The Hobbit

[Lanthirrhos]

And? That makes my point exactly. Easily done, easily equates to a movie. Snap, crackle, pop. I NEVER stipulated that it had to be one movie. I said it was a legendarium. You don't put Beowulf, the Kalevala, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in the same movie now do you? I even used the word "movies" plural. I would want more than one. Childen of Hurin, The Lay of Beleraind, Melkor being cast out and the subsequent battles with the creation of the world and the birth of the Peoples of middle earth, then Feanor and his sons--their kinslaying, betrayal and curse... Most would make feature length films easily. Certainly as easily as the individual LotR books, and certinly as easily as any other legend.

 

I'll disagree with the Bible comparison--the Silmarillion (as a text) doesn't exist in the canon world. No one can read it, because it isn't there. It's not mere myth nor is it religion. There are characters (Galadriel, Gandalf) who lived through many of the events, know of the Vala personally, who thense know Eru personally, in this sense, it IS more of a history book, it's all fact and generally known fact at that, belief, faith, and religion doesn't factor into it from inside the world. It's just History. For those of us not in the canon world, they are alternative histories/legends, as they are fantasy/fiction works.

 

 

@fearlessfreak: I should also point out, the events of the Silmarillion don't take place in Middle-Earth, but in Beleraind.... And I feel the need to point it out because I'm a nerd. ...And pedantic. The silmarillion also includes the Second Age, and some of the Third. And a good chunk from before the creation of the earth, after the creation but before Elves/Men/Dwarves/Ents, all of which is before the First Age. My nerdiness wins. (I say it like that'ss a good thing.)

[fearless-freak]

actually Beleriand was part of Middle Earth until after the War of Wrath ended, the second age mentioned in the book is Akallabêth (The Downfallen in Adûnaic; Quenya is Atalantë)and then we've got Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age which gives a brief explanation of the Wizards & the rings of power, the founding of Arnor and Gondor and The War of The Ring (the original title for RoTK)

[fearless-freak]

Peter Jackson has completed the star-studded cast of The Hobbit after signing up Billy Connolly to play a dwarf warrior.

 

The Gulliver's Travels actor will tackle the role of Dain Ironfoot and joins Sir Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood and Orlando Bloom in the director's Lord of the Rings prequel.

 

Jackson tells The Hollywood Reporter, "We could not think of a more fitting actor to play Dain Ironfoot, the staunchest and toughest of Dwarves, than Billy Connolly, the Big Yin himself.

 

"With Billy stepping into this role, the cast of The Hobbit is now complete. We can't wait to see him on the Battlefield!"

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is scheduled to hit theatres in December.

 

source: World Entertainment News

[Krakalakachkn]

Got some badass news regarding casting:

 

 

 

Scottish comedian Billy Connolly has signed on to play Dain Ironfoot in Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" saga reports Heat Vision.

 

Ironfoot is the Dwarf cousin of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and heeds the call to war during the Battle of the Five Armies.

 

As a result it's likely his character will only appear in the second film "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" which hits late 2013. Production is still well underway on both films in New Zealand with actors like Luke Evans returning for a new block of filming this week.

 

I'm stoked.

 

 

That is all.

[fearless-freak]

i know, never thought i'd see this?

[Nolder]

dude what? that is so amazing

[reyler]

It's like Peter Jackson is trying to stuff everyone who was ever cool in the UK into this film, innit?

[Nolder]

I'm ok with that

[Nolder]

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1189213

 

Colbert is apparently going to be in one of the films

[Ashaman Kovan]

I never read the book. Or any of the LotR books. So I feel like I'll be a lot more satisfied than those that have read the books.

[Mulk]

I think most folks realize that you can't go word for word with a book in order to make a movie of it; books on the whole have far more content than you can cram into a 2 or 2.5 hour movie.

 

In LOTR, the problem was not in the removal of Bombadil, a fact decried by a lot of enthusiasts, but in the changing of the nature of some of the main characters. Aragorn and Faramir are the worst of these by far, though they mess some with Theoden, Gandalf, Treebeard and Gimli too. And that of course is the main problem in any adaptation of this sort, that the movie makers see fit to completely alter things so that at least some of the events and people are unrecognizable to those who know the story.

