I liked the Hobbit's story a lot more than LOTR anyway
You must be crazy.
Regardless, how do they make The Hobbit two movies? And is Beorn going to be in it, or will he go the way of Tom Bombadil?
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 am Posts: 16093 Location: dublin Gender: Male
Beorn will be in it, the trek through the mines will be long & they'll need a change of scenery after that. Del Toro is on the fan forumsa lot looking for input and listening to peoples ideas so it's all encouraging, but we won't be able to get a shape or idea about how this will all pan out until the cast is announced and particularly until we find out who's playing Bilbo and who's playing the voice of Smaug. They're gonna be the big two in this movie.
_________________ At the end of the day, it's night.
Here comes Debbie Downer: So anyway, I read The Hobbit again over the last couple of days in an effort to see how this can be spread over two films. I really don't see how it works. Plus I was much more excited for the 2nd film when it was rumored to be events between The Hobbit and LOTR. Even as one film I don't see The Hobbit as being anywhere near as compelling as LOTR. I understand its a children's story; but following a hobbit, 13 dwarves and sometimes a wizard on a very linear story is just lacking something for an epic two film follow up to an incredible success like LOTR. I wonder how much creative license they will be taking in this one, maybe throwing in characters who aren't in The Hobbit, but adding events that happened before LOTR and just pretending like it occured during the same time as The Hobbit?
Don't forget when Gandalf leaves them before they enter Mirkwood he meets with the White Council and there is a battle with Sauron and they force him out of Dol Guldur. This all happens outside of the Hobbit(but at the same time) and can be added....I figure they would split it so when Bilbo see's the lonely mountian on the barrels the first movie ends....the second begins with the battle at Dol Guldur(they would tease it in the first movie) and then finishes off the Hobbit....just guesses...
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:51 am Posts: 43609 Location: My city smells like Cheerios Gender: Male
badabing wrote:
aprilfifth wrote:
Here comes Debbie Downer: So anyway, I read The Hobbit again over the last couple of days in an effort to see how this can be spread over two films. I really don't see how it works. Plus I was much more excited for the 2nd film when it was rumored to be events between The Hobbit and LOTR. Even as one film I don't see The Hobbit as being anywhere near as compelling as LOTR. I understand its a children's story; but following a hobbit, 13 dwarves and sometimes a wizard on a very linear story is just lacking something for an epic two film follow up to an incredible success like LOTR. I wonder how much creative license they will be taking in this one, maybe throwing in characters who aren't in The Hobbit, but adding events that happened before LOTR and just pretending like it occured during the same time as The Hobbit?
Don't forget when Gandalf leaves them before they enter Mirkwood he meets with the White Council and there is a battle with Sauron and they force him out of Dol Guldur. This all happens outside of the Hobbit(but at the same time) and can be added....I figure they would split it so when Bilbo see's the lonely mountian on the barrels the first movie ends....the second begins with the battle at Dol Guldur(they would tease it in the first movie) and then finishes off the Hobbit....just guesses...
that would make sense
_________________ "No matter how hard you kill Jesus, he would always just come back and hit you twice as hard."
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
There could be a lot time taken up with backstory about the Dwarves and how they were expelled from the mountain by the dragon. I could easily make a half hour of film just with the dwarves relaying that story to Bilbo before they set off.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 am Posts: 16093 Location: dublin Gender: Male
They aren't big on showing backstory in LOTR movie land..remember those three ages at the start of the Fellowship? 3000 years squeezed down to about two minutes..brilliantly done though!
_________________ At the end of the day, it's night.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
dimejinky99 wrote:
They aren't big on showing backstory in LOTR movie land..remember those three ages at the start of the Fellowship? 3000 years squeezed down to about two minutes..brilliantly done though!
Yeah, but that's not covered at all in teh books either (except for little things in the appendices and The Simarillion). The story of the dwarves is told in The Hobbit (with much more detail in other Tolkien writings, if I remember correctly).
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
I don't know, I just don't see two movies worth of stuff in there. I mean I trust them, but I was really excited for the inbetween stuff, featuring Gandalf, Saruman, Aragorn, Elrond and the elves, etc. I don't find the dwarves to be especially dynamic characters, and if they stick to the timeframe of The Hobbit, they're largely constrained in what they can do. The two scenes I'm looking forward to most are the White Council and the scene with Gollumn. It seems like in order for the story of the White Council driving out Sauron, etc to be fully fleshed out (as well as the turning of Saruman) we have to move beyond the time of The Hobbit. I think the story of the wizards and elves in regards to searching for the ring and stopping Sauron, etc is one of the most fascinating in all of the books. I really hope that makes its way to the screen.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
There could be a lot time taken up with backstory about the Dwarves and how they were expelled from the mountain by the dragon. I could easily make a half hour of film just with the dwarves relaying that story to Bilbo before they set off.
