The Hobbit, Part Deux

[r. mutt]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=17549

As for The Hobbit, Sloan confirmed that MGM was in advanced talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on JRR Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings."

The first would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, and the second would be drawn from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" he explained.

An MGM spokesman emphasized that negotiations with Jackson are still in progress, and that production isn't likely until 2008 or even 2009.

So what are we talking about here...Sauron wakes up and starts running the elves out of Middle Earth? Gandalf learns the ring is out and about and quests for it? Alatar and Pallando killed? What?

[Levin]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=17549

As for The Hobbit, Sloan confirmed that MGM was in advanced talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on JRR Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings."

The first would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, and the second would be drawn from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" he explained.

An MGM spokesman emphasized that negotiations with Jackson are still in progress, and that production isn't likely until 2008 or even 2009.

So what are we talking about here...Sauron wakes up and starts running the elves out of Middle Earth? Gandalf learns the ring is out and about and quests for it? Alatar and Pallando killed? What?
Am I right that there was precious little explicitly told about Aragorn's mother in the movie, just a brief scene in the Extended FOTR at her grave? Aragorn's associations with the fathers of Theoden and Denethor were only briefly mentioned. We saw precious little about the Dunedain and what they actually did. I think the second one could easily be all-Aragorn.

[yankeetripper]

Am I right that there was precious little explicitly told about Aragorn's mother in the movie, just a brief scene in the Extended FOTR at her grave? Aragorn's associations with the fathers of Theoden and Denethor were only briefly mentioned. We saw precious little about the Dunedain and what they actually did. I think the second one could easily be all-Aragorn.

The Hobbit would be really cool.

If they cobble a bunch of crap from the LORT appendexies, the Simarialian, or any of Tolkien's Lost Tales. OMG, what a friggin waste of time. And that's coming from a big fan of some of that boring crap. I just can't possibly see them making that work. Either they piss of the general public by boring them to death staying true to the material or they piss of the hard core fans by making up a bunch of interesting stuff for a movie that has little or nothing to do with the source material.

[whisper]

Either they piss of the general public by boring them to death staying true to the material or they piss of the hard core fans by making up a bunch of interesting stuff for a movie that has little or nothing to do with the source material.

I don't know if they'll piss off the hard core fans if they make a good movie tying the two together. They'll piss off the hard core fans if they make a bad movie tying the two together. (See Star Wars I-III)

[Jack]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.

Am I the only one who thinks Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR trilogy sucked moose balls?

[yankeetripper]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.

Am I the only one who thinks Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR trilogy sucked moose balls?

The cartoon version is actually pretty good. They cut a few parts out in the interest of time but kept to actual story very well.

I liked Jackson's LOTR trilogy. Other than a bucnh of made up crap in the 2nd movie it followed the books pretty well.

[Alto Reed on a Tenor Sax]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.

Am I the only one who thinks Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR trilogy sucked moose balls?

No. But it IS just the two of us.

[Pseudolus]

Am I right that there was precious little explicitly told about Aragorn's mother in the movie, just a brief scene in the Extended FOTR at her grave? Aragorn's associations with the fathers of Theoden and Denethor were only briefly mentioned. We saw precious little about the Dunedain and what they actually did. I think the second one could easily be all-Aragorn.Hmmmm...

[Pseudolus]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.The song from that still gets stuck in my head sometimes.

[yankeetripper]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.The song from that still gets stuck in my head sometimes.
you mean this one?
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.

The greatest adventure is there if you're bold.
Let go of the moment that life makes you hold.
To measure the meaning can make you delay;
It's time you stop thinkin' and wasting the day.

The man who's a dreamer and never takes leave
Who thinks of a world that is just make-believe
Will never know passion, will never know pain.
Who sits by the window will one day see rain.

The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.

The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

[Pseudolus]

F*****g Yanker fan.:swear:

[Mark Cavazos]

I would rather see a movie of Dildo, Frito and Goodgulf in "Bored of the Rings".

[r. mutt]

I would rather see a movie of Dildo, Frito and Goodgulf in "Bored of the Rings".

Ah, yes, I always wanted to visit Tim Benzedrine and those crazy plants of his. "He would have killed him, but it was pity that stayed his hand." It's a pity I've run out of bullets.

[Saint Kepler]

I would like to see the second movie begin with Gandalf and the White Council attacking Dol Guldur.

[QMO]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.The song from that still gets stuck in my head sometimes.Which one?

The one that gets stuck in my head is "Fifteen birds, in five bird trees..."

[Bamafan]

Who cares if they made stuff up? The movies are good. They don't have to be 100% recreations of the source material.

If the Hobbit(s) are good, then I'll like them and support them. Otherwise, I won't.

[CaptainDingo]

The song from that still gets stuck in my head sometimes.Which one?

The one that gets stuck in my head is "Fifteen birds, in five bird trees..."

Love that movie!!

But the one that gets stuck in my head isn't from the cartoon... it's Spock singing about Bilbo Baggins.

Bilbo, Bilbo, Bilbo Baggins, the greatest little hobbit of em all!!

[Feif]

The song from that still gets stuck in my head sometimes.Which one?

The one that gets stuck in my head is "Fifteen birds, in five fir trees..."

IFYP
Yeah, I miss those movies... had em when I was young, but they disappeared somewhere along the way. I actually have "When there's a whip there's a way" from ROTK on my computer...

[yankeetripper]

When my son was 2 he used to march Grandma around the house singing "Down, Down to Goblin Town...

[Signumx]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.

Am I the only one who thinks Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR trilogy sucked moose balls?
I agree with the moose comparison.

Peter Jackson (accidentally?) cast the king of fairies as the king of men.

[QMO]

Which one?

The one that gets stuck in my head is "Fifteen birds, in five fir trees..."

IFYPThanks, it's been a loooong time, and I probably never knew the right words in the first place.

[Levin]

Am I right that there was precious little explicitly told about Aragorn's mother in the movie, just a brief scene in the Extended FOTR at her grave? Aragorn's associations with the fathers of Theoden and Denethor were only briefly mentioned. We saw precious little about the Dunedain and what they actually did. I think the second one could easily be all-Aragorn.Hmmmm...
Nice man knows where to find nice, crunchable birdses. Couldn't he just bring us to one of their nestses? Oh, we haven't had eggses for ages! Ages!

[Levin]

There is a cartoone version of the Hobbit.

Am I the only one who thinks Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR trilogy sucked moose balls?
Well, Return of the King was way, way, way overlong, but I found each one of them moving, beautiful, and exciting.

But after seeing King Kong, I'm not sure I have the patience for his movies anymore. Big, epic, sweeping. Yeah, yeah. I can only take so much of that. He's going to have to do a new style for the Hobbit. I felt it was so much more small-scale, sort of like the expedition could only see two feet in front of them or something. Jackson seems to feel the need to remind you on every shot that the earth is big. Yes, yes, it's big, and we are little. That's not what the story is about.

The Lord of the Rings was all about doing things for the preservation of big things, like the earth and civilization and future generations. The Hobbit is a nice story about some money- and honor-grubbing dwarfs who want to get their gold back from the dragon. There's no world war, no vast evil trying to take over the world. Just some goblins and spiders who want to eat you, some little guy who wants to eat you, but is willing to sit around and make riddles, some dragon who is above all, lazy and proud, and a whole slough of people fighting for nothing other than riches. (I left out Bjorn, who will clearly have the same screen time as Tom Bombadil.) The Battle of Seven Armies shouldn't feel like the D-Day or something meaningful. But I think he is going to try and make it epic, which this part of the story isn't.

[Feif]

The Battle of Seven Armies shouldn't feel like the D-Day or something meaningful.

Wasn't it called the Battle of Five Armies? Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Goblins/Wargs, and Eagles.

[Levin]

The Battle of Seven Armies shouldn't feel like the D-Day or something meaningful.

Wasn't it called the Battle of Five Armies? Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Goblins/Wargs, and Eagles.
:oops:. Yeah, yeah, one of those prime numbers. See, even I want to make it bigger than it was; imagine what a man with Massive at his disposal will do.

One more thing (for now): the creepy scene where the expedition gets captured by the spiders is going to be just another overlong scene. PJ's bug/spider scenes have worn out their welcome.

Any tips on LOTR actors who are interested in "The Hobbit": Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Andy Serkis (ya think?), Hugo Weaving, maybe even a sneaky cameo by the beautiful Orlando Bloom or Liv Tyler? Maybe John Rhys-Davies as Gimli's dad or some other relative? Christopher Lee and Viggo Mortensen for "Part Deux"?

[r. mutt]

Or maybe not....
http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

[yankeetripper]

or maybe...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15821905/
...just without Jackson.

[Bamafan]

or maybe...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15821905/
...just without Jackson.

Great. Maybe they can get a good filmmaker like Michael Bay or George Lucas. [/end sarcasm]

[Levin]

or maybe...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15821905/
...just without Jackson.
It was hard for me to tell from the picture in that article whether he was wearing shoes with that tux. Right now, I'm leaning toward "no."

[llcooljabe]

Looks like it may be Sam Raimi (Of spiderman fame)

:link: (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/01/29/raimi-taking-the-reigns-of-the-hobbit/)

Film (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/category/news/film/)Raimi Taking the Reigns of “The Hobbit”? (http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2007/01/29/raimi-taking-the-reigns-of-the-hobbit/)
Amid scores of rumors over the last several months about who New Line would choose to replace Peter Jackson as the next director for the Tolkien prequel to LOTR titled “The Hobbit,” The Los Angeles Times, relying on certain trusted insiders, has decided to throw its hefty weight behind the idea that “Spider Man” director Sam Raimi is New Line’s top choice. This news comes even though New Line claims no direct contract negotiations with Raimi have been concluded. Also, MGM, the ultimate distribution owner of the franchise, has already stated quite adamantly that Peter Jackson is their man for the job and they will not be satisfied or allow for anyone else in that center-seat.

The paper is reporting today that Raimi has been talking to “associates, as well as his corporate masters at Sony” giving the heads-up that he is seriously considering New Line’s offer to helm “The Hobbit” project.

This could quell any “Spider Man 4″ rumors, or at least put them on-hold for the time being. Actors Toby Mcguire and Kirsten Dunst have already indicated their own disinterest in pursuing a fourth film in the web-maker franchise.

[Jonas Grumby]

On again? Off again!

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2010/05/28/14173166-wenn-story.html

But Jackson has planned out battle sequences, which is interesting.

[abwoc]

Looks like it may be Sam Raimi (Of Evil Dead fame)

Fix'd

[Jonas Grumby]

Del Toro is out (http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/del-toro-leaves-the-hobbit-and-evidently-peter-jackson-wont-be-next/). Peter Jackson says he won't direct. This thing is a guaranteed money maker, right? MGM should just sell the rights and move on.

