn't write it for his son. And that he saw his mistake in trying to write hobbit as a "childrens book" (and while telling his son bed-time stories) which he corrected later on. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
Yeah, I did the same when I first heard about it too. I couldn't believe it.... | ||
|
Caryc
Germany330 Posts
nr 91 ; to christopher tolkien 29.11.1944 he clearly states that he finished writing the 4. book! | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
| ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
On December 24 2011 03:07 Maginor wrote: It's not cgi... It is physical prosthetics on real actors, just like in the Lotr trilogy. And not all the dwarfs even wear prosthetics. And most of the buildings that are not sets are actual scale models, like Rivendell. Gollum is fully cgi though, but they have gone to great lengths to use puppets/costumes and scale models wherever possible. I guess I failed , I thought it was real actors with a little bit of cgi magic.I guess plastic prosthetics that look like plastic are a simpler explanation or maybe something is weird about the makeup. Am I really the only one that thinks the faces look wierd? | ||
|
Ympulse
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
RBKeys
Canada196 Posts
| ||
|
TAAF
Switzerland226 Posts
| ||
|
ellerina
Philippines452 Posts
On December 24 2011 16:27 Caryc wrote: ok i my lotr nerd fanboyism got me and i just checked my german translation of jrr tolkien letters. nr 91 ; to christopher tolkien 29.11.1944 he clearly states that he finished writing the 4. book! LOTR was originally split into 6 books, I think it was the publishers who decided to publish it in the 3 book format that's popular today. | ||
|
Caryc
Germany330 Posts
| ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
On December 24 2011 18:28 ellerina wrote: LOTR was originally split into 6 books, I think it was the publishers who decided to publish it in the 3 book format that's popular today. Technically it still is six books, since there is "Book 1" and "Book 2" for the first and second part of each of the three so... | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
| ||
|
attwell
United States220 Posts
Having read it so many times, I cannot wait to compare the storyboard I have created in my head with what they come up with for the movie, just like with LOTR. After watching the trailers, and looking at some of the criticism, I have to say I am genuinely excited to see a new story with NEW CHARACTERS. Bilbo and gandalf are returning, but consider a few things. Bilbo is in a younger form, but also it is before he found the ring, which allowed him to age very long for a hobbit. He is younger both in personality and experience, not just appearance. Gandalf is a demi-god, he is immortal...can't really make the hobbit without him and he's going to look the same as he did in LOTR, so dunno what to tell you. The dwarves look absolutely awesome, how many dwarves did you get to see in LOTR? I think 3-4 max in a scene in rivendell, and several in a single scene in which the dwarves are given their rings. In the hobbit their will be dwarves abound, smashing and killing and smoking and eating things, like dwarves do. In the final battle I expect hundreds of dwarves. Characters I personally can't wait to see: BEORN...do I need to explain this? EARLIER GOLLUM (before he loses the ring, and when he feels invincible, and is riddling with bilbo...omg can't wait) THORIN this guy is legendary, all the guys in LOTR are pansies compared to this guy, except maybe aragorn or boromir. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
Just random background information. I loved Tolkien as a kid. :p | ||
|
HKGxPython
United States78 Posts
| ||
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
But he never intended to put them in narrative form until he came up with the 'Hobbits' He felt the Hobbits were the perfect viewpoint for the audience, so provided him with a way to put his ideas in narrative form. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
MY GOD I jizzed my pants during the new production blog. I nearly cried. For real. I'm so excited. | ||
|
Poyo
Canada790 Posts
| ||
|
dangthatsright
1158 Posts
On December 23 2011 23:34 Karakaxe wrote: LF trustworthy person to unfreeze me next december will be in a fridge in japan http://xkcd.com/989/ Man, I need to read the book again, now I wish I didn't just skim over the songs (although to be fair, I don't exactly read at the most reasonable of times). | ||
|
BerserKr
Chile101 Posts
But anyways, good job spreading this | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 25 2011 02:28 BerserKr wrote: Favourite Tolkien book, title of the thread is somewhat distracting, since The Hobbit doesn't belong into the Lord of the Rings, it's the prequel to it. But anyways, good job spreading this The hobbit (film) is a prequel to the Lord of the Rings (film trilogy). However, the Lord of the rings (book) is a sequel to the Hobbit (book). There is a difference because of release/publication order. Also, whoever wrote earlier that Tolkien served in WWII is wrong. He served in WWI, but did indeed write parts of Lotr during WWII. | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
| ||
|
Poyo
Canada790 Posts
| ||
|
attwell
United States220 Posts
On December 25 2011 09:13 Poyo wrote: The dwarf chant just gave me the sickest nerd chills ever, its pretty awesome. it reminded me of the rumbling that ents do when they talk, so awesome | ||
|
FlyingToilet
United States840 Posts
| ||
|
BerserKr
Chile101 Posts
Yeah my bad i meant to say that "The Hobbit" was written before LOTR, and they aren't supposed to be categorized in the same line of books, though.. LOTR is basically a continuation of much of the story told on The Hobbit, even though you could say the final edition of The Hobbit is actually modified because of LOTR since Tolkien wanted to make it fit in a more apropiate way, it's a bit messy but anyways you get my point. Tolkien wouldn't be proud ;___; | ||
