PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit



Pages : [1] 2

Niezck
2011-12-21, 12:06 AM
I looked, but I couldn't see any threads about this, so here goes...

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Trailer #1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOM13UyZ0A&feature=player_embedded)

I don't think I've ever been so impatient to see a film in my life. Especially given the cast list (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/fullcredits#cast).

Anybody else stupidly excited for this?

Dienekes
2011-12-21, 12:15 AM
I'm so happy right now. Words, words cannot properly express how excited I am.

My only complaint is I don't think Martin Freeman is a good match for Ian Holm. Not that I think he isn't a good match for Bilbo (though they coulda fattened him up a bit) but the actors don't really seem alike to me.

Whatever miner quibble. I want to see Smaug!

Felhammer
2011-12-21, 12:20 AM
SOOOO EXCITED!

Been a fan of their facebook page since it was created! This trailor really captures the old LotR feel and blends it with much of the whimsey of the Hobbit (book).

Zevox
2011-12-21, 12:34 AM
December 14th 2012? Surprised we have a concrete date that far in the future. Looking forward to it though. Hasn't been any movies I've really wanted to go see besides superhero ones since LotR wrapped up.

Zevox

Dr.Epic
2011-12-21, 02:22 AM
Holy ****! It's like it's 2001 again! I'm excited! I mean when has a highly anticipated prequel to an awesome film series not been awesome? Don't answer that.

Also, looks like they kept the best scene from the book in the film. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gv1qnPAiSI):smallwink::smalltongue:

Feytalist
2011-12-21, 03:03 AM
This one has been "in development" ever since the start of the trilogy. I'm going to keep my excitement on hold until it's actually in theatres this time around.

starwoof
2011-12-21, 03:13 AM
I think I can safely say that this is my favorite movie ever, and it's not even out yet! That's a pretty darn good movie!

MammonAzrael
2011-12-21, 03:19 AM
This one has been "in development" ever since the start of the trilogy. I'm going to keep my excitement on hold until it's actually in theatres this time around.

I'm pretty sure with a trailer of that quality we don't have to worry any more. Or maybe I just don't want to be alone in my excitement because...DAMN.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

Ravens_cry
2011-12-21, 04:53 AM
I am excited, though I have a few niggles.
I recognize the difficulty of making all the dwarves distinctive visually, especially with a fantasy race famous for having a set iconic appearance.
But Thorins beard is a little small ain't it?
I know it's a little thing, but it's the details that add richness to a piece.
He just doesn't seem very dwarvish, especially when some of the other ones look like something out of Legend, all bulbous noses and bushy beards.
Also, I don't recognize about half the events in the trailer from the book. Also might not be a good sign. I know they are expanding on it and going further with connecting it to the greater Lord of the Rings universe, as Tolkien did in his second edition, but, well, there is a point.
Still, I trust Peter Jackson to create a rich and fabulous interpretation of a wonderful story.

grimbold
2011-12-21, 04:54 AM
that trailer
blew my mind!!!!!!!!!
YES!!!!
:smallbiggrin:
*nerdgasm*

Eldan
2011-12-21, 05:21 AM
Luckily, no one can hear my girlish screams over the net.

Ravens_cry
2011-12-21, 05:25 AM
Luckily, no one can hear my girlish screams over the net.
Oh, so that's what that was?

Nameless
2011-12-21, 06:17 AM
*wakes up*
*watches trailer on Facebook*
*runs around screaming*

Dr.Epic
2011-12-21, 07:01 AM
I don't want to get my hopes up, but this will most certainly be the greatest film of all time!

Candle Jack
2011-12-21, 07:26 AM
Well, the smart thing to do here is to get your expectations impossibly high. Nothing could go wrong with that plan. :smalltongue:

The trailer looks good, though it has a sad lack of Smaug-related content.

Niezck
2011-12-21, 07:47 AM
Well, the smart thing to do here is to get your expectations impossibly high. Nothing could go wrong with that plan. :smalltongue:

The trailer looks good, though it has a sad lack of Smaug-related content.