[Jonas Grumby]

Peter Jackson has changed his mind (http://www.deadline.com/2010/06/urgent-peter-jackson-negotiating-to-direct-the-hobbit-films/).

[Pseudolus]

http://io9.com/5632278/martin-freeman-turned-down-the-role-of-bilbo-baggins

Martin Freeman turned down the role of Bilbo Baggins?

We're not sure whether to believe this rumor — because, honestly, who in their right mind would turn down The Hobbit? Martin Freeman would have been a particularly inspired casting decision as Bilbo Baggins, too.

According to the U.K.'s The Sun, the very same paper that swore Eddie Murphy would be the new Riddler in Chris Nolan's third Batman film, beloved Brit actor Martin Freeman passed on the role of Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit.

"It was one of the most difficult decisions of his career. MGM, who are making the film, only got a formal offer over in the last couple of weeks. It was too late for Martin because he had already signed up for another series of Sherlock. It was agonising but he had no other choice."

[Browncoat]

Wait!

Yesterday, The Sun broke news that actor Martin Freeman had been offered a seven-figure salary to play Bilbo Baggins in the long-delayed cinematic version of The Hobbit. Unfortunately for Freeman, a scheduling conflict led to him turning down the role and apparently Peter Jackson and company were ready to begin looking for an unknown actor to don the furry feet.

Not so fast, says EW. In an updated story this afternoon, sources close to the project tell the website that MGM and New Line Cinemas have come up with a revised shooting schedule for the project that would allow Freeman to make both The Hobbit and reprise his role as Dr. Watson in the hit BBC series Sherlock. Apparently negotiations are ongoing.

Freeman isn't exactly a household name here in the States yet -- but he's best known for his role as Tim in Ricky Gervais' British version of The Office. »

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0293509/news#ni4217873


Dang. Now I have to double check everything Pseud reports. :swear:

[Pseudolus]

Oh for crap's sake I totally misread that story as being about Morgan Freeman, not some Martin fellow about whom never I've heard. :shake:

[Baron Von Raschke]

That's what I thought I read originally too. Then I though of how awesome a Tolkien equivalent of "The Wiz" would be.

[oedipus rex]

Oh for crap's sake I totally misread that story as being about Morgan Freeman, not some Martin fellow about whom never I've heard. :shake:
morgan freeman as bilbo could be quite interesting.

[MightySchoop]

morgan freeman as bilbo could be quite interesting.

Crap, now Bilbo spouting off his "titles" to Smaug in Morgan Freeman's voice is going to be running through my head all day.

"I am the lucky number. The ring-winner and path-finder. I am the spider-stinger, the barrel-rider. I drown my friends and draw them alive again from the water."

[Wolverine]

But after seeing King Kong, I'm not sure I have the patience for his movies anymore. Big, epic, sweeping. Yeah, yeah. I can only take so much of that. He's going to have to do a new style for the Hobbit. I felt it was so much more small-scale, sort of like the expedition could only see two feet in front of them or something. Jackson seems to feel the need to remind you on every shot that the earth is big. Yes, yes, it's big, and we are little. That's not what the story is about.

**giggle**

You did that intentionally, didn't you?

[Browncoat]

Dang. Now I have to double check everything Pseud reports. :swear:

Oh for crap's sake I totally misread that story as being about Morgan Freeman, not some Martin fellow about whom never I've heard. :shake:

aaaaaannnnnnddddd, now I can go back to ignoring everything Pseud says.

Morgan Freeman? Srsly? Next you're going to tell me Dustin Hoffman was in Star Wars, or that Richard M Nixon's middle name was "Moe".

[Browncoat]

FTR, he was the best part of the British version of The Office.

[Pseudolus]

Next you're going to tell me Dustin Hoffman was in Star WarsNo, that was Richard Dreyfuss (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/31791/detail/).

[win diesel]

Quite random, but I thought the scene in King Kong where they were running through the valley with the dinsoaurs chasing them was the most ridiculous scene in any movie I have ever seen.

[Jonas Grumby]

FTR, he was the best part of the British version of The Office.

:iatp:

[Browncoat]

Crap, now Bilbo spouting off his "titles" to Smaug in Morgan Freeman's voice is going to be running through my head all day.

"I am the lucky number. The ring-winner and path-finder. I am the spider-stinger, the barrel-rider. I drown my friends and draw them alive again from the water."

While it is a little silly to think of him as Bilbo saying those words in that voice, consider instead him reading the entire book as a book on tape:

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

"It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats--the hobbit was fond of visitors. The tunnel wound on and on, going fairly but not quite straight into the side of the hill--The Hill, as all the people for many miles round called it--and many little round doors opened out of it, first on one side and then on another. No going upstairs for the hobbit: bedrooms, bathrooms, cellars, pantries (lots of these), wardrobes (he had whole rooms devoted to clothes), kitchens, dining-rooms, all were on the same floor, and indeed on the same passage. The best rooms were all on the lefthand side (going in), for these were the only ones to have windows, deep-set round windows looking over his garden and meadows beyond, sloping down to the river.

"This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The Bagginses had lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him. This is the story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected. He may have lost the neighbours' respect, but he gained--well, you will see whether he gained anything in the end."


Totally works.

[Browncoat]

No, that was Richard Dreyfuss (http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/31791/detail/).

I think you failed to N the R. or you just ignored it.

[Pseudolus]

Sorry. Can't respond. Ignoring you.

[Les]

FTR, he was the best part of the British version of The Office.

yeah, I like him, and didn't he play Arthur Dent in a version of Hitchhikers Guide?

[MightySchoop]

While it is a little silly to think of him as Bilbo saying those words in that voice, consider instead him reading the entire book as a book on tape:



Totally works.

as a STORYTELLER, yeah, it totally works. But just playing Bilbo, it's hilarious.

[Inconceivable]

I'm excited about this movie but not as much as I am about the movie "The Last Ni**ga on Earth", starting Tom Hanks.

[Browncoat]

yeah, I like him, and didn't he play Arthur Dent in a version of Hitchhikers Guide?

Yes.

as a STORYTELLER, yeah, it totally works. But just playing Bilbo, it's hilarious.

Yes. That's what I was saying.



If someone would quote this msg for Pseud, since he has me on ignore, I'd appreciate it.

[r. mutt]

More casting (http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/peter-jackson-sets-first-names-for-the-hobbit/) announced.

Jackson has cast several other significant Dwarf characters. Richard Armitage (MI-5 and Captain America: The First Avenger) will play Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the Company of Dwarves which sets off to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from a thieving dragon. Aidan Turner (Being Human) and Rob Kazinsky (EastEnders) will play Kili and Fili, members of the Company of Dwarves. Graham McTavish (Secretariat) will play Dwalin, John Callen (Power Rangers Jungle Fury) will play Oin; Stephen Hunter (All Saints) will play Bombur, and Mark Hadlow (King Kong) plays Dori, while Peter Hambleton (The Strip) will play Gloin.

Who?

[DownInTexas]

I liked Richard Armitage as Gisbourne, think he will make a good Thorin, as I picture that as the most physical of the roles in the movie, and as a strong leader. Don't recognize any of the others, but if LotR is a good guide, Peter Jackson is good for 2 things. Strong casting, and screwing up the actual story to rob the world of its depth, and turning moral men into cowards.

[MightySchoop]

...and turning moral men into cowards.
So what gawd-awful thing is Bard the Bowman going to do to "create drama?"

[Browncoat]

Not retrieve the Black Arrow?

[r. mutt]

But uh oh...will it still be shot in New Zealand (http://www.facebook.com/hobbitnz)? Rally, O New Zealanders! Do not let pity for Eastern Europe stay your hands!

[Patrick Bauer]

but if LotR is a good guide, Peter Jackson is good for 2 things. Strong casting, and screwing up the actual story to rob the world of its depth, and turning moral men into cowards.
Needed repeating.

[campbell]

Peter Jackson is also good at gross-out movies.

Not that it's particularly relevant, but it is something he does very well.

[Patrick Bauer]

Peter Jackson is also good at gross-out movies.

Not that it's particularly relevant, but it is something he does very well.
I concur.

[DownInTexas]

Apparently Sylvester McCoy (a.k.a. the seventh Doctor) is going to be Radagast the Brown in the movie.

Seriously Peter Jackson, W.T.F. Radagast gets cut from the LotR, and now added to the Hobbit where he's not supposed to appear, only get mentioned?

[DownInTexas]

Link for my previous comment.
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a284054/sylvester-mccoy-reveals-hobbit-role.html

[r. mutt]

Apparently Sylvester McCoy (a.k.a. the seventh Doctor) is going to be Radagast the Brown in the movie.

Seriously Peter Jackson, W.T.F. Radagast gets cut from the LotR, and now added to the Hobbit where he's not supposed to appear, only get mentioned?

Expanding The Hobbit to two movies allows him to explore minor characters. Heck, ol' Radagast might even have a romance or two.

[Abused Student]

Expanding The Hobbit to two movies allows him to explore minor characters. Heck, ol' Radagast might even have a romance or two.

What would a wizard/hobbit cross breed look like? Or a wizard/dwarf?

Or do you think they will introduce a completely new, extremely hot, mostly naked hot wizardess/witch?

[Saint Kepler]

Apparently Sylvester McCoy (a.k.a. the seventh Doctor) is going to be Radagast the Brown in the movie.

Seriously Peter Jackson, W.T.F. Radagast gets cut from the LotR, and now added to the Hobbit where he's not supposed to appear, only get mentioned?

There is going to be a lot of things in these two movies not in the Hobbit book.

I am particualrly looking forward to the Wizards and Elves driving the Necromancer from Dol Guldur (I think that'swhat it was called -- that place in Mirkwood).

[Browncoat]

Union troubles (http://screenrant.com/the-hobbit-new-zealand-peter-jackson-kofi-83734/).

[Browncoat]

Gandalf and Gollum (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/11/ian-mckellen-andy-serkis-sign-hobbit/#) will be back! Also, imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/) lists some other "rumored"s: Brian Blessed, David Tennant (i.e. The Doctor), Orlando Bloom as Leggo-my-ass (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=653), and Mr Spock himself, Leonard Friggin Nimoy as Smaug.

Smaug had some great lines in the book; I look forward to him arguing with Bilbo in a more logical fashion.

[Browncoat]

My boys and I watched the 1974 animated version a couple nights ago. They loved it. My almost 8yo said he wants to watch LOTR, but I told him he has to read it first. "Aww, dad!"

[r. mutt]

Video blog from the set. Quite fun.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/peter-jacksons-1st-video-from-hobbit-set/

[campbell]

yeah, i saw that earlier from Peter Jackson's facebook page.

I still can't get over how skinny he is now.