|
Andre
Slovenia3523 Posts
Looking forward to this ^^ | ||
|
RTSDealer
286 Posts
Just asked my fiancee to buy me the book. | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On December 25 2011 15:52 Andr3 wrote: Won't The Hobbit be filmed at 48fps? I wonder what difference will it make if any. Looking forward to this ^^ It makes a big difference when you have fast moving cameras or on-screen objects. | ||
|
thezanursic
5478 Posts
BEST THEME SONG EVER | ||
|
EdSlyB
Portugal1621 Posts
Blog #1 Blog #2 Blog #3 Blog #4 Blog #5 Blog #6 | ||
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On December 25 2011 20:50 EdSlyB wrote: Thanks so much for those links!One of the Ain't It Cool News (AICN) writers, Quint, has been on set filming (he has is own hobbit character) and blogging about how is the life in the sets from a very personal perspective. The blogs are currently at number 6 and are very interesting. It's worth to check them out since he also has some exclusive photos and insights. Blog #1 Blog #2 Blog #3 Blog #4 Blog #5 Blog #6 | ||
|
icclown
Denmark270 Posts
| ||
|
Trowabarton756
United States870 Posts
On December 26 2011 01:48 icclown wrote: It takes place in the same universe, but it's NOT a prequel... It's written before the LOTR - which by definition makes it not a prequel. Don't bother trying to explain this to the people who were introduced to LOTR by the movies..... | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On December 26 2011 01:53 Trowabarton756 wrote: Don't bother trying to explain this to the people who were introduced to LOTR by the movies..... Well cinematically speaking this movie is a sequel then. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
| ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
I don't know why, he just doesn't look like how iv always envisioned him I guess. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
On December 26 2011 01:48 icclown wrote: It takes place in the same universe, but it's NOT a prequel... It's written before the LOTR - which by definition makes it not a prequel. Care to explain about Smeagol and the Ring at the end of the trailer? How is it not the prequel of LOTR when there are so many characters appeared in LOTR as well | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
On December 26 2011 04:29 Boblion wrote: Thorïn and pretty much all the dwarves look bad =/ agree, Thorin looks so young and doesn't have the leader look. No fierce, no strength at all | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On December 26 2011 08:26 tuho12345 wrote: agree, Thorin looks so young and doesn't have the leader look. No fierce, no strength at all Really? I thought he looked pretty boss here: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://moviebuzzers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/thorin2-800x600.jpg) | ||
|
Rawr
Sweden624 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
attwell
United States220 Posts
The Hobbit was written before LOTR. At that point in time Tolkien had not polished the concept of the story of the ring. Tolkien wrote LOTR during and after WWII and later edited certain characters/plot points in Tho Hobbit (his son did too I believe) in order to make it "fit" with LOTR. -"The Necromancer" mentioned in the hobbit who has taken over southern mirkwood is actually sauron, but at the time the hobbit was written it was just a plot device to get Gandalf out of the way, it wasn't sauron in the proper sense. Later this was changed so that Sauron's resurgence of power started in mirkwood, before he returned to mordor. (those creepy scenes with gandalf walking around the castle, I'm pretty sure is when he is investigating Dol Guldur the first time) -Balin is just a normal dwarf, but is later mentioned in LOTR as having led a band of dwarved into moria, where they were killed by dwarves. They find a book recalling their last accounts near his tomb (although I'm not quite sure how they made a tomb while they were getting massacred...kinda confused me) -Gloin is Gimli's father So, in a very technical sense, the Hobbit was the basis for middle-earth, but up until it was changed to be a quasi-prequel to LOTR, it was simply a previous book by the same author in the same universe, but LOTR was not a sequel to it as much as they are both just side stories. | ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
Porta-
Norway46 Posts
production vlog #5 | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On December 26 2011 08:57 attwell wrote: -Balin is just a normal dwarf, but is later mentioned in LOTR as having led a band of dwarved into moria, where they were killed by goblins. They find a book recalling their last accounts near his tomb (although I'm not quite sure how they made a tomb while they were getting massacred...kinda confused me) Balin was killed before the final stand, outside at Mirrormere, so they must have had time. After all, the tombs of royalty tend to be prepared for them before they die, and he was Lord of Moria. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
Latest production vid is out! New Zealand is such a beautiful place. Can't wait to see it first hand someday. | ||
|
Tuthur
France985 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:08 Telcontar wrote: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150720773691807 Latest production vid is out! New Zealand is such a beautiful place. Can't wait to see it first hand someday. OMG I thought they stopped doing them! This is awesome to see, I'm really hyped about that movie, it doesn't happen often! | ||
|
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
| ||
|
xUnSeEnx
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
Green Sun s Zenith
Canada85 Posts
| ||
|
Sofestafont
United States83 Posts
| ||
|
madestro