By the looks of it it's only the first trailer and (with it being so short) I imagine they'll release some more.

Dr. Simon
2011-12-21, 07:50 AM
The trailer looks good, though it has a sad lack of Smaug-related content.

But there won't be any Smaug until part 2.

*Loved* the pseudo-Gregorian chant version of the dwarf's song (which always gave me spine-tingles just reading it).

Ravens_cry
2011-12-21, 07:58 AM
Apprently Bilbo felt the same way. But yes, that part was wonderful.
But Why doesn't Thorin have a bleeding ,bleeping, <expletive redacted/> beard?!
Not True Dwarf™ would be caught dead with that scraggly van dyke!

Niezck
2011-12-21, 08:03 AM
But there won't be any Smaug until part 2.

*Loved* the pseudo-Gregorian chant version of the dwarf's song (which always gave me spine-tingles just reading it).

I seriously cannot stop listening to it. x_x


Apprently Bilbo felt the same way. But yes, that part was wonderful.
But Why doesn't Thorin have a bleeding ,bleeping, <expletive redacted/> beard?!
Not True Dwarf™ would be caught dead with that scraggly van dyke!

Yeah, I did think that. He definitely doesn't look dwarfy enough.

hamlet
2011-12-21, 08:26 AM
Meh. Really depends on your opinion of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. I didn't care for it, and I doubt that I'll really like his Hobbit.

The Glyphstone
2011-12-21, 08:26 AM
I'm so happy right now. Words, words cannot properly express how excited I am.

My only complaint is I don't think Martin Freeman is a good match for Ian Holm. Not that I think he isn't a good match for Bilbo (though they coulda fattened him up a bit) but the actors don't really seem alike to me.

Whatever miner quibble. I want to see Smaug!

Confession time: I read your post, and thought it said Morgan Freeman was playing Bilbo Baggins. My brain broke.

Ravens_cry
2011-12-21, 08:30 AM
Confession time: I read your post, and thought it said Morgan Freeman was playing Bilbo Baggins. My brain broke.
Damn, now I am picturing that.
Luckily, my brain broke a long time ago, but I can see how it would fragment an unfractured mind rather thoroughly.

Tiki Snakes
2011-12-21, 08:30 AM
Bilbo "Morgan Freeman" Baggins would be a wonderful thing.

Mercenary Pen
2011-12-21, 08:32 AM
Confession time: I read your post, and thought it said Morgan Freeman was playing Bilbo Baggins. My brain broke.

Congratulations Dienekes on breaking the brain of an eldritch abomination... There aren't many who can do that...

Ravens_cry
2011-12-21, 08:35 AM
Bilbo "Morgan Freeman" Baggins would be a wonderful thing.
And Spock can do the theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-MSZSLC5w&feature=related).

Dr.Epic
2011-12-21, 09:00 AM
The trailer looks good, though it has a sad lack of Smaug-related content.

Jackson's dividing the book into two films. Smaug only appeared at the very end of the Hobbit so it makes sense he wouldn't be in this film.

Calmar
2011-12-21, 09:11 AM
I am excited, though I have a few niggles.
I recognize the difficulty of making all the dwarves distinctive visually, especially with a fantasy race famous for having a set iconic appearance.
But Thorins beard is a little small ain't it?
I know it's a little thing, but it's the details that add richness to a piece.
He just doesn't seem very dwarvish, especially when some of the other ones look like something out of Legend, all bulbous noses and bushy beards.


I think he looks awesome. It's a fresh take on dwarves and gives them more personality. If the film sticked to the stereotypical standard template for dwarves, it would look like this (http://www.moviereporter.net/assets/news/photos/000/008/604/original/the_hobbit_artwork.jpg?1297165826).
They can't all be Gimlis. :smallsmile:

EccentricCircle
2011-12-21, 09:13 AM
the trailer looks excellent. I can't wait for this film.
I can understand that some people are uncertain about the design of the dwarves. but i'm impressed that they've manged to make thirteen dwarves all look visually distinctive, a task long thought impossible.
I'm looking forward to seeing dwarves with a range of hairstyles, (and hopefully a range of personalities to go with them). I think that dwarves all too often fall into the "Dwarves are all the same" trap (obligitory link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDwarvesAreAllTheSame)

I'm looking forward to a film where dwarves use swords and bows as well as Axes. it may not fit the races stereotype, which is one of the most persistant in fantasy, but ultimately the hobbit predates that stereotype and in many ways inspired it, as later authors spread the comicbook versions of the races prof. Tolkien created. If anything is going to open the way for more varied dwarves in fantasy its this film.

Niezck
2011-12-21, 09:26 AM
This (http://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=pEoAP1sg1cU) is my new background music. :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2011-12-21, 09:26 AM
I think he looks awesome. It's a fresh take on dwarves and gives them more personality. If the film sticked to the stereotypical standard template for dwarves, it would look like this (http://www.moviereporter.net/assets/news/photos/000/008/604/original/the_hobbit_artwork.jpg?1297165826).
They can't all be Gimlis. :smallsmile:
Actually, it could look like this (http://www.valariejones.com/hobbit.html).
You can make visually distinctive dwarves while still making them look like dwarves.

Traab
2011-12-21, 09:30 AM
I am excited, though I have a few niggles.
I recognize the difficulty of making all the dwarves distinctive visually, especially with a fantasy race famous for having a set iconic appearance.
But Thorins beard is a little small ain't it?
I know it's a little thing, but it's the details that add richness to a piece.
He just doesn't seem very dwarvish, especially when some of the other ones look like something out of Legend, all bulbous noses and bushy beards.
Also, I don't recognize about half the events in the trailer from the book. Also might not be a good sign. I know they are expanding on it and going further with connecting it to the greater Lord of the Rings universe, as Tolkien did in his second edition, but, well, there is a point.
Still, I trust Peter Jackson to create a rich and fabulous interpretation of a wonderful story.

I actually agree with raven on pretty much all points.

1) Im not sure on the dwarven looks, some of them I swear were giving me a "The Labyrinth" feel on their looks. I can forgive the beard thing though.

2) The trailer scenes. Yeah, I hope they dont screw with it too much, but going by the trailer I wont hold my breath. I just hope I dont see too many scenes that make me get pissed off like I saw in the lotr trilogy. Like Faramir and the way he acted around the ring and heading to osgilliath.

3)The main thing that pisses me off, is that so much of the coolest stuff will be happening in part 2. Smaug, wood elves, the freaking SPIDERS! I want to see if they change bilbos dialogue into something other than "attercop!" or "Tomnoddy!" Part one is going to be 95% of bilbo being an idiot who screws up all the time. He doesnt start on the real path of badassery until mirkwood. But at least we will get to see trolls, the goblins, and gollum! Unless of course they change things with how bilbo acts from the start. I really hope not, but after faramir, I cant be sure.

Mephit
2011-12-21, 11:08 AM
I've heard they're also going to depict a lot of the things from Unfinished Tales that weren't mentioned in the Hobbit, like Dol Guldur etc.

They've already given us a release date for There and Back Again, so I imagine this date is final.

Kneenibble
2011-12-21, 11:26 AM
Hey -- it looks like, as with Lord of the Rings, we'll be given some of the story of Gandalf's business (in this case with the "Necromancer") that was completely off-camera in the books. I think that's neat.

@^ Whoa I got ninja'd hard on that point.

Will the dwarves just chant their song in Bag End, and not whip out clarinets and flutes and a French horn and such? :smallfrown: Hey I'm not going to complain, but I love in the book that the dwarves are also this absurd travelling band.

Candle Jack
2011-12-21, 12:30 PM
I figure they brought along the instruments because iPods haven't been invented yet. CURSE YOU MEDIEVAL STASIS! :smalltongue:

Traab
2011-12-21, 12:59 PM
I looked at it as even dwarves on a mission need something to relax with. That and the fact that they were basically carrying everything they own with them means they had their instruments as well.

Felhammer
2011-12-21, 01:05 PM
What do you guys think is going to be cut from the movies?

Traab
2011-12-21, 01:14 PM
What do you guys think is going to be cut from the movies?

Hmm, good question. I honestly dont know. I mean, I understood cutting out the entire bombadil and barrow wight section from lotr, but I cant think of what kind of unimportant stuff took place in the hobbit that could be erased. Especially since they are adding in new stuff like dol guldir, and even more especially because they are breaking it up into two movies. There is one place I could see them cutting. Beorn. All he does is give them a place to rest for a couple days, some food, and then lends them ponies that are only with them till they reach mirkwood anyways. Yeah he shows up at the final battle and all, but that can be hand waved easily enough. So basically, the eagles drop the crew off, they forage for some food and water, and start marching towards mirkwood.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-21, 01:15 PM
What is this cheap cash-in spinoff? They could have at least put some effort into making it at least a bit different from the previous movies. Also, didn't Gollum die in RotK? Plot hole!

Candle Jack
2011-12-21, 01:22 PM
There is one place I could see them cutting. Beorn. All he does is give them a place to rest for a couple days, some food, and then lends them ponies that are only with them till they reach mirkwood anyways. Yeah he shows up at the final battle and all, but that can be hand waved easily enough. So basically, the eagles drop the crew off, they forage for some food and water, and start marching towards mirkwood.

Actually, Beorn has apparently been cast in the movie.

Athaniar
2011-12-21, 01:24 PM
Saw the trailer yesterday, it looks so very awesome. There are many films I'm looking forward to next year, but this one tops the list, without a doubt.

Also, have they actually stated when part 1 ends?

Traab
2011-12-21, 01:25 PM
Actually, Beorn has apparently been cast in the movie.

Ah ok, then, I got nothing. Everything else just seems too important to cut. Maybe they will cut out the whole negotiation thing that made the dwarves look like greedy %#@&%$*^.

Felhammer
2011-12-21, 01:28 PM
Hmm, good question. I honestly dont know. I mean, I understood cutting out the entire bombadil and barrow wight section from lotr, but I cant think of what kind of unimportant stuff took place in the hobbit that could be erased. Especially since they are adding in new stuff like dol guldir, and even more especially because they are breaking it up into two movies. There is one place I could see them cutting. Beorn. All he does is give them a place to rest for a couple days, some food, and then lends them ponies that are only with them till they reach mirkwood anyways. Yeah he shows up at the final battle and all, but that can be hand waved easily enough. So basically, the eagles drop the crew off, they forage for some food and water, and start marching towards mirkwood.

They can't get rid of Beorn! He has such a cool little scene where Gandalf tries to tell the story and he keeps getting interrupted by the Dwarves... Its such a clever maneuver and one of my favorite scenes in the book! I hope they don't cut it!


What is this cheap cash-in spinoff? They could have at least put some effort into making it at least a bit different from the previous movies. Also, didn't Gollum die in RotK? Plot hole!

This is The Hobbit, it was completed by Tolkien a decade before Lord of the Rings. It takes place before LotR and describes how Bilbo became rich and came into the possession of the One Ring.

Also, all of the sets were dismantled after the end of the LotR movies. Anything that looks the same (Rivendell, Baggend, etc.) is actually a careful re-construction.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-21, 01:31 PM
This is The Hobbit, it was completed by Tolkien a decade before Lord of the Rings. It takes place before LotR and describes how Bilbo became rich and came into the possession of the One Ring.


Who's Tolkien?

Felhammer
2011-12-21, 01:33 PM
Who's Tolkien?

The man who wrote 4 of the best novels of the last century.

Traab
2011-12-21, 01:34 PM
Who's Tolkien?

He played Orc Soldier #5837 at the battle for helms deep.

Spiryt
2011-12-21, 01