[DownInTexas]

Titles have been officially announced:
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit: There and Back Again.

Also, Martin Freeman let it slip that Benedict Cumberbatch has been cast in the Hobbit. Not sure what role, but should be awesome.

[yoyo]

Titles have been officially announced:
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit: There and Back Again.

Also, Martin Freeman let it slip that Benedict Cumberbatch has been cast in the Hobbit. Not sure what role, but should be awesome.he does have a hobbitty look about him

[r. mutt]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/benedict-cumberbatch-to-voice-smaug-in-the-hobbit/

The interesting thing is brief mention of a character, "Necromancer". I'm not sure if that's a proper name or a generic title.

[MightySchoop]

http://www.deadline.com/2011/06/benedict-cumberbatch-to-voice-smaug-in-the-hobbit/

The interesting thing is brief mention of a character, "Necromancer". I'm not sure if that's a proper name or a generic title.

The Necromancer is mentioned in the book. Gandalf leaves the dwarves and Bilbo at the edge of Mirkwood to go and battle the Necromancer at Dol Goldur. The Necromancer turns out to be, well, more than G thought he was.

[Browncoat]

They get him in the sequel, though.

[Browncoat]

Link says Sherlock Holmes is voicing Smaug. What happened to Nimoy? : sad :

[Inconceivable]

I know this has been talked about but this is so much more smaller scale that LOTR and I'm not sure PJ is the man to pull off the feel this movie should have in order to be good.

[Whiskey]

I liked him a lot in sherlock, but I keep hearing Alan Rickman when he talks. So him doing voicework only concerns me.

[Browncoat]

I know this has been talked about but this is so much more smaller scale that LOTR and I'm not sure PJ is the man to pull off the feel this movie should have in order to be good.

I wouldn't want a director to think this should be smaller scale than LOTR, or "not as good". This movie (or rather, the two of them) should be treated as an epic story, without thinking about how it compares to the former story. I think Jackson could do that.

[Mojo Dojo]

For the LOST fans:

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Evangeline-Lilly-Hobbit-1034413.aspx?rss=breakingnews

[Blue Man]

From that same article, not only is Orlando Bloom coming back, which he shouldn't be, but so is Elijah Wood! How the hell can Frodo be in the Hobbit when he wasn't even born yet!

[Inconceivable]

She peaked looks wise 5 years ago. Had to be said.

[ORLYLOL]

Isn't the second movie he's making going to link The Hobbit and LOTR.

Meaning:
First Movie - The Hobbit
Second Movie - story tie in

[DownInTexas]

Think Frodo's just going to be in the second covering the in between time. However, it's perfectly reasonable to think Legolas would have been present in the house of Thranduil, his father, and at the battle of the Five Armies. I have no problem with him appearing, along with Figwit.

[Browncoat]

First pix. :link: (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20504849,00.html)

It looks perfect.

[win diesel]

First pix. :link: (http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20504849,00.html)

It looks perfect.

yeah, wow that looks like Gandalf

[ORLYLOL]

I'm glad it's going to be realsed on 12/14/12, so I can see it before the end of the world.

[Saint Kepler]

Isn't the second movie he's making going to link The Hobbit and LOTR.

Meaning:
First Movie - The Hobbit
Second Movie - story tie in

From what I have heard I think the Hobbit story will be split between both films with a lot of extra stuff that is going on at the same time (i.e. the attack against the Necromancer).

I expect there will be a little bit at the end of the second movie that will tie into the LotR (that is probably when Frodo makes an appearance).

[vividox]

From what I've heard, Elijah Wood as Frodo is pretty much going to be a narrative background, where Frodo is receiving the story of the Hobbit, Red Book of Westmarch, etc. with us. Here's the snippet from wiki:

Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins: A hobbit and favorite relative of Bilbo Baggins. On 6 January 2011, Deadline reported that Wood was in talks to reprise his role of Frodo Baggins in the two parts.[44] He was confirmed as joining the cast on 7 January 2011 by TheOneRing.net. As Frodo hadn't been born during the events of The Hobbit, the inclusion of Frodo indicated that parts of the story would take place shortly before or during the events of The Lord of the Rings. According to TheOneRing.net, "As readers of 'The Hobbit' know, the tale of 'The Downfall of The Lord of the Rings' and 'The Hobbit or There and Back Again,' are contained in the fictional 'Red Book of Westmarch.' In Peter Jackson's LOTR films, the book is shown on screen and written in by Bilbo and Frodo and handed off to Samwise Gamgee....The fictional book, and either the telling from it or the reading of it, will establish Frodo in the film experiencing Bilbo's story. Viewers are to learn the tale of 'The Hobbit' as a familiar Frodo gets the tale as well."[45]

[Saint Kepler]

From what I've heard, Elijah Wood as Frodo is pretty much going to be a narrative background, where Frodo is receiving the story of the Hobbit, Red Book of Westmarch, etc. with us. Here's the snippet from wiki:

That's a cool way to link the two series of movies.

[Mojo Dojo]

Pictures of Oin, Gloin, Ori, Dori and Nori:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/another-middle-earth-first-look-the-hobbit-dwarves-gloin-and-oin/

http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/epic-first-look-photo-dwarves-dori-nori-and-ori-from-the-hobbit/

[Browncoat]

:popcorn:

[Browncoat]

Pic of the entire company (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/07/19/46354-the-hobbit-first-image-of-the-entire-company/).

22096

I'm not wild about Nori's hair (but I suppose they needed to show a little differences between them all, or no one would ever remember which was who). And why does Thorin look like a Klingon?

[Chronus]

I'm not wild about Nori's hair

Let's just pause and reflect on this statement for a second.

[Doctor Who]

Let's just pause and reflect on this statement for a second.

I know! It's fabulous, right?!

[limabeanactuary]

I know! It's fabulous, right?!

:tup:

[tometom]

Pic of the entire company (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/07/19/46354-the-hobbit-first-image-of-the-entire-company/).

22096

I'm not wild about Nori's hair (but I suppose they needed to show a little differences between them all, or no one would ever remember which was who). And why does Thorin look like a Klingon?you post so much, I would think you'd know how to put a decent size pic on here:

http://www-images.theonering.org/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DwarvesFinal-BilboV2.jpg

[Browncoat]

you post so much, I would think you'd know how to put a decent size pic on here:


Share your wisdom!

[Mojo Dojo]

I'm not wild about Nori's hair (but I suppose they needed to show a little differences between them all, or no one would ever remember which was who). And why does Thorin look like a Klingon?

Thorin has a Dorf (as opposed to dwarf) look going on.

[ORLYLOL]

Dwalin and Bifur both look like klingons without ridges

[Browncoat]

Dwalin and Bifur both look like klingons without ridges

Srsly? Thorin looks exactly like Worf's brother Kurn.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070605012404/startrek/images/thumb/c/c1/Kurn.jpg/250px-Kurn.jpg

[Blue Man]

Someday you really should try reading The Hobbit in its original Klingon.

[Browncoat]

ctm

[Descalzo]

The pictures disappoint me. I imagined Thorin as older and more wizened, for example. And Bombur as fatter.

I don't remember being this disappointed in the LotR cast.

[ORLYLOL]

Srsly? Thorin looks exactly like Worf's brother Kurn.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070605012404/startrek/images/thumb/c/c1/Kurn.jpg/250px-Kurn.jpg

I could see that, but I think Gowron would be a better comparison

http://www.scifitv.com.au/Content/Blog/Pictures/_525/Gowron.jpg

[limabeanactuary]

Bombur seems plenty fat to me.

[yankeetripper]

Bombur seems plenty fat to me.

looks at the size of the soup spoon he has

[Browncoat]

I could see that, but I think Gowron would be a better comparison



Yes! You're right. It's the eyes.

[Mojo Dojo]

you post so much, I would think you'd know how to put a decent size pic on here:

http://www-images.theonering.org/torwp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DwarvesFinal-BilboV2.jpg

Red X?

[r. mutt]

A highly entertaining and technically interesting vlog update from Mr. Jackson.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150451523596807

[limabeanactuary]

Oh thanks for reminding me. I hadn't watched it yet.

[Linus]

Best Lego Set Ever??? (http://aboutus.lego.com/en-US/PressRoom/CorporateNews/article/380673.aspx)

[campbell]

Best Lego Set Ever??? (http://aboutus.lego.com/en-US/PressRoom/CorporateNews/article/380673.aspx)

What I wanna know....

Are they gonna do a videogame?

[campbell]

oops wrong thread.

nothing to see here.

[Linus]

What I wanna know....

Are they gonna do a videogame?

I'd be shocked if they didn't. Lego versions of videogames are always better than the non-Lego versions.

[ORLYLOL]

Trailer is coming soon

:clap:

[r. mutt]

In fact, the trailer will be attached to showings of Tintin, a movie I had no interest in seeing. And probably still won't see.

[r. mutt]

We has trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM--4UklaL4&feature=player_embedded)!

[Mog]

:party:

so essyted

[limabeanactuary]

So i figure i'll go see the movie first, to see if i can take my kids to it.

ah, the sacrifices of a parent

[Mog]

MPC, a true hero

:kiss:

[ORLYLOL]

Looks so good!

I wish we could have had a glimpse of Smaug though

[Bicycle Repair Man]

My only fear is that they're going to make the movie too epic. As if The Hobbit were a prequel to Lord of the Rings, which it's not. It's a cute little story about a hobbit who gets wrapped up in an adventure and saves the day by being small.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Looks so good!

I wish we could have had a glimpse of Smaug though
But he won't be in part 1.

[ORLYLOL]

But he won't be in part 1.

I thought the first movie was The Hobbit story, and then the next one was meant to link it to LOTR?

[ORLYLOL]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

Shows Smaug in the credits

[freddecker]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

Shows Smaug in the credits

I cumerbatched once.

[campbell]

Looks so good!

I wish we could have had a glimpse of Smaug though

I don't think we'll get Smaug til part 2

[campbell]

I cumerbatched once.

what a name

(and I guess I was wrong about the other)

[ORLYLOL]

I don't think we'll get Smaug til part 2

I think we'll get Smaug in pt. 1 and Necromancer in pt. 2

[SirVLCIV]

I think we'll get Smaug in pt. 1 and Necromancer in pt. 2

That seems really early for Smaug, no?

[ORLYLOL]

That seems really early for Smaug, no?

I dunno, it seemed like the second movie was going to be all new material. I could be wrong though.

Wouldn't pt. 1 be too early for the necromancer? It seems like he'd be the bigger villain

[yankeetripper]

That seems really early for Smaug, no?

They will probably cut to sences of Smaug taking over Lonely mountain at Billbo's House when the dwarves tell their tale and/or sing their song.