Backstories of previous White Councils featuring the Necromancer would be great.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 am Posts: 16093 Location: dublin Gender: Male
It's going to be difficult to portray Gollum effectively, as it's stated in LOTR, when he met Bilbo, he almost warmed to the meeting and welcomed the company in a way, remembering his former life and 'old self', so to my mind he's gonna have to be really really over the top almost evil after he realises the ring is gone, because even at his most venomous in LOTR(the movie) he wasn't that impressive.
Unless they use that to show the birth of the Smeagol/Gollum schizm in a big way.
_________________ At the end of the day, it's night.
It's going to be difficult to portray Gollum effectively, as it's stated in LOTR, when he met Bilbo, he almost warmed to the meeting and welcomed the company in a way, remembering his former life and 'old self', so to my mind he's gonna have to be really really over the top almost evil after he realises the ring is gone, because even at his most venomous in LOTR(the movie) he wasn't that impressive.
Unless they use that to show the birth of the Smeagol/Gollum schizm in a big way.
You didn't like Gollumn in the LOTR movies? I think they portrayed him very well, seeing that inner struggle within him, showing the strong pull the ring had over him which trumped any good desires he may have had. That closing scene of The Two Towers is one of the best in all of the movies IMO.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:35 pm Posts: 4407 Location: Philadelphia/Los Angeles Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
aprilfifth wrote:
Well you really need to just do it and read the books. Warning: be prepared to be somewhat disappointed by Sam. He's a much more dynamic character in the film than the book IMO. (He's probably my favorite character in the films, but is rather dull in the book.) The dynamic between Frodo and Sam is much different in the two.
Completely different. In the movie, Sam is like a big brother to Frodo. In the books, Frodo is like 20 some-odd years older than Sam.
Oh right, I remember there being talk back at the time before FOTR's release that a good many fans were upset with Elijah Wood's casting, that they were making Frodo far too young. But I tell ya one Frodo/Sam thing that I think was done better in the films than in the book (my brother told me about this detail) in ROTK, I think it works better that when climbing up towards Shelob's lair, they get split up by Frodo basically kicking him off the hike.
Not that I'd be able to take advantage of this myself as I don't have the hardware, but as the trilogy been released on Blu-Ray yet?
because even at his most venomous in LOTR(the movie) he wasn't that impressive..
Gollum isn't venomous as much as he is pathetic. He's a sad creature driven by his lust for the ring. BUT, the scenes in ROTK where he's the most venomous (his slow boil to rage when Frodo tells him he has to destroy the ring is fucking PERFECT) are pretty darn effective. I thought they did a great job with him because he was teetering between humanity and vileness and that's a tough balance to strike and have it be believable.
For the Hobbit, I think this will be very easy to pull off, and it's all about direction and the performance of Andy Serkis. They'll get it right, and I don't think Gollum will have to be "over the top evil" when he discovers the ring is gone, jbecause it's not about topping the performance in LOTR, it's about believability and consistency.
Well you really need to just do it and read the books. Warning: be prepared to be somewhat disappointed by Sam. He's a much more dynamic character in the film than the book IMO. (He's probably my favorite character in the films, but is rather dull in the book.) The dynamic between Frodo and Sam is much different in the two.
Completely different. In the movie, Sam is like a big brother to Frodo. In the books, Frodo is like 20 some-odd years older than Sam.
Oh right, I remember there being talk back at the time before FOTR's release that a good many fans were upset with Elijah Wood's casting, that they were making Frodo far too young. But I tell ya one Frodo/Sam thing that I think was done better in the films than in the book (my brother told me about this detail) in ROTK, I think it works better that when climbing up towards Shelob's lair, they get split up by Frodo basically kicking him off the hike.
Not that I'd be able to take advantage of this myself as I don't have the hardware, but as the trilogy been released on Blu-Ray yet?
Not yet, but I think you can pre order it from Amazon, not sure when the date is.
I actually really like that change as well. (Frodo sending Sam away, etc) I think they had to do that so there would be a dramatic moment of Sam saving Frodo since what happens in the book when they're split up is a cliffhanger that couldn't translate to the film.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
because even at his most venomous in LOTR(the movie) he wasn't that impressive..
Gollum isn't venomous as much as he is pathetic. He's a sad creature driven by his lust for the ring. BUT, the scenes in ROTK where he's the most venomous (his slow boil to rage when Frodo tells him he has to destroy the ring is fucking PERFECT) are pretty darn effective. I thought they did a great job with him because he was teetering between humanity and vileness and that's a tough balance to strike and have it be believable.
For the Hobbit, I think this will be very easy to pull off, and it's all about direction and the performance of Andy Serkis. They'll get it right, and I don't think Gollum will have to be "over the top evil" when he discovers the ring is gone, jbecause it's not about topping the performance in LOTR, it's about believability and consistency.
Agree 100%. And FWIW I think Andy Serkis did a better job than could have ever been expected. I think they absolutely nailed Gollumn/Smeagol.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