Costa Rica108 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:00 Green Sun s Zenith wrote: I am sure this will be great. But the book goes so indepth into the story that Im not sure I will be pleased with a 2 - 3 hour movie, but we will see. Well the first LOTR book is so so much deeper than the actual movie. Imagine if they had included the whole story in the book for the movie, it would probably have been a 6 hour long maraton !!! Hell just Tom Bombadill could take up one or two hours alone. Jackson has already displayed awesome awareness as to what to leave out and what to include and still make a masterpiece, I doubt this would be any different; we'll see. Here's hoping The Silmarillion will be seen in IMAX 3D in 2013 !!!!!!! :D We can all dream right ? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:17 madestro wrote: Well the first LOTR book is so so much deeper than the actual movie. Imagine if they had included the whole story in the book for the movie, it would probably have been a 6 hour long maraton !!! Hell just Tom Bombadill could take up one or two hours alone. Jackson has already displayed awesome awareness as to what to leave out and what to include and still make a masterpiece, I doubt this would be any different; we'll see. Here's hoping The Silmarillion will be seen in IMAX 3D in 2013 !!!!!!! :D We can all dream right ? The Silmarillion is poorly written and lacks endearing characters, character development, and hobbits. So no. | ||
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:22 cLutZ wrote: The Silmarillion is poorly written and lacks endearing characters, character development, and hobbits. So no. 2nd age with the first war against Sauron would be so sick and can work. | ||
|
Kaien
Belgium178 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:22 cLutZ wrote: The Silmarillion is poorly written and lacks endearing characters, character development, and hobbits. So no. It is indeed impossible to make a (decent) movie based on the silmarillion, however its possible to make a movie based on the children of Hùrin =) | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:02 superbabosheki wrote: 2nd age with the first war against Sauron would be so sick and can work. Hey, look, it's just like any other action movie these days then. Dunno, the Lay of Leithian is pretty fucking epic. You could definitely make a movie about that IMO. Man, Thorin so badass in the trailer. | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:02 superbabosheki wrote: 2nd age with the first war against Sauron would be so sick and can work. * Directed by Michael Bay | ||
|
Hirmu
Finland850 Posts
On March 03 2012 10:17 madestro wrote: Well the first LOTR book is so so much deeper than the actual movie. Imagine if they had included the whole story in the book for the movie, it would probably have been a 6 hour long maraton !!! Hell just Tom Bombadill could take up one or two hours alone. Jackson has already displayed awesome awareness as to what to leave out and what to include and still make a masterpiece, I doubt this would be any different; we'll see. Here's hoping The Silmarillion will be seen in IMAX 3D in 2013 !!!!!!! :D We can all dream right ? yes please! | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
| ||
|
Neverplay
Austria532 Posts
| ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
Sentenal
United States12398 Posts
| ||
|
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
| ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
| ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
Man, watching Sherlock, I was just thinking how that guy deserves a major movie part, needless to say I'm psyched. He is, by far, my favourite character in "The Office" as well. | ||
|
Kazuo
United States67 Posts
| ||
|
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
On April 14 2012 04:47 Kazuo wrote: check out the production videos if you want to get even more hyped http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjMEYjCNGmg Oh man that's awesome! :D I wish we would all live in the Hobbit world, it's so beautiful and just epic | ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
On April 14 2012 04:47 Kazuo wrote: check out the production videos if you want to get even more hyped http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjMEYjCNGmg Dang, I didn't realize how big some of those sets are. It must have taken forever to craft those with such detail. Watching production videos really makes we want to work in the film industry... especially watching the behind the scenes of lord of the rings, it just looks really awesome to be involved in something like that. | ||
|
InoyouS2
1005 Posts
On April 14 2012 04:47 Kazuo wrote: check out the production videos if you want to get even more hyped http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjMEYjCNGmg *Oh, you're all in 3D! See ya!* Nooo... Please God no... | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
| ||
|
Windwaker
Germany1597 Posts
| ||
|
Heouf
Netherlands787 Posts
| ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On April 14 2012 09:34 InoyouS2 wrote: *Oh, you're all in 3D! See ya!* Nooo... Please God no... I know it is scary that they will ruin it with 3d, but think avatar. They are filming it in 3d at 48fps so it should look incredible. Most movies are converted to 3d in postproduction, (This will be film in 3d to start)so this should look great. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
| ||
|
Nagram
Germany36 Posts
On April 14 2012 03:36 Felnarion wrote: If I were going to make a movie of any of the stories, it would be Hurin's. Beren and Luthien would also be awesome | ||
|
Ringall
Finland177 Posts
Beren and Luthien would definately be awesome, and Hurin too, but what about Turin Turambar? On topic: ohgodicantwait. I have already acquired a sleeping bag so that I can camp infront of the movie theater for a couple of days to ensure tickets. (yesyes, internet has been invented, I don't care. It is all a part of the experience. ) | ||
|
Blackspell
United States80 Posts