[yankeetripper]

I think we'll get Smaug in pt. 1 and Necromancer in pt. 2

Considering he has fewer than 3 lines about him in the entire book, they'd have to add that part out of whole cloth. Though I guess Jackson could make up Gandalf's adventures when he was off page from when he leaves the party at the gates of Mirkwood until he makes his appreance again just before the battle of five armies.

[Browncoat]

He has any lines in the book?

[yankeetripper]

He has any lines in the book?

He has no lines nor is he ever encountered. I believe Gandalf mentions him when ...

giving Thorin the map & key. Something about "I found your father in the dungeon of the necrmancer... and Thorin says something like "It's time we repay him yada, yada, yada. And gandalf replies "he far too powerful for you, the dragon will be quite enough"

And he is "the pressing business away down south" that Gandalf is "already late from bothering with you people"


...but otherwise I don't think he's even mentioned at all in the Hobbit.

[Browncoat]

Two things stood out to me in the trailer.

1. Gandalf and Galadriel have a moment. I'll be disappointed if the writers ship them, though I suspect they won't just like we didn't have to endure Xena/Arwen in LOTR.
2. Thorin Oakenshield is still a Klingon.

[Browncoat]

He has no lines nor is he ever encountered.

That was my recollection as well. I misread the previous post that says there are fewer than three lines about him. I read that he has fewer than three lines. My bad. Carry on.

[ORLYLOL]

Two things stood out to me in the trailer.

1. Gandalf and Galadriel have a moment. I'll be disappointed if the writers ship them, though I suspect they won't just like we didn't have to endure Xena/Arwen in LOTR.
2. Thorin Oakenshield is still a Klingon.

Gowron returns!

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Now Jackson is talking about making The Hobbit a trilogy, by adding a bunch of stuff from the appendices of LOTR.

No. Just no.

If he wants to make a Silmarillion movie, let him make a Silmarillion movie. Let him make a bunch of those. I'm a Tolkein nerd, I'll go see them all.

But don't turn The Hobbit into The Freakin' Silmarillion.

[crabber]

Now Jackson is talking about making The Hobbit a trilogy, by adding a bunch of stuff from the appendices of LOTR.

No. Just no.

If he wants to make a Silmarillion movie, let him make a Silmarillion movie. Let him make a bunch of those. I'm a Tolkein nerd, I'll go see them all.

But don't turn The Hobbit into The Freakin' Silmarillion.

What stuff is he talking about adding? There are way more volumes of "historical" documents than just the Silmarillion, but I haven't tried to read any of those.

[vividox]

Definitely need to keep the Hobbit separate from the other stuff. I tend to think the other stuff doesn't translate into a movie well at all, but Peter Jackson is very good at adding his own ridiculous flavor (I do not mean this in a good way) to his productions.

[Chronus]

It's officially a trilogy now.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/07/30/the-hobbit-will-now-be-a-trilogy-of-movies/

‘The Hobbit’ Will Now Be a Trilogy of Movies

Director Peter Jackson wrote in a Facebook post Monday that his film adaptation of “The Hobbit,” the fantasy novel written by J.R.R. Tolkien, will now be a trilogy.

There was anticipation that there would be a Part 3 following comments made by Jackson at Comic-Con earlier this month that he had extra footage from the shoot, which was previously planned for use in only two films. His message Monday confirmed that, and the third installment is expected to be released in the summer of 2014.

On Facebook, Jackson wrote the following message:

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie – and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, ”a tale that grew in the telling.”

Cheers,

Peter J


Tolkien’s epic adventure book was first published in 1937 to critical acclaim, and is a prelude to “The Lord of the Rings” series. The book follows hobbit Bilbo Baggins as he sets forth with the wizard Gandalf and a company of dwarves on a quest to reach the treasures guarded by dragon Smaug the Magnificent. Along the way, Bilbo encounters a magic ring and a creature known as Gollum.

With the film adaptation now stretched to three parts, “The Hobbit” follows other film-adaptation series that would appear to take longer to watch, than to read the original source books themselves. When J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series was adapted for film, the seventh and final installment was divided into two films. A similar extension happened with the film adaptation of Stephanie Meyer’s “Twilight” series, with the final installment, “Breaking Dawn: Part 2,” set to be released in mid-November. (Jackson directed “The Lord of the Rings” film trilogy, but at one film per book.) Perhaps the takeaway is that fans, and film studios, just can’t get enough.

[r. mutt]

My only question is: what the heck, why stop at 3? Just serialized the damn thing in 10 installments and call it the Shire Decameron.

[whisper]

Holy bloat...

[Bicycle Repair Man]

So we're going to get:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Hobbit: There and Back Again
The Hobbit: Lots of Stuff That Isn't Technically The Hobbit

That's just my guess for the title of the third part.

[vividox]

I hate Peter Jackson.

It's literally going to take less time to read the book than to watch the movie. Which means 90% of the movie is going to be those ambient esoteric scenery/imagery shots that P.J. loves to over use.

[Browncoat]

You read faster than I do.

But you're not wrong. Unnecessary movie is unnecessary.

[Feif]

So are they going to start even before the book, with things mentioned in the Appendices of LOTR?
Such as Smaug driving out the dwarves, Gandalf meeting Thorin, the fight with Azog, etc?

[Henry F Wagons]

Definitely need to keep the Hobbit separate from the other stuff. I tend to think the other stuff doesn't translate into a movie well at all, but Peter Jackson is very good at adding his own ridiculous flavor (I do not mean this in a good way) to his productions.

This is why I don't really care about these movies. Peter Jackson demonstrated with his previous works he wants to reinterpret the Tolkiens writing to make it "better." No thank you.

The Hobbit is a consise, complete story easily translated into one movie. The original material exists for many movies, but they would then no longer be the Hobbit. I fear PJ's Middle Earth will end up being as far from Tolkiens as the Twilight vampires are from Bram Stokers's Dracula.

[whisper]

This is why I don't really care about these movies. Peter Jackson demonstrated with his previous works he wants to reinterpret the Tolkiens writing to make it "better." No thank you.

A scene by scene recreation of the book gives you Harry Potter #1 - which was dull. A book <> movie. Changing the book to make it work as a movie is fine, as long as it doesn't break too much of the book.

[ORLYLOL]

3rd movie = more awesome IMO.

I just treat them as totally separate entities that have some similarities (book vs. movies).

Still planning to be at the midnight screening

[Henry F Wagons]

A scene by scene recreation of the book gives you Harry Potter #1 - which was dull. A book <> movie. Changing the book to make it work as a movie is fine, as long as it doesn't break too much of the book.

Agreed.
When you make changes where changes aren't needed uyou are no longer advancing the story but telling a different one.

Have you read Tolkien's writings on why he never sold the movie rights? Jackson may not be Disney but he will change them to make them his.


I just treat them as totally separate entities that have some similarities (book vs. movies). This.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

This is why I don't really care about these movies. Peter Jackson demonstrated with his previous works he wants to reinterpret the Tolkiens writing to make it "better." No thank you.
Except that he did improve on a great many things. A few examples:

In the book, 17 years pass between Bilbo's Birthday Party and Frodo leaving the Shire. This is absurd. Gandalf leaves a ring which might be The One Ring vulnerable for 17 years? Doesn't make sense.

Frodo and Gandalf's conversation about wishing Bilbo had killed Gollum and destiny and stuff originally happens in Bag End. Putting it in Moria gives it more meaning.

No Tom Bombadil in the movie. This is an awesome change.

The movies give Arwen more to do. This improves her character into more than just a love interest for Aragorn.

In the book, Gandalf is in favor of going through Moria. In the movies, he councils against it and they only go there when they are left no other choice.

I could go on.

[Abused Student]

Except that he did improve on a great many things. A few examples:

In the book, 17 years pass between Bilbo's Birthday Party and Frodo leaving the Shire. This is absurd. Gandalf leaves a ring which might be The One Ring vulnerable for 17 years? Doesn't make sense.

Frodo and Gandalf's conversation about wishing Bilbo had killed Gollum and destiny and stuff originally happens in Bag End. Putting it in Moria gives it more meaning.

No Tom Bombadil in the movie. This is an awesome change.

The movies give Arwen more to do. This improves her character into more than just a love interest for Aragorn.

In the book, Gandalf is in favor of going through Moria. In the movies, he councils against it and they only go there when they are left no other choice.

I could go on.

I believe according to the book, during those 17 years, Gandalf was researching to find out if it was indeed the ring. As Frodo didn't know anything about the ring and nobody else knew it was in the Shire, it was in a safe place.

The Arwen thing was an improvement just because Liv Tyler needed more screen time. It doesn't actually make the plot any better IMHO.

The rest are pretty minor but it has been a while since I read the books.

[Descalzo]

Ah but there are other things about it that, I feel, make it way worse:

Faramir is not the stallion he was in the book.

Aragorn carries an actual sword instead of the Shards of Narsil. That's right, in the book he was so awesome he didn't even need a sword!

That business with Faramir.

Frodo and Sam and the way they argue about Gollum.

Faramir was kind of a dink.

The new ents were ignoramous, head-in-the-sand pansies that needed to be tricked into fighting, instead of wise and ponderous.

Faramir's interaction with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum.

These flaws are with Tolkien's characters and his worldview/values, and I think that they're much more subtle and much more important than a more convenient plot for the new medium. It's not nearly as bad as what they did with the 2000 Les Miserables, but these are the reasons that I don't rewatch the movies.

[vividox]

In the book, 17 years pass between Bilbo's Birthday Party and Frodo leaving the Shire. This is absurd. Gandalf leaves a ring which might be The One Ring vulnerable for 17 years? Doesn't make sense.


The ring had been lost for around 2500 years, and the 17 years it was with Frodo bothers you?

[Abused Student]

The ring had been lost for around 2500 years, and the 17 years it was with Frodo bothers you?

Don't forget the how many years that Gandalf knew that Bilbo had a ring.

[vividox]

Ah but there are other things about it that, I feel, make it way worse:

Faramir is not the stallion he was in the book.

Aragorn carries an actual sword instead of the Shards of Narsil. That's right, in the book he was so awesome he didn't even need a sword!

That business with Faramir.

Frodo and Sam and the way they argue about Gollum.

Faramir was kind of a dink.

The new ents were ignoramous, head-in-the-sand pansies that needed to be tricked into fighting, instead of wise and ponderous.

Faramir's interaction with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum.

These flaws are with Tolkien's characters and his worldview/values, and I think that they're much more subtle and much more important than a more convenient plot for the new medium. It's not nearly as bad as what they did with the 2000 Les Miserables, but these are the reasons that I don't rewatch the movies.
Definitely agree that Jackson completely ruined Faramir. He was awesome in the book and it was hard not to despise him in the movie. Taking Frodo and Sam all the way back to Osgiliath was just :shake:.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

The ring had been lost for around 2500 years, and the 17 years it was with Frodo bothers you?
Don't forget the how many years that Gandalf knew that Bilbo had a ring.
When Bilbo found the ring, Gandalf didn't suspect it was The One Ring. All he knew is that it made Bilbo invisible. Why would the most powerful magical artifiact in all of Middle Earth just turn a hobbit invisible?