 

In one sense, yes, it's better not to have read the books in order to be able to judge the movie (or TV show for that matter) on its own merits. Of course, it's impossible to unread what you have read, particularly when, in my case, you've read something 40 times through or more before it gets turned into a film. So for myself, I'm left hoping that PJ will not alter too much to fit his idea of how it should work. With some justification I might add; for all of his monkeying with the characters he still produced a very good trilogy of movies for LOTR.

[The Wolf King]

For myself I understand the changes made to Faramir in the movies. In the book the ring had no effect on him and he easily let it go in favor to help Frodo and Sam. In the movie, that wouldn't work as they just spent the whole first movie telling the audience how dangerous and seductive the ring is to man.

 

I actually thought they handled Aragorn well. Gimli however, sadly turned into comedic relief by the third film.

[Darksmoon]

I think it is crazy they are making the book into 3 movies. They are really going to stretch it out.

[Krakalakachkn]

I'm pretty happy about it.

[Mulk]

Wolf: My problem with it...well, Aragorn had spent the previous decades working up to being king. There was nothing reluctant about the man in terms of the seeking of his kingship - he was the rightful heir and knew it, almost since the time he became a man, which was more than 60 years in the past. And, since he desired Arwen's hand and Elrond had forbidden their marriage unless he should reclaim the kingships of both Gondor and Arnor, he worked full heartedly, which is why he was the greatest warrior alive at the time. He had ridden to war with the Rohirrim in the time of Thengel. After leaving Rohan, Aragorn went to Gondor and took a raiding party to Umbar with the permission of Denethor's father, destroying most of the Corsair fleet at the time and killing the captain of the harbor before vanishing into the remotest parts of Middle Earth. Viggo's Aragorn is a wonderfully adept ranger, kindly and yet fearsome and all in all a very well done character, but it includes an aspect of refusal of responsibility that is never present in the books. He's also a lot shorter than Aragorn of the book most likely, but that's a triviality that doesn't matter in the grand scheme. :D

 

As for Faramir, I understand why the made the changes. There are 7 rather large problems with that line of thought - that being the other members of the Fellowship! Gandalf refuses outright to take the ring when offered. Legolas, Aragorn, Gimli, the three other hobbits never display any overt desire for it, in the books or in the movies until the Fellowship is about over and that is after what, a couple of months or more in the presence of the Ring? Sam has a brief moment much further down the road. Aragorn in the movies has a very brief moment before he sends Frodo away. Otherwise, nothing. Even for Boromir, it's the strain of worry for his people and the nearness of the Ring over the time it takes to walk from Rivendell to Lorien that finally breaks him on it. It shouldn't be able to drop anyone with any kind of mental fortitude in a day's time, especially not one who was stronger in mind than the one who broke.

 

/shrug

 

I enjoyed the movies. I watch them semi-regularly. The CG work they did to bring off Pelennor Fields and the work that went into making Middle Earth come alive on screen is so amazing I keep coming back to it. I just think some of the changes made didn't need to be made.

[Turin Turambar]

I would love to see some sort of film/miniseries version of the Silmarillion. At least from the creation od the Silmarils. Or even just the stories of the three greatest Human characters. Beren and Luthien, Turin and Tuor/Earendil. Although personally I would love to see as much as I could.

 

I actually think that the fact thesestories are told with small vignettes and lots of space to fill in would make them easier to make into film as it will be easy to create the key scenes that everyone wants to see while giving some freedom to expand the stories to make them more movie friendly.

 

I have seen the trailers for the first Hobbit film and it looks like ot will be enjoyable to those of us that love the books.

[ironcross]

the simerilion was never ment to be more then a outline. tolkin was wanting to make a vast history and most of his storyes never relly got fleshed out. so thats why it jumps so much. it kinda works as a book but would have been better if it was more finnished. be kinda like wot if you only got every third or forth book in the set. long as you got the first and last you would know what was going on in a general way but not the whole story. as an aside i have an original release of it and its somwhat diferent then the ones out now. chris tolkin has been working to flesh out some of the storys more

[Asha’man Hall]

i think this is going to be a fantastic movie. i absolutely loved lord of the rings. ive seen the movies 5 times and read the books 3 times. i really cant wait 2 see this

[ironcross]

ONLY 5???? i think i watched it in the theater about 10 times, and i cant count how many times ive watched the dvds

[Krakalakachkn]

You can stream the new soundtrack in its entirety at http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757

 

Glad to see Shore back in action.