http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html | ||
|
Hairy
United Kingdom1169 Posts
On April 26 2012 01:15 Blackspell wrote: Apparently 10 minutes of early footage was shown at CinemaCon, and a lot of journalists are saying that it's 48fps and 3D make the movie look really cheap, especially when live actors are portrayed fighting CGI monsters. I read the article and I still don't understand; why would filming a movie at 48fps instead of 24fps make a movie look bad? The best I could find were a bunch of critics complaining that it's "like looking at real life on a movie screen and not in a good way", which isn't exactly helpful. Furthermore, he/they was complaining that "the contrast ratio isn't there yet — everything looked either too bright or black", when the visual effects weren’t done and the lighting wasn’t finalized. Just seems like firelighting to me. Get a good news story and more publicity due to the DRAMA headlines produced, such as: First Reactions to 'The Hobbit' Are ... Not Good? WTF?! | ||
|
Hairy
United Kingdom1169 Posts
Obviously this will be impossible to do in 3D as things will be at the incorrect depth, instantly breaking that illusion. | ||
|
NightOfTheDead
Lithuania1711 Posts
On April 26 2012 01:52 Hairy wrote: Actually, given that they are filming in 3D I'm very interested to know how they are doing the special effects for the hobbits (making them look small, or humans giant), because in the original LOTR it was either ALL done, or virtually all done, using very clever camera techniques: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDlxpnRxDJs Obviously this will be impossible to do in 3D as things will be at the incorrect depth, instantly breaking that illusion. How did they use this technique for example when Gandalf and hobbit were both sitting on the horse? CGI? Kid actor? | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On April 26 2012 02:06 NightOfTheDead wrote: How did they use this technique for example when Gandalf and hobbit were both sitting on the horse? CGI? Kid actor? Dwarf standin for the hobbit unless the faces of both were shown. They did use CGI in many scenes though. It wasn't virtually all done using clever techniques. But they did that whenever possible. Just like almost all the castles and cities are physical scale models rather than CGI. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On April 14 2012 03:36 Felnarion wrote: If I were going to make a movie of any of the stories, it would be Hurin's. For me it would be Feanor's. Beren and Luthien also. And that one dark elf guy that lives in the forest....what's his name? Or am I just thinking of Luthien's father? | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
On April 14 2012 17:33 tdt wrote: I didnt really enjoy the rings movies compared to books (slapstick Gimley and superman legolas especially). Hope they do a better job this time. I completely agree with the slapstick Gimley and superman Legolas part. I'm hoping that they make a more mature movie, expecting that the fans of the LOTR-movies have grown up. | ||
|
deo1
United States199 Posts
On April 26 2012 01:47 Hairy wrote: I read the article and I still don't understand; why would filming a movie at 48fps instead of 24fps make a movie look bad? The best I could find were a bunch of critics complaining that it's "like looking at real life on a movie screen and not in a good way", which isn't exactly helpful. Furthermore, he/they was complaining that "the contrast ratio isn't there yet — everything looked either too bright or black", when the visual effects weren’t done and the lighting wasn’t finalized. Just seems like firelighting to me. Get a good news story and more publicity due to the DRAMA headlines produced, such as: First Reactions to 'The Hobbit' Are ... Not Good? WTF?! It's like the difference between watching the movie and watching the "making of" feature. It's the same set, same costumes, same actors, etc. but it just looks amazingly different. The main issue is they're not shooting to film, but straight to digital. star wars episode II and III did this but still at 24 fps. Film just has this incredibly rich, organic look to it. It's a similar discussion with music where there are many analog and LP purists. Some people say, "why would 24 bit 92 khz digital not sound better!?" but there's no doubt that analog mediums have their own characteristics that many find pleasing. Similar discussion is with 120 hz TVs and interpolating frames... some people just think it looks too... well normal. But to be fair I'm still skeptical of the media writers until I see it for myself. | ||
|
Tur
Brazil263 Posts
On March 03 2012 11:08 Kaien wrote: It is indeed impossible to make a (decent) movie based on the silmarillion, however its possible to make a movie based on the children of Hùrin =) Oh man, i would love a movie about Narn i hîm Húrin. I even choosed this name because of the book. The Hobbit looks great btw. | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
On April 26 2012 02:17 deo1 wrote: It's like the difference between watching the movie and watching the "making of" feature. It's the same set, same costumes, same actors, etc. but it just looks amazingly different. The main issue is they're not shooting to film, but straight to digital. star wars episode II and III did this but still at 24 fps. Film just has this incredibly rich, organic look to it. It's a similar discussion with music where there are many analog and LP purists. Some people say, "why would 24 bit 92 khz digital not sound better!?" but there's no doubt that analog mediums have their own characteristics that many find pleasing. Similar discussion is with 120 hz TVs and interpolating frames... some people just think it looks too... well normal. But to be fair I'm still skeptical of the media writers until I see it for myself. This. Im shooting a documentary and we intentionally filmed at 24 fps to get a more movie "feel" to it. High FPS just looks alot like reality, if you watch them right after one another, same clip it's pretty obvious. But it can also be a form of thing you have to get used to, since we've been used to 24 fps for so many years. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
On April 26 2012 02:17 deo1 wrote: It's like the difference between watching the movie and watching the "making of" feature. It's the same set, same costumes, same actors, etc. but it just looks amazingly different. The main issue is they're not shooting to film, but straight to digital. star wars episode II and III did this but still at 24 fps. Film just has this incredibly rich, organic look to it. It's a similar discussion with music where there are many analog and LP purists. Some people say, "why would 24 bit 92 khz digital not sound better!?" but there's no doubt that analog mediums have their own characteristics that many find pleasing. Similar discussion is with 120 hz TVs and interpolating frames... some people just think it looks too... well normal. But to be fair I'm still skeptical of the media writers until I see it for myself. Huh. I was genuinely confused by the talk about this stuff, this is a great explanation, thanks! | ||
|
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
On April 26 2012 02:09 Zorkmid wrote: For me it would be Feanor's. Beren and Luthien also. And that one dark elf guy that lives in the forest....what's his name? Or am I just thinking of Luthien's father? Possibly Eöl? | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
Plenty of good stories in the Silmarillion to make movies from really. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
You are talking about Eol, but his story is a minor one in the grander story of the Fall of Gondolin, as his son Maeglin is the betrayer of Gondolin. This could very well be woven into the story of Tuor. I think putting Turin/Tuor in the same movie would be a good idea, as the one story is tragic, but the other ends with the birth of Earendil, the hope of salvation for Middle Earth. edit: Mini-series probably better than movie. | ||
|
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
On April 26 2012 03:29 LaughingTulkas wrote: You are talking about Eol, but his story is a minor one in the grander story of the Fall of Gondolin, as his son Maeglin is the betrayer of Gondolin. This could very well be woven into the story of Tuor. I think putting Turin/Tuor in the same movie would be a good idea, as the one story is tragic, but the other ends with the birth of Earendil, the hope of salvation for Middle Earth. edit: Mini-series probably better than movie. I guess there is no need to guess where your name is from =) | ||
|
momonami5
United States109 Posts
| ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
http://screenrant.com/hobbit-cinemacon-footage-frame-rate-sandy-167216/ While the early consensus on whether or not The Hobbit actually benefits from being viewed at 48 f.p.s. is somewhat mixed (more on that later), the visuals and scenery glimpsed in the film’s CinemaCon sizzle reel has prompted nothing but rave reviews so far – as evidenced by the following recap, written up by Coming Soon‘s Edward Douglas: It opened with lots of sweeping shots of the mountains and landscapes of Middle Earth set to Howard Shore’s distinctive score leading into an introduction by the older Bilbo, played by Ian Holm, telling the story of his journey to Frodo, and we see a brief glimpse of Elijah Wood as his “Lord of the Rings” character. This then leads into the opening from the trailer of Gandalf approaching Bilbo to go on a journey with the dwarves. There’s also a significant scene where Gandalf is presenting “the Immortal Blade” to a council made up of Christopher Lee’s Saruman, Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel, and Hugo Weaving’s Elrond as they discuss the sword’s origins and how Gandalf was able to get it from the crypt of the Witch King where he was buried in a tomb covered with spells preventing it from being opened. The scenes of the group walking across the green fields and icy mountains of Middle Earth (i.e. New Zealand) were definitely reminiscent of “Fellowship of the Rings” and we even saw a little bit of Gandalf on his steed and a scene where the dwarves first encounter Orlando Bloom’s Legolas. The highlight though was an extended conversation between Bilbo and Smeagol/Gollum where Bilbo is trying to get directions from the strange creature who seems to be more interested in playing a game of riddles. Andy Serkis’ ability to switch Smeagol’s schizophrenic personalities still seems to be intact, and from what we saw, Martin Freeman seems absolutely perfect as Bilbo and we think audiences will like him as much as they did the Hobbits in the “Lord of the Rings” movies. | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On April 26 2012 01:15 Blackspell wrote: Apparently 10 minutes of early footage was shown at CinemaCon, and a lot of journalists are saying that it's 48fps and 3D make the movie look really cheap, especially when live actors are portrayed fighting CGI monsters. http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html Found another article about this. To be honest, i'm bit scared of this. I hope it turns out OK. Article: hobbit-film-looks-70s-soap-opera-say-critics | ||
|
Tennet
United States1458 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Fake)Plants
United States373 Posts
On April 28 2012 06:01 Grettin wrote: Found another article about this. To be honest, i'm bit scared of this. I hope it turns out OK. Article: hobbit-film-looks-70s-soap-opera-say-critics Don't worry man, critics are usually bottom feeders, ready to pounce at any moment. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
bit of an article about the hobbit. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17238 Posts
| ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On April 26 2012 03:32 Fwmeh wrote: I guess there is no need to guess where your name is from =) Not gonna lie, that made me laugh a lot (: | ||
|
LiamTheZerg
United States523 Posts
On April 28 2012 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/04/27/55378-hobbit-footage-review-massive-spoilers-full-coverage-analysis/#more-55378 bit of an article about the hobbit. That was a really nice article, thanks for linking it!! Gets me really excited for the movie later on this year. Whenever i read a book i love hearing about the backstory behind what's going on, and authors rarely give me enough to satisfy, so glad that the writers/director is adding some of their own stuff since Tolkien can't. | ||
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17238 Posts
| ||
|
Ludwigvan
Germany2371 Posts
| ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
| ||
|
wunir
United Kingdom13 Posts
| ||
|
Tennet
United States1458 Posts
| ||
|
Hairy
United Kingdom1169 Posts
On May 01 2012 20:40 Tennet wrote: Clearly we all know CG is fake so.. why does it matter? When dealing with any kind of entertainment based upon fiction, there is a concept known as the suspension of disbelief. Essentially, people are quite happy to overlook certain implausibility, and do so effortlessly, as long as the world and people and actions people perform etc remain consistent to the fiction. I like Tolkien's explanation best: Tolkien says that, in order for the narrative to work, the reader must believe that what he reads is true within the secondary reality of the fictional world. By focusing on creating an internally consistent fictional world, the author makes secondary belief possible. Tolkien argues that suspension of disbelief is only necessary when the work has failed to create secondary belief. From that point the spell is broken, and the reader ceases to be immersed in the story and must make a conscious effort to suspend disbelief or else give up on it entirely. Anything that breaks the consistency of the world would therefore break the viewer's suspension of disbelief. Have you watched 'Alien'? How would you have felt if, at the end of the film, Ripley in her climactic battle with the alien had shouted a magic spell and turned the alien into a bunny rabbit? It might be ok if it were Gandalf fighting off an orc, but it is NOT ok for Ripley because it does not 'fit' with the created universe. The problem people have with the higher framerate is the same problem people have had in the past when films (and filming) have been getting higher and higher definition and quality. As film and TV technology got better, it became more and more obvious to the viewer that eg those pretty landscapes were actually just a cheap picture drawn on a background (eg look at original series star trek). Previously passable visuals become obviously fake, thus breaking the suspension of disbelief. This issue will continue be rear its head until films/games become perfect emulations of real life, plugged directly into our brains and so flawless that you cannot tell the difference between the fiction and the reality. Every single step along the way, though, will result in people complaining that the increased fidelity exposes the "fakeness" of a special effect, thus breaking the suspension of disbelief. Special effects must become better and better to stand up to the increased level of scrutiny possible by the audience. This increase in framerate from 24fps to 48fps is no different. That all said, I fully support the new shiny framerate! :D I can't wait to see the film. | ||
|
zocktol
Germany1928 Posts
I am excited Source. | ||
|
Tennet
United States1458 Posts
| ||
|
Arkless
Canada1547 Posts
On July 31 2012 00:50 zocktol wrote: So now it ill be three movies and include the whole Dol Guldur Story. I am excited Source. This news couldnt be any better =) | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
I just hope it won't get bogged down and turn off non-fans. | ||
|
elt
Thailand1092 Posts
Hobbit/LotR spoilers, I guess? + Show Spoiler + Another thing is how are they going to reconcile Sauron-as-Necromancer and the cinematic depiction of glowing red eye atop Barad-Dur. | ||
|
nbaker
United States1341 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On July 31 2012 01:14 elt wrote: Ugh. I thought The Hobbit by itself barely warranted the two movie treatment, but I honestly don't know how they're going to fill a third film. I think they risk a lot if they flesh out the events leading up to the attack on Dol Guldur, mostly because of the paucity of material. Hobbit/LotR spoilers, I guess? + Show Spoiler + Another thing is how are they going to reconcile Sauron-as-Necromancer and the cinematic depiction of glowing red eye atop Barad-Dur. I'd assume they'd reconcile it the same way they did when they transitioned from him being a towering fell warrior to him being a glowing red eye. "He just is. Deal with it"- Peter Jackson lol | ||
|
Trasko
Sweden983 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
| ||
|
Coolness53
United States668 Posts
On July 31 2012 01:47 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: That could be pretty cool. Will have to see it to really say anything useful about it though. As long as the content is still relevant and stays true enough (I think LotR did a great job although we all have our minor bones to pick I'm sure) to the books there really can't be enough Tolkien based movies as far as I'm concerned. What they did with LotR was truly amazing and if they can pull that off again, hell film stories from the Silmarillion too! That was pretty amazing! To even get more films . | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1050 Posts
| ||
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
On July 31 2012 01:49 r00ty wrote: I just hope, it's an artist decision and not a business one... this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker | ||
|
GrimmJ
Canada131 Posts
On July 31 2012 01:57 MrHoon wrote: this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker The Rush Hour trilogy? | ||
|
elt
Thailand1092 Posts
On July 31 2012 01:57 MrHoon wrote: this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker If, if (a big one) they flesh it out well, then I'd honestly love to see an adaptation of the Children of Hurin or the story of Tuor and Gondolin. I think those two are the most easily adaptable/film-friendly stories out of The Silmarillion (plus who wouldn't want to see well rendered version of Gondolin). I'd cry myself to sleep though if they went for Beren and Luthien. That... Would just not work well IMO. But I think the Tolkien Estate still holds the rights to The Silmarillion so that's a long way off. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
1) Up to Elven King and escape 2) Kill Smaug 3) Battle of 5 Armies? But then you run into issues like breaking up Harry Potter where you have all the build up in one movie and all the pay-off (aka one big battle) in the other. One thing I really hope they do is the complete surprise of Gandalf showing up on the 'wrong side.' One of the best twists ever. | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
On July 31 2012 01:57 MrHoon wrote: this is pretty much my biggest concern too But I still have faith in peter jackson! Unlike another certain trilogy maker Pretty much this. I just hope this doesn't suffer from Episode 1-itis. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
| ||
|
Tennet
United States1458 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:11 maartendq wrote: So they're turning a book that's barely 300 pages long into a trilogy? What are they smoking at New Line cinema? They're pulling a ton a stuff from the appendices as well, plus expanding all the White Council stuff. Appendices are something like 150 pages long, but are as dense as Encyclopedia entries with information. I wonder if we're going to get an extended Battle of Azanulbizar. They do have Azog cast, but I rather thought it would be a short flash back scene/ story told. If it's three movies... | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
| ||
|
MapleFractal
Canada307 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:06 elt wrote: If, if (a big one) they flesh it out well, then I'd honestly love to see an adaptation of the Children of Hurin or the story of Tuor and Gondolin. I think those two are the most easily adaptable/film-friendly stories out of The Silmarillion (plus who wouldn't want to see well rendered version of Gondolin). I'd cry myself to sleep though if they went for Beren and Luthien. That... Would just not work well IMO. But I think the Tolkien Estate still holds the rights to The Silmarillion so that's a long way off. I think that if they were going to do any of the stories from the Silmarillion that it would be focused on Baren and Luthien. For a few reasons, it would feature characters and places were already familiar with through the LOTR movies, Sauron and Angbad. They could easily, like the first LOTR covering the battle of the Last Alliance, have a small portion of the beginning of the movie as to what the Silmarillion's are and who Morgoth is. Beren and Luthien are also mentioned in the Trilogy as well in Rivendale. With a smaller group of characters to focus on in the movie I feel that the story could be fully told and stay true for the fans of the books. I hope your right in any case, the Silmarillion is probably one of my all time favorite books. And there are some truely amazing story lines in it. On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote: (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) Tom Bombadil, and I disagree he was a badass and should have been in the movie. For all intensive purposed he was a god inside his forest and nothing could defeat him. If you can find a copy, The Tales of Tom Bombadil is really really great. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
-Meeting (duh) -Trolls (maybe not soo much) -Elven village -Orcs / Mountain -Gollum (gotta be done.) -The bear dude. (i love that guy.) bjorn? was it? -Dark forest (spiders, travelling) -Getting lost / elven castle -Riverside town / travelling to smaugs mountain -Dealings with smaug (riddles, exploring chamber and such) -Death of smaug (Bard, attack on riverside town) -Standoff on the mountain -Negotiations -Battle of 5 armies -End (and im sure im missing shit out, like the eagles / wolves after the mountain.) So, all of this in one film ? say each is only ~20 minutes long, thats stretching it a bit i feel (some alot longer, or should be and some shorter.) Thats 5 hours of film. For just my bullet points and NOTHING imbetween. Take into account that some of those "arcs" should be alot longer, i feel a trilogy is a good thing for the hobbit. People are saying that they are taking things from appendices? ive never seen or heard from them but that only makes it more awesome. For them to rush through pivotal parts of the book that are just plain awesome, and should be fleshed out so they remain equally as awesome is important to me. The fact that its a trilogy allows for them to explore more also, i mean, we never really get into what happened to the others while bilbo was having his gollum time and so on, for example. Theres so much action and interest in the book its almost impossible to create long boring periods. Cant wait! | ||
|
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
People are saying that they are taking things from appendices? ive never seen or heard from them but that only makes it more awesome. They have access to the appendices in Return of the King. Anything Silmarillion related they can't use as Christopher is sitting on the copyright. Mind you I think only section III Durin's Folk is relevant to The Hobbit, but it recontextualizes The Hobbit as a part in the large scheme of combatting Sauron (though they weren't sure if he had returned yet.) Interestingly, I believe Tolkien actually wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of LotR's and using LotR's lore in mind, but his publishers stopped him. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
If you look at Game of Thrones as a comparison even a full season of broadcasting is not enough to accurately describe the books, storylines, and scenery. Basically, if done well, I think you can almost created unlimited TV/movie content out of books this good. I have no issue with three movies at all, it's just a matter of being good enough to do it. They have proven their skills so I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see them. | ||
|
E.H Eager
United States227 Posts
Do you know why his publishers stopped him? Because that would be pretty cool to do... | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:38 Falling wrote: They have access to the appendices in Return of the King. Anything Silmarillion related they can't use as Christopher is sitting on the copyright. Mind you I think only section III Durin's Folk is relevant to The Hobbit, but it recontextualizes The Hobbit as a part in the large scheme of combatting Sauron (though they weren't sure if he had returned yet.) Interestingly, I believe Tolkien actually wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the style of LotR's and using LotR's lore in mind, but his publishers stopped him. He did update it, making Gollum more evil. In the first edition, Gollum freely gave the ring to Bilbo after losing the betting game and they parted as friends. This had to be changed when the true nature of the ring was decided upon. This was incorporated into the second edition, which was released after LotR. He also made further changes to the third edition. You are right that he made one revision attempt between the second and third edtions that he gave up because of negative feedback. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I'm all about LOTR but some of Tolkien writing is so bad, I loved the edits in the movie that removed content: D his story of good and evil was great, but his random characters (tom anyone? in the woods? dancing and shit?) were perfect to remove. I have total trust in Peter Jackson's story handling, that and Gandalf's not pulling a harry potter and changing, so it'll be fuckinggggg awesome Tom Bombadill is the most awesome character in LOTR imo. I actually really dislike how Jackson removed Tom and totally ruined Gimli as he was awesome in the books and a comic sidekick in the movies. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:46 karpo wrote: Tom Bombadill is the most awesome character in LOTR imo. I actually really dislike how Jackson removed Tom and totally ruined Gimli as he was awesome in the books and a comic sidekick in the movies. I love Tom Bombadil and it sucks that we didn't get to see him on screen. I don't dislike that he was removed and don't understand why you blame anyone for that. The books have too much content and Tom Bombadil actually plays an extremely small role of relevance to the story and could be removed without hurting the story line. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he was removed if you at all are open to the fact that a movie can't be a copy of a book? | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I love Tom Bombadil and it sucks that we didn't get to see him on screen. I don't dislike that he was removed and don't understand why you blame anyone for that. The books have too much content and Tom Bombadil actually plays an extremely small role of relevance to the story and could be removed without hurting the story line. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he was removed if you at all are open to the fact that a movie can't be a copy of a book? Maybe i should have changed that to "im dissapointed they removed Tom, and i dislike how they change Gimli from the mighty hero dwarf to a lame comic sidekick." | ||
|
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:43 Maginor wrote: He did update it, making Gollum more evil. In the first edition, Gollum freely gave the ring to Bilbo after losing the betting game and they parted as friends. This had to be changed when the true nature of the ring was decided upon. This was incorporated into the second edition, which was released after LotR. He also made further changes to the third edition. You are right that he made one revision attempt between the second and third edtions that he gave up because of negative feedback. Yeah, I meant that one revision attempt. It would be very difficult to even find the first edition with the unchanged Riddle scene. I'm sure they could make 10 films of LotR's, but maybe 30-40 years from now someone will reboot the films and do 2 films per book. I'm pretty sure you could reasonably cover a good portion of of the books including the Scouring of Shire. I also think you could easily get 6 mini story arcs for each film. I understand why the Scouring was cut, but it was such a shock and made for such a different tone to the ending of LotR's. | ||
|
Lann555
Netherlands5173 Posts
On July 31 2012 02:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I love Tom Bombadil and it sucks that we didn't get to see him on screen. I don't dislike that he was removed and don't understand why you blame anyone for that. The books have too much content and Tom Bombadil actually plays an extremely small role of relevance to the story and could be removed without hurting the story line. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he was removed if you at all are open to the fact that a movie can't be a copy of a book? The problem with Tom Bombadil is that he would be very hard to capture the feel of his character on film. Even in the books, it's a rather odd section and one that few readers understand, since you'd require some fairly deep knowledge of Middle-Earth history to really get what is going on. Didn't mind that they skipped him to be honest. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11343 Posts
| ||
| ||