It wasn't until many years later, when Gandalf learned how interested Mordor was in the creature Gollum, that he began to wonder. At which point he goes at Shadowfax speed to the Shire to get the ring out of there before the Nazgul can find it.

Alternately, one could make a case that Gandalf knew that Bilbo was too possessed by the ring to ever be able to destroy it. So he was waiting for Frodo to be old enough for the job.

[casact921]

No Tom Bombadil in the movie. This is an awesome change.


You take that back!!! :swear:

Am I the only Tolkien fan that actually likes this character?

btw, here (http://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html) is an awesome conspiracy theory about the true nature of Tom Bombadil. Very compelling "evidence" to suggest he's not the jolly figure we're led to believe :tfh:

Old Tom Bombadil. Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans [ jerks more like it]of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story. And yet, there is another way of looking at Bombadil, based only on what appears in the book itself, that paints a very different picture of this figure of fun.

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is fat and jolly and smiles all the time. He is friendly and gregarious and always ready to help travellers in distress.

Except that none of that can possibly be true.

Consider: By his own account (and by Elrond’s surprisingly sketchy knowledge) Bombadil has lived in the Old Forest since before the hobbits came to the Shire. Since before Elrond was born. Since the earliest days of the First Age.

And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him.

The guise in which Bombadil appears to Frodo and his companions is much like a hobbit writ large. He loves food and songs and nonsense rhymes and drink and company. Any hobbit who saw such a person would tell tales of him. Any hobbit who was rescued by Tom would sing songs about him and tell everyone else. Yet Merry – who knows all the history of Buckland and has ventured into the Old Forest many times – has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Frodo and Sam – avid readers of old Bilbo’s lore – have no idea that any such being exists, until he appears to them. All the hobbits of the Shire think of the Old Forest as a place of horror – not as the abode of a jolly fat man who is surprisingly generous with his food.

If Bombadil has indeed lived in the Old Forest all this time – in a house less than twenty miles from Buckland – then it stands to reason that he has never appeared to a single hobbit traveller before, and has certainly never rescued one from death. In the 1400 years since the Shire was settled.

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is not what he seems.

Elrond, the greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Elrond is only vaguely aware that there was once someone called Iarwain Ben-Adar (“Oldest and Fatherless”) who might be the same as Bombadil. And yet, the main road between Rivendell and the Grey Havens passes not 20 miles from Bombadil’s house, which stands beside the most ancient forest in Middle Earth. Has no elf ever wandered in the Old Forest or encountered Bombadil in all these thousands of years? Apparently not.

Gandalf seems to know more, but he keeps his knowledge to himself. At the Council of Elrond, when people suggest sending the Ring to Bombadil, Gandalf comes up with a surprisingly varied list of reasons why that should not be done. It is not clear that any of the reasons that he gives are the true one.

Now, in his conversation with Frodo, Bombadil implies (but avoids directly stating) that he had heard of their coming from Farmer Maggot and from Gildor’s elves (both of whom Frodo had recently described). But that also makes no sense. Maggot lives west of the Brandywine, remained there when Frodo left, and never even knew that Frodo would be leaving the Shire. And if Elrond knows nothing of Bombadil, how can he be a friend of Gildor’s?

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He lies.

A question: what is the most dangerous place in Middle Earth? First place goes to the Mines of Moria, home of the Balrog, but what is the second most dangerous place? Tom Bombadil’s country.
By comparison, Mordor is a safe and well-run land, where two lightly-armed hobbits can wander for days without meeting anything more dangerous than themselves. Yet the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs, all part of Tom’s country, are filled with perils that would tax anyone in the Fellowship except perhaps Gandalf.

Now, it is canonical in Tolkein that powerful magical beings imprint their nature on their homes. Lorien under Galadriel is a place of peace and light. Moria, after the Balrog awoke, was a place of terror to which lesser evil creatures were drawn. Likewise, when Sauron lived in Mirkwood, it became blighted with evil and a home to monsters.

And then, there’s Tom Bombadil’s Country.

The hobbits can sense the hatred within all the trees in the Old Forest. Every tree in that place is a malevolent huorn, hating humankind. Every single tree. And the barrows of the ancient kings that lie nearby are defiled and inhabited by Barrow-Wights. Bombadil has the power to control or banish all these creatures, but he does not do so. Instead, he provides a refuge for them against men and other powers. Evil things – and only evil things – flourish in his domain. “Tom Bombadil is the master” Goldberry says. And his subjects are black huorns and barrow wights.

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is not the benevolent figure that he pretends to be.

Tom appears to the Ringbearer in a friendly, happy guise, to question and test him and to give him and his companions swords that can kill the servants of another evil power. But his motives are his own.

Consider: it is said more than once that the willows are the most powerful and evil trees in the Forest. Yet, the rhyme that Bombadil teaches the hobbits to use in conjuring up Bombadil himself includes the line, “By the reed and willow.” The willows are a part of Bombadil’s power and a means of calling on him. They draw their strength from the cursed river Withywindle, the centre of all the evil in the Forest.

And the springs of the Withywindle are right next to Tom Bombadil’s house.

And then there is Goldberry, “the river-daughter”. She is presented as Bombadil’s wife, an improbably beautiful and regal being who charms and beguiles the hobbits. It is implied that she is a water spirit, and she sits combing her long, blonde hair after the manner of a mermaid. (And it is worth remembering that mermaids were originally seen as monsters, beautiful above the water, slimy and hideous below, luring sailors to drown and be eaten.) But I suggest the name means that in her true state, Goldberry is nourished by the River – that is, by the proverbially evil Withywindle.

In folklore and legend (as Tolkien would know well) there are many tales of creatures that can take on human form but whose human shape always contains a clue to their true nature. So what might Goldberry be? She is tall and slender - specifically she is “slender as a willow wand”. She wears a green dress, sits amidst bowls of river water and is surrounded by the curtain of her golden hair. I suggest that she is a Willow tree conjured into human form, a malevolent huorn like the Old Man Willow from whom the hobbits have just escaped. If she is not indeed the same tree.

So, if this is true, then why does Bombadil save and help the ringbearer and his companions? Because they can bring about the downfall of Sauron, the current Dark Lord of Middle Earth. When Sauron falls, the other rings will fail and the wizards and elves will leave Middle Earth and the only great power that is left will be Bombadil.

There is a boundary around Bombadil’s country that he cannot or will not pass, something that confines him to a narrow space. And in return, no wizard or elf comes into his country to see who rules it, or to disturb the evil creatures that gather under his protection.

When the hobbits return to the Shire after their journey to Mordor, Gandalf leaves them close to Bree and goes towards Bombadil’s country to have words with him. We do not know what they say. But Gandalf was sent to Middle Earth to contend against Sauron and now he must depart. He has been given no mission to confront Bombadil and he must soon leave Middle Earth to powerless men and hobbits, while Bombadil remains, waiting to fulfill his purpose.

Do I think that Tolkien planned things in this way? Not at all, but I find it an interesting speculation.

To speculate further and more wildly:

The spell that binds Bombadil to his narrow and cursed country was put in place centuries ago by the Valar to protect men and elves. It may last a few decades more, perhaps a few generations of hobbit lives. But when the last elf has gone from the havens and the last spells of rings and wizards unravel, then it will be gone. And Iarwain Ben-Adar, Oldest and Fatherless, who was ruler of the darkness in Middle Earth before Sauron was, before Morgoth set foot there, before the first rising of the sun, will come into his inheritance again. And one dark night the old trees will march westward into the Shire to feed their ancient hatred. And Bombadil will dance down amongst them, clad in his true shape at last, singing his incomprehensible rhymes as the trees mutter their curses and the black and terrible Barrow-Wights dance and gibber around him. And he will be smiling.

[campbell]

I like Old Tom, but I don't think he'd work in a movie

[ORLYLOL]

I like Old Tom, but I don't think he'd work in a movie

What about Old Greg?

[PeppermintPatty]

Ah but there are other things about it that, I feel, make it way worse:

Faramir is not the stallion he was in the book.

Aragorn carries an actual sword instead of the Shards of Narsil. That's right, in the book he was so awesome he didn't even need a sword!

That business with Faramir.

Frodo and Sam and the way they argue about Gollum.

Faramir was kind of a dink.

The new ents were ignoramous, head-in-the-sand pansies that needed to be tricked into fighting, instead of wise and ponderous.

Faramir's interaction with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum.

These flaws are with Tolkien's characters and his worldview/values, and I think that they're much more subtle and much more important than a more convenient plot for the new medium. It's not nearly as bad as what they did with the 2000 Les Miserables, but these are the reasons that I don't rewatch the movies.Agreed. The very worst thing PEter Jackson did was to demean Faramir.

You take that back!!! :swear:

Am I the only Tolkien fan that actually likes this character?No, he's my favorite character.


I like Old Tom, but I don't think he'd work in a movieYeah, I think he was written in early, and as the story grew, he didn't fit any more, but Tolkien loved him too much to take him out. I missed him, but think it made sense to remove him from the movie.

[TheGillotine]

I love the Lord of the Rings books, and I love Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[Descalzo]

Definitely agree that Jackson completely ruined Faramir. He was awesome in the book and it was hard not to despise him in the movie. Taking Frodo and Sam all the way back to Osgiliath was just :shake:.

I read some dude's essay wher he suggests that it wasn't so much Garamir that was broken as much as Frodo.

In the book, Frodo tells Faramir the Minimum Correct Thing about his mission. In the movie, Frodo lies through his teeth the whole time. He says that if you look at Movie Faramir's reactions in light of Movie Frodo's actions he comes off as very prudent.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It is kind of moot because Faramir really does come off like a jerk either way and Faramir's behavior in thes scenes is one of my favorite things about the book.

I'll see if I can find the link.

[Descalzo]

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

[PeppermintPatty]

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

thx

[Delothus]

You take that back!!! :swear:

Am I the only Tolkien fan that actually likes this character?

btw, here (http://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html) is an awesome conspiracy theory about the true nature of Tom Bombadil. Very compelling "evidence" to suggest he's not the jolly figure we're led to believe :tfh:



I love Bombadil and have had a couple pets over the years named Bombadil ( great pet name when you have small kids)

It has been a long time since I read the books, but if you buy into the one explanation that I recall Gandalf giving on why the ring should not be given to Tom Baombadil then the ret of the conspiracy theory mostly vanishes ( though good point on no Hobbit song or lore about Tom).

Gandalf says something along the lines of, Tom would not protect the ring because it would in essence be meaningless to him. Tom doesn't make all the A to B to Z connections we do. Same reason why he probably doesn't get rid of the angry trees. I suspect Tolkein actually makes some comment on why the trees are angry elsewhere at some point.

people like Elrond and others that have their envirnment mimic their character have a will and purpose.

In a sort of way, I think it might be fair to classify Bombadil as purposeless lol and inthat regard maybe that is why in the end he is forgetten in the movie?

[Descalzo]

Here's more. Down toward the bottom there are some quotes about why Tolkien wrote Bombadil, and why he thought it was so important to leave him in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil

In response to a letter from one of his readers, Tolkien described Tom's role in The Lord of the Rings:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function."

Tolkien did go on to analyse the character's role further:

"I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless …

"It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war … the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."[7]

Tolkien even seems to justify Tom Bombadil's presence:

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

I'm on my lappie now.

[PeppermintPatty]

Here's more. Down toward the bottom there are some quotes about why Tolkien wrote Bombadil, and why he thought it was so important to leave him in.

Sorry for not quoting it in this post, but I'm on an iPad and that's a pain.

did you mean to include a link?

[campbell]

Here's more. Down toward the bottom there are some quotes about why Tolkien wrote Bombadil, and why he thought it was so important to leave him in.

Sorry for not quoting it in this post, but I'm on an iPad and that's a pain.

i feel your pain... on my ipad while my mbp is doing video processing

peppermint patty - des posted the link earlier in this thread, just scroll up

[PeppermintPatty]

I can't find it.

is it linked on this page?

Various & Sundry Tolkien Investigations

Note: Several of these pages have been moved to Squidoo, the pages which have ads on them. These pages earn a few pennies for support and upkeep of my favorite online community, The Lord of the Rings Plaza.

Aragorn: Heir to the Throne of Gondor...or Not? The complexities around Aragorn's claim, and why Denethor disputed it.
Estel: Aragorn's Secret Name: An essay on Hope in The Lord of the Rings.
How old are these people? Can't remember a character's age? This is most of 'em.
Healing in Middle-earth: an exhaustive study of healing magic and techniques used by the various characters and races of Middle-earth.
Healing Arts of the Elves: an in-character examination of Elven healing, written as if by a visitor to Imladris.
The Role of Arwen Undomiel: Kingmaker. She had very different roles in the movies versus the book. Learn more about her!
Gandalf's knowledge How much of the future (or present) could he see?
A Character Study of Éomer Éadig and his impact on Rohan and Gondor
Legolas of Mirkwood: Prince Among Equals, piecing together his unusual upbringing and family history from Tolkien's lesser-known writings. This is not the Legolas that most fans know!
Did Tolkien's Elves Have Pointed Ears? The complete scoop.
Men in Lórien: Who Escapes Her Nets? A little-known detail of LOTR.
Brian Sibley's BBC Dramatization of LOTR: Better than the films?
Push Him, Elrond! Why didn't Elrond simply cast Isildur into the fire?
What happened to Erkenbrand in TTT? (or, Elves at Helm's Deep?!!)
Hail, Théoden, King! (or not) A humorous critique of a wee little story arc problem in TTT
The Boy with the Bow, an ever-evolving and startlingly popular homage to the stunt archery in the films.
What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir? Reconciling the movie and book versions of Faramir.
An Immortal in a Mortal World Jackson puts Legolas through the ringer in a way Tolkien never did.
Gríma's Tear: what are we to make of it?
How to Use a Dictionary to Translate Between Languages: the most important thing every budding Elvish scholar MUST know
Elvish poetry, the products of a novice in Sindarin who's still learning the ropes. Translations included.
I Raid I Firn: The Paths of the Dead (stand-alone excerpt from Not Lightly Do the Leaves of Lórien Fall).
The Khazad-dum Tinies. A little Tolkien humor.
Links to indispensible Tolkien sites

Michael Martinez's fabulous Tolkien articles
Ardalambion: best resource for Elvish languages

[Henry F Wagons]

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html


I have always thought of Tom as "Father Nature." He is the personification of the natural world.

[campbell]

I want to learn Old English now

then maybe Welsh

[Descalzo]

did you mean to include a link?

Thanks

Fixed (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=6180909&postcount=171)

[MightySchoop]

In the book, 17 years pass between Bilbo's Birthday Party and Frodo leaving the Shire. This is absurd. Gandalf leaves a ring which might be The One Ring vulnerable for 17 years? Doesn't make sense.


Where is it afer than in a forgotten corner of the world, where Gandalf (and nobody else) knows exactly where it is? What's he supposed to do? If he takes it, he knows he will use it.

The movies give Arwen more to do. This improves her character into more than just a love interest for Aragorn.
Fair enough, but that meant dropping Glorfindel from the movies. :(

In the book, Gandalf is in favor of going through Moria. In the movies, he councils against it and they only go there when they are left no other choice.

Gandalf is in favor of going through Moria because the alternative is the Gap of Rohan, where Saruman is martialling his power. Moria might be safe, but Isengard definitely isn't.

[vividox]

It also sucked when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep to help and they still almost lost the battle.

[Browncoat]

I dislike the increased role of Arwen. So Aragorn's babe doesn't have a large part. So what?

However, since she took Frodo on the journey to her father, outpacing the Nine, it makes sense that she had the power to call the river to swipe the Nine away, a task given to Gandalf in the book.

One of my favorite conversatios in the book, which made it into the movies, albeit in an abbreviated form, was Sam and Frodo talking about whether stories will ever be made up of their journey. Funny and touching.

[Browncoat]

The ring had been lost for around 2500 years, and the 17 years it was with Frodo bothers you?

Is that right? 2500 years?

I was going to object that Smeagol had it but 500 years, forgetting that it lay on the bottom of the river for an undisclosed (or forgotten) amount of time. I recall Elrond saying in the movie that he fought in the battle against Sauron 3000 years ago, so I guess you're closer than I had originally thought.

[Chronus]

I dislike the increased role of Arwen. So Aragorn's babe doesn't have a large part. So what?

Arwen needed to be given a more prominent part for marketing, and general appeal purposes. Without giving her, and some of the other females, more prominent roles it would have been even more of a sausage fest than it already was.

Fantasy fans are more predominantly male anyways so giving her a bigger role gives female viewers a strong female character to like, adds a little more romance, and it also gives male viewers a little eye candy. It just makes the movies more appealing to a wider audience.

I'm fine with changes like that being made as long as they don't have a negative impact on the story and in this case I didn't think it hurt anything.

[Chronus]

It's been a long time since I've watched or read LotR. Maybe if I have some free time this weekend I'll try watching Fellowship again.

[Browncoat]

Arwen needed to be given a more prominent part for marketing, and general appeal purposes. Without giving her, and some of the other females, more prominent roles it would have been even more of a sausage fest than it already was.

Fantasy fans are more predominantly male anyways so giving her a bigger role gives female viewers a strong female character to like, adds a little more romance, and it also gives male viewers a little eye candy. It just makes the movies more appealing to a wider audience.

I'm fine with changes like that being made as long as they don't have a negative impact on the story and in this case I didn't think it hurt anything.

That's why PJ toyed with the idea of making her Xenarwen, Warrior Princess. If I understand things aright, the fans objected loudly enough that he shut that down. So they he added dream sequences to build up to the wedding at the end, to find some use for Liv Tyler (who is a big name, afterall), and to give myopic teenage boys a little eye-candy (even though she's far less pretty than reports make out, and that's only partly because of the plastic she's got in her upper lip).

[Chronus]

That's why PJ toyed with the idea of making her Xenarwen, Warrior Princess. If I understand things aright, the fans objected loudly enough that he shut that down. So they he added dream sequences to build up to the wedding at the end, to find some use for Liv Tyler (who is a big name, afterall), and to give myopic teenage boys a little eye-candy (even though she's far less pretty than reports make out, and that's only partly because of the plastic she's got in her upper lip).

:lol: yeah that would have been pretty bad and would have bothered me a lot more than the way he did it.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Where is it afer than in a forgotten corner of the world, where Gandalf (and nobody else) knows exactly where it is? What's he supposed to do? If he takes it, he knows he will use it.
There's someone else who knows that nasty Bilbo Bagginses has the precious.

[MightySchoop]

There's someone else who knows that nasty Bilbo Bagginses has the precious.

...someone who was imprisoned by the elves in Mirkwood until shortly before Gandalf came back to the Shire.

[Descalzo]

However, since she took Frodo on the journey to her father, outpacing the Nine, it makes sense that she had the power to call the river to swipe the Nine away, a task given to Gandalf in the book.

I thought it was Elrond.

[Anthemyst]

That's why PJ toyed with the idea of making her Xenarwen, Warrior Princess. If I understand things aright, the fans objected loudly enough that he shut that down. So they he added dream sequences to build up to the wedding at the end, to find some use for Liv Tyler (who is a big name, afterall), and to give myopic teenage boys a little eye-candy (even though she's far less pretty than reports make out, and that's only partly because of the plastic she's got in her upper lip).

I would totally watch a spin-off movie (which is eventually split into three five ten parts) about the adventures of Xenarwen, Warrior Princess.

[yankeetripper]

I thought it was Elrond.

Elrond rose the river in the book. Gandalf added the water horses. IIRC those were the same in book & movie.

The difference was in the book Glorfindel (sp?) put Frodo on the horse and instructed the horse to run to the ford in elvish - noralim (sp?), in the movie Arwen had Frodo on the horse with her and challenged the Nazgul at the ford before the river rose as took them.

[Abused Student]

Elrond rose the river in the book. Gandalf added the water horses. IIRC those were the same in book & movie.

I think the book and movie both state that Elrond was the one that created the protective spell. Gandalf added to the spell. I think in the book it was an evil creature setting foot in the river that released the spell. In the movie Arwen released it.

[casact921]

Here's more. Down toward the bottom there are some quotes about why Tolkien wrote Bombadil, and why he thought it was so important to leave him in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil



I'm on my lappie now.

Thanks for posting this! I'd read the last line of the text before (enigmas etc.), and I'm sure the author of the "conspiracy theory" I posted was well aware of Tolkien's actual purpose for Bombadil. It's just fun to speculate. :)

[casact921]

Also, I want to go on record as being anti PJ-version-of-Arwen. I see why he did it, but I prefer the Tolkien version of the story. Also, Eowyn fulfills the role of warrior princess just fine.

imo.

[Browncoat]

I would totally watch a spin-off movie (which is eventually split into three five ten parts) about the adventures of Xenarwen, Warrior Princess.

There's an idea. A TV show in the same genre as Hercules/Xena, but set in Middle Earth, rather than in the mythos of Earth. I would totally watch that!

[Browncoat]

Also, I want to go on record as being anti PJ-version-of-Arwen. I see why he did it, but I prefer the Tolkien version of the story. Also, Eowyn fulfills the role of warrior princess just fine.

imo.

Eowyn is a far more likable character having something important to do in the book and the movie. (And, IMO, she's prettier than Liv's Arwen.) I'm not sure you can call her a warrior princess for her game-changing heroic feat, but I see why it's tempting to. I was sorry not to see the romance bud between her and Faramir in the movie, even though he was a bit of a punk and unworthy of the fair Eowyn.

[Anthemyst]

Also, I want to go on record as being anti PJ-version-of-Arwen. I see why he did it, but I prefer the Tolkien version of the story. Also, Eowyn fulfills the role of warrior princess just fine.

imo.

If Eowyn had been in the first movie maybe they wouldn't have bothered beefing up Arwen's character, but she wasn't, so they did. If I remember the movies correctly Arwen stops being a badass when Eowyn shows up.

[Chronus]

Also, I want to go on record as being anti PJ-version-of-Arwen. I see why he did it, but I prefer the Tolkien version of the story. Also, Eowyn fulfills the role of warrior princess just fine.

imo.

The only problem with that is that Eowyn didn't show up until the second movie. He probably could have found a way to work her into the first but that might have pissed people off just as much.

edit: hobbit ninja'd

[casact921]

Eowyn is a far more likable character having something important to do in the book and the movie.
[S]he's prettier than Liv's Arwen
I'm not sure you can call her a warrior princess for her game-changing heroic feat, but I see why it's tempting to.
I was sorry not to see the romance bud between her and Faramir in the movie
[Faramir]was a bit of a punk and unworthy of the fair Eowyn.


I heartily agree with points 1 and 2. Regarding point 3, she calls herself a shieldmaiden, and totally earns that title on the field. Good enough for me! Regarding point 4, I'm ok with this, as the movie was already longish and if you're going to cut something, make it something like that. No opinion on 5, mainly because, who else would you give to Eowyn? Legolas? :shrug:

[Abused Student]

I heartily agree with points 1 and 2. Regarding point 3, she calls herself a shieldmaiden, and totally earns that title on the field. Good enough for me! Regarding point 4, I'm ok with this, as the movie was already longish and if you're going to cut something, make it something like that. No opinion on 5, mainly because, who else would you give to Eowyn? Legolas? :shrug:

Sure, why not? The only reason I was allowed to rewatch the movies again with company is because Legolas was so hot. If she had bedded him well, I wouldn't have fast forwarded.

[casact921]

If Eowyn had been in the first movie maybe they wouldn't have bothered beefing up Arwen's character, but she wasn't, so they did. If I remember the movies correctly Arwen stops being a badass when Eowyn shows up.

The only problem with that is that Eowyn didn't show up until the second movie. He probably could have found a way to work her into the first but that might have pissed people off just as much.

edit: hobbit ninja'd

I know, I know. That's why I said "I know why he did it." It's not how I like the story to be told, but I'm sure PJ made more money doing it his way.

[Browncoat]

I heartily agree with points 1 and 2. Regarding point 3, she calls herself a shieldmaiden, and totally earns that title on the field. Good enough for me! Regarding point 4, I'm ok with this, as the movie was already longish and if you're going to cut something, make it something like that. No opinion on 5, mainly because, who else would you give to Eowyn? Legolas? :shrug:

As to the length of the movie, when it's already over 12 hours long, you can spend four minutes on the romance.

And I wouldn't change whom she ends up with, if only for its political practicality. Just me lamenting the train wreck that is Faramir, though the post earlier today linking the article on most of what Faramir is despised by the fan base for being Frodo's fault is certainly worth noting.

[yankeetripper]

There's an idea. A TV show in the same genre as Hercules/Xena, but set in Middle Earth, rather than in the mythos of Earth. I would totally watch that!

:iatp:

[Egghead]

Will there be enough "epic" action scenes to keep audiences interested through 3 movies?

In Lord of the Rings, there were plenty of big events to supply the action scenes. In The Hobbit, there is a lot less, if memory serves. I'd be afraid they would have to add a ton of stuff from outside the familiar story in order to hold audience attention.

[vividox]

Well, if Helm's Deep lasted an hour and a half (in the movie), the Jackson-ized Battle of Five Armies should take up about a movie in and of itself.

[Abused Student]

And somehow the trolls will have the dwarves all tied up for days but somehow not affected by the sunlight the first couple days. That is another whole movie.

[vividox]

Well, if Helm's Deep lasted an hour and a half (in the movie), the Jackson-ized Battle of Five Armies should take up about a movie in and of itself.

That makes me curious, are the three parts to the Hobbit going to be 2 hours each, or LotR-extended-edition-esque 4 hours each?

I can kind of understand three 2 hour movies (okay, no, I can't, that's ridiculous), but three 4 hour movies for The Hobbit would just be insanity.

[campbell]

It's going to be annoying to have to watch 3 movies before i can decide whether to take the kids

[Browncoat]

Yeah, I think I've decided to wait until they get to the dollar theater or DVD.

[Bicycle Repair Man]

Eowyn is a far more likable character having something important to do in the book and the movie. (And, IMO, she's prettier than Liv's Arwen.) I'm not sure you can call her a warrior princess for her game-changing heroic feat, but I see why it's tempting to. I was sorry not to see the romance bud between her and Faramir in the movie, even though he was a bit of a punk and unworthy of the fair Eowyn.
There was a very nice moment at Aragorn's coronation or wedding to Arwen or something like that where they show Eowyn and Faramir together, obviously affectionate towards each other. I also love the romance between those two in the book, but I understand why it couldn't be in the movie.

[crabber]

There was a very nice moment at Aragorn's coronation or wedding to Arwen or something like that where they show Eowyn and Faramir together, obviously affectionate towards each other. I also love the romance between those two in the book, but I understand why it couldn't be in the movie.

That scene was already a big love fest, all the characters were smiling at each other. To me they just looked like they happened to be standing together.
Didn't the extended version have some brief montage of them falling in love?

[Inconceivable]

That scene was already a big love fest, all the characters were smiling at each other. To me they just looked like they happened to be standing together.
Didn't the extended version have some brief montage of them falling in love?

Yes, there is an extended scene where there is a huge arrow CGIed in pointing to them that says "for those that didn't read the book and don't get the point of this scene, yes these two end up entangling their genetalia together at some point."

[Lois Lane]

there was an article on msnbc today where Ian McKellen said that he never actually worked with Elijah Wood! :yikes:

i watched all the dvd extras that came with all 3 LOTR movies, and i don't remember ever hearing that. i'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. Sir Ian really is an amazing actor. he said that the same is true for the new hobbit movie, he never worked with the lead actor.

can't post a link b/c nbc's entertainment news is blocked at work.

[ORLYLOL]

there was an article on msnbc today where Ian McKellen said that he never actually worked with Elijah Wood! :yikes:

i watched all the dvd extras that came with all 3 LOTR movies, and i don't remember ever hearing that. i'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. Sir Ian really is an amazing actor. he said that the same is true for the new hobbit movie, he never worked with the lead actor.

can't post a link b/c nbc's entertainment news is blocked at work.

http://todayentertainment.today.com/_news/2012/12/03/15643931-ian-mckellen-i-never-worked-with-elijah-wood-on-lord-of-the-rings?lite

[OddSox]

I'm super excited about this prequel trilogy featuring guys in robes and a computer-animated character who talks funny. there is no way this could turn out to be a huge disappointment.

[ORLYLOL]

umadbro?

[OddSox]

umadbro?

just being snarky, I will definitely be watching.

[DownInTexas]

there was an article on msnbc today where Ian McKellen said that he never actually worked with Elijah Wood! :yikes:

i watched all the dvd extras that came with all 3 LOTR movies, and i don't remember ever hearing that. i'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. Sir Ian really is an amazing actor. he said that the same is true for the new hobbit movie, he never worked with the lead actor.

can't post a link b/c nbc's entertainment news is blocked at work.

I think you must have misheard. They did some tricks so they could appear on screen together, yet appear to be different heights.

http://remingtons.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/52769.jpg

[Anthemyst]

Yeah, I've seen pictures of them on-set together (I think) and all the crazy set pieces they used to make Wood look significantly smaller than McKellen.

[ORLYLOL]

So Ian McKellen is just a liar then?

[Levin]

So Ian McKellen is just a liar then?
Either that or he is 74 years old.

I'd suspect that "never worked with Martin Freeman" is true, being more recent, and that "no scenes with Elijah Wood" is mostly true. As a percentage of his total scenes in all three LOTR films, only a small minority were "Gandalf and Frodo" scenes.

I would have a harder time believing that McKellen didn't shoot any scenes with Billy Boyd or even Ian Holm (if the smoke rings scene in FOTR was a composite of two shots, it was a very good one).

[Anthemyst]

Here's the article with the pictures I was thinking of: http://www.cracked.com/article_19140_8-movie-special-effects-you-wont-believe-arent-cgi.html

[Lois Lane]

Here's the article with the pictures I was thinking of: http://www.cracked.com/article_19140_8-movie-special-effects-you-wont-believe-arent-cgi.htmlwow, that description about how they sat at different tables and everything was in motion during the scene - that is absolutely insane!

[Lois Lane]

So Ian McKellen is just a liar then?it certainly sounds that way! can someone post the text from the article? it's pretty short.

[campbell]

psa: might want to stay away from the 48fps version....

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/hobbit-48fps-hey-what-happened-middle-earth-67706


After seeing Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," the first of three movies that the director plans to make from Tolkien's book, I have to wonder: Am I turning into a Hobbit? Because I found the film and particularly its hyper-clarity courtesy of 48 frames-per-second projection, a little disturbing and uncomfortable.

....
TheWrap will have a full review closer to the release date, but on first viewing, this diehard "Lord of the Rings" fan found "The Hobbit" to be too bloated and too slow. And the pleasure of returning to Middle-earth, something I was looking forward to doing, dissipated when that Middle-earth turned out to have the disconcerting look of a high-def video production.

.....
Maybe I'll embrace it after a second viewing – or maybe I'll continue to miss the Middle-earth I remember from the first three movies, where things aren't quite so vivid or so goofy.

[DownInTexas]

I already have my tickets to the 48 fps 3D version at midnight, so guess I'll find out then whether or not I like that version. As to his comment about things not being so goofy: The Hobbit is a very light hearted book. The movie should not be as serious as Lord of the Rings.

[campbell]

I plan on taking the girls to the non-3D version

[Lois Lane]

I already have my tickets to the 48 fps 3D version at midnight, so guess I'll find out then whether or not I like that version. As to his comment about things not being so goofy: The Hobbit is a very light hearted book. The movie should not be as serious as Lord of the Rings.i don't think that he meant the story or portrayal is "goofy", but rather the visuals are weird. i did just read an article that said that the "dark and more serious" material in the new hobbit movies comes from the 125-page appendix to Return of the King. (anyone ever read that?)

let us know what you think after you see it!

[Lois Lane]

psa: might want to stay away from the 48fps version.... what does 48fps mean, as far as how it looks compared to the LOTR trilogy? all i know is that a lot of ppl have seen it in that format and didn't like it.

[campbell]

do you mean literally?

literally, 48fps = 48 frames per second

as to what that means in terms of experience:
http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Hobbit_HFR_48_FPS_Controversy_What_It_Means/45544256


The latter option is the latest innovation to the multiplex landscape, introduced for the first time by director Peter Jackson for his fantasy epic. Abbreviated from "High Frame Rate," HFR doubles the frame count of a film from the standard 24 frames per second (how the movies you watch are typically shot and projected) to 48 frames per second. By choosing to shoot An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS, Jackson hoped to create crisper 3D, brighter colors, and a new level of realism never before seen on the big screen.

....
But 48 FPS has sparked controversy, early reactions to the format have been mixed, many noting that it distracts from The Hobbit's story and action. The film will be projected in "HFR" when it arrives Dec. 14 and audiences will get a chance to see if the next generation of cinematography lives up to the hype. Will you take the plunge? After watching the film and enjoying it quite a bit, here's what I thought of the new technology:

The Adjustment Period

If you're daring enough to take a chance on The Hobbit 3D in HFR, the differences between run-of-the-mill 24 FPS and 48 FPS will be immediately apparent. The film opens with an thrilling attack on the Dwarven people by the big bad Smaug the Dragon and it's every bit as grand and fast-paced as one demands from Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. Although there wasn't the traditional blur caused by the movement of a film camera, the 48 FPS combined with the 3D caused a separation between the actors and the landscapes behind them. Every detail felt more tangible, but in the way a soap opera or football game looks more "real" than a big screen movie. Added was the illusion of fast motion — in one early scene, Bilbo prepares his journal while Frodo mulls about behind him. The picture was like a Benny Hill sketch played, but the audio was perfectly in sync. The weird effect quickly dissipates, suggesting that a brain trained to watch 24 FPS films may require torque to adjust to seamless 48 FPS.



more at the link

[campbell]

do you mean literally?

literally, 48fps = 48 frames per second

as to what that means in terms of experience:
http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Hobbit_HFR_48_FPS_Controversy_What_It_Means/45544256


The latter option is the latest innovation to the multiplex landscape, introduced for the first time by director Peter Jackson for his fantasy epic. Abbreviated from "High Frame Rate," HFR doubles the frame count of a film from the standard 24 frames per second (how the movies you watch are typically shot and projected) to 48 frames per second. By choosing to shoot An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS, Jackson hoped to create crisper 3D, brighter colors, and a new level of realism never before seen on the big screen.

....
But 48 FPS has sparked controversy, early reactions to the format have been mixed, many noting that it distracts from The Hobbit's story and action. The film will be projected in "HFR" when it arrives Dec. 14 and audiences will get a chance to see if the next generation of cinematography lives up to the hype. Will you take the plunge? After watching the film and enjoying it quite a bit, here's what I thought of the new technology:

The Adjustment Period

If you're daring enough to take a chance on The Hobbit 3D in HFR, the differences between run-of-the-mill 24 FPS and 48 FPS will be immediately apparent. The film opens with an thrilling attack on the Dwarven people by the big bad Smaug the Dragon and it's every bit as grand and fast-paced as one demands from Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. Although there wasn't the traditional blur caused by the movement of a film camera, the 48 FPS combined with the 3D caused a separation between the actors and the landscapes behind them. Every detail felt more tangible, but in the way a soap opera or football game looks more "real" than a big screen movie. Added was the illusion of fast motion — in one early scene, Bilbo prepares his journal while Frodo mulls about behind him. The picture was like a Benny Hill sketch played, but the audio was perfectly in sync. The weird effect quickly dissipates, suggesting that a brain trained to watch 24 FPS films may require torque to adjust to seamless 48 FPS.



more at the link

[Mojo Dojo]

do you mean literally?

literally, 48fps = 48 frames per second

as to what that means in terms of experience:
http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Hobbit_HFR_48_FPS_Controversy_What_It_Means/45544256


more at the link

ninja'd by yourself!

[Lois Lane]

thanks campbell, that quote explains how the experience of 48 fps feels different.

[yankeetripper]

i don't think that he meant the story or portrayal is "goofy", but rather the visuals are weird. i did just read an article that said that the "dark and more serious" material in the new hobbit movies comes from the 125-page appendix to Return of the King. (anyone ever read that?)
let us know what you think after you see it!

If you are talking about that the additional material comes from the appendix, yes - I think that was out when they said they were splitting the movie from 2 to 3 movies. But I don't think that is what you are asking.

If you are asking has anyone actually read the appendicies, yes I have though not for a long time. And while I've read Hobbit and LOTR numberous times I think I've only gone theorugh the whole appendix once. IIRC they are broken up into several parts covering some of the following:

The Kings and Stewards of Gondor, including a brief recap of the reign of Aragorn & Arwen following LOTR
A short history of the Mark, the Riders of Rohan and the House or Eorl (Theodan's family history).
Durins's Folk - aka the dwarves and some history about them and thier origin.
A chronological history of middle earth with dates and major happenings in various years.
Family trees for most of the major and some of the minor characters in the Hobbit & LORT and what some the more important things their relatives did before and after events of Hobbit and LOTR. Including what some of the Hobbits, chiefly Merry, Pippin & Sam did after LOTR.
A scholarly discususion about the various calendars, written languages of middle earth and phonetic guide to pronunciation. The last two along with some of Tolkien's other works I believe formed the basis of geeks creating an entire Elvish language if I'm not mistaken. Though Tolkein as a linguest may have done that himself with the geeks just filling in details.

Overall it was rather dull reading much more like a history book than the Hobbit or LOTR. Their were a few interesting tidbits thrown in but mostly it seemed like his work papers on the background of Middle Earth.

IMO most of the info is also rather prefuctory, lacking in any real in depth detail so my guess is most of the stuff in the movies that isn't part of the actual Hobbit book will be :qunq:loosely based:qunq: on the appendices and much of the detail will be filled in by Jackson's imagination.

[Saint Kepler]

did just read an article that said that the "dark and more serious" material in the new hobbit movies comes from the 125-page appendix to Return of the King. (anyone ever read that?)

Yes I have read the appendix. It has been a while and I don't remember all the details but the story was interesting.

[campbell]

ninja'd by yourself!

like i have time to read my own posts

[campbell]

yes, i read the appendix to LOTR as well

but I haven't read the silmarillion...and I do not plan to

[yankeetripper]

but I haven't read the silmarillion...and I do not plan to

I have. There a few good stoires in it but it is mostly very dry.

[vividox]

I have. There a few good stoires in it but it is mostly very dry.

:iatp:

[Lois Lane]

but I haven't read the silmarillion...and I do not plan toi think i started once and got bored with it. my husband says that he had a similar experience.

[Lois Lane]

Overall it was rather dull reading much more like a history book than the Hobbit or LOTR. Their were a few interesting tidbits thrown in but mostly it seemed like his work papers on the background of Middle Earth.thank you for all those details about the appendix! my copy of the return of the king from college didn't have an appendix, so now i know that there is one. but ohmylord it sounds mind-numbing! i'll just re-re-read the hobbit before i see the movies and stop at that.

[PeppermintPatty]

I read the appendix dozens of times as a kid, and read the Silmarillion (which was a great disappointment to me, despite a couple of good stories.)

I'm surprised that doubling the frame rate would have so much impact. I would have thought that is owuld just make a barely-jumpy movie into an imperceptibly jumpy movie. Make it look more real. I wonder if it's really something else that's not-real that is part of the problem, and combining that something else with the high frame rate puts the movie into the uncanny valley

[DownInTexas]

I love the Silmarillion, and have read it several times, along with the appendixes from LotR. My guess for what is included from those in the first movie is some of the history of the dwarves. It might go back to their creation by Aule, but I doubt it. More than likely, it will show some of their earlier wars with the goblins to explain the history there. I have no doubt we will see Thrain meet Gandalf in Dol Guldur. What would be awesome is if we saw the origins of Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist, with a flashback to Gondolin. Hopefully we would be able to see Glorfindel, since he was unfairly cut out of Fellowship.

[campbell]

If I'm going to read interminable back story, I'm going to read Icelandic sagas

lots more action

a lot less Elvish

[ORLYLOL]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_marsuotclC1r0o33fo1_500.jpg

[campbell]

:sigh:

[ORLYLOL]

:rimshot:

[DownInTexas]

For the High Frame Rate 3d: Something seemed a little different in the first couple minutes, I couldn't really place my finger on it. After a couple minutes, it wasn't noticeable at all, other than being the smoothest, clearest 3D movie I've ever seen.

Now for the actual movie review:
I thouroughly enjoyed the movie. I feel they did a good job of portraying the light-heartedness of the Hobbit, with the movie not being as entirely serious as LotR. The one major change is that Azog plays a major role in the movie. In the book, he is only mentioned come the Battle of the Five Armies. The movie, it fleshes out more of his history with the line of Durin. Beyond that, it has him in pursuit of the dwarves the entire time. I enjoyed Radagast's portrayal, though it appears that Gandalf will not meet Thrain II in the dungeon of Dol Guldor. Minor nitpicks: the scene where Bilbo finds the ring doesn't match up with his flashback from Fellowship. Thorin is entirely in the wrong place when Smaug initially attacks. Gandalf's sign that he puts on Bag-End is entirely wrong. In the book, he does a mark roughly saying: Thief looking for employment, in the movie he just does the rune for G.

[Lois Lane]

For the High Frame Rate 3d: Something seemed a little different in the first couple minutes, I couldn't really place my finger on it. After a couple minutes, it wasn't noticeable at all, other than being the smoothest, clearest 3D movie I've ever seen.sounds like you are recommending seeing it in 3D. i was wondering if it was one of those things where they just made it in 3D but didn't really need to. however, i do expect a bit more from peter jackson than most other directors. (i did not read your spoilered comments.)

[campbell]

DiT: how scary would you rate it for elementary school kids (kids who have either read the Hobbit or had it read to them)

[DownInTexas]

I would put it on par with The Lord of the Rings. There aren't any huge pitched battle scenes like Two Towers or Return of the King, but some of the fighting could be rather intense. There are multiple beheadings and limbs getting chopped off, and plenty of close up shots of orcs and goblins.