[Krakalakachkn]

Alright, so some thoughts before I go see The Hobbit at midnight tonight/tomorrow.

 

 

 

I'm kind of disappointed that Guillermo del Toro wasn't the one to direct it.  I would have absolutely loved to see a surrealist take on a children's fantasy adventure story, especially one as well-loved and exciting as the Hobbit.

 

After reading some early reviews, it would appear that Jackson's most recent take is not up to par with his previous outing.  Now, there may be no reason to fear, and I think it would take a whole lot to make me dislike the movie or find it, as reviews have put it, drawn-out and dull in parts.  Jackson did a great job directing a straightforward fantasy series with LotR, but I think a new direction would have been better for The Hobbit as it is not only set apart from the trilogy, but also completely different with regard to style and ideal.

 

 

I mean, really, how awesome is this concept art of Smaug?

 

[Nolder]

I just got back from The Hobbit

I happened to watch it in 3D because my uncle had never seen a 3D movie before and wanted to try it and I was pleasantly surprised

The 3D effects didn't feel gimmicky or forced like most movies except in like one part but I didn't mind

The movie itself was awesome as expected

The beginning was kind of...ehhh I didn't really like the prologue stuff and felt it tied in badly but once the movie really got going it was fine

My favorite thing was the goblins

I was extremely pleased that they looked very different from orcs as that is something I was concerned about

I'd say they nailed it

Can't wait for part 2!

[Krakalakachkn]

Alright, so my thoughts are as follows.

 

 

I feel like Jackson was almost pandering to his audience this time around - he was trying to recreate the same exact formula he used with the first three, but now with a new story.  The movie itself was beautiful - the cinematography was amazing, the artistic side was good as we've come to expect.  However, that's kinda where I take issue.  We've already seen these same vistas, and they're rehashing them with the "wait, there's more" addition of 48fps.  That's why I think del Toro was the perfect choice, he would have taken the cinematography and art direction into a darker place.  The picture was crystal clear and the depth of color was astounding, but it was too....bright.  Nothing seemed dim or dark and it was hard to convey any sense of danger or even some emotions.  I would like to have seen a darker, grimmer take on a children's story, and I think Jackson's attempt to reconcile the violence of the first three with the childish humor and feel of the Hobbit didn't work incredibly well.

 

 

I can appreciate the attention to the back story, and to what seems to me an attempt to delve more into the lore of the books.  I like the direction they're going with that.  I liked the inclusion of Radagast the Brown (he was one of my favorite parts) and if he's a little silly, it's because it's a children's tale.  Radagast was awesome, and I liked the council that took place between Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Saruman.

[ironcross]

whent last night.  was impressed, stayed verry true to the book.  some artistic licence taken of corse, but not as bad as i was expecting.  i like that they kept the dwaves singing, (both the one that was in the trailer and the one about the dishes)  nd they left the riddle scean compleatly in there. now i guess we will have to see what the second one is like and if they butcher it like they did with two towers.

[Cybertrolloc]

Yay, best analogy for the Sanderson v Jordan books ever :)

 

Saw it in IMAX, 3D, 48 FPS, smell-o-vision, whatever other bells and whistles they had.

 

Can't comment on 3d in general as first movie with that I've seen. Didn't hate for that, unless the annoyingly even lighting everywhere was needed for it. At least the live action camera-work was compentent and interesting throughout. Other technical quibble is the CGI was a bit uneven in quality (worgs too cartoony), but worse the fight choreography sucked with the CGI elements: I see it as Lucas disease, just throw more on screen because you can (Avengers is an example of how to do the same thing well).

 

It's New Zealand scenery, can't go wrong there :) Rivendell was too busy this time, just sensory overload and it was during summer too, think I'd have chundered if it were fall.

 

There's plenty there that's recognizably Hobbit. Some digressions that are ok, some changes I can live with. Film has minor pacing problems, but huge tone problems (comedy...graphical dismemberment...sorrow over cost of war...back to comedy in a few minutes with the same characters). Can't think of any acting I didn't like (Lee phoned in a bit).

 

Didn't go in with huge expectations on the film snob side, and expect Peter Jackson to let things go on for a while (who cares, great actors with great production values, gimme more)... I liked, but it's no Fellowship and think it's possible technical choices gave us a less pretty Middle Earth this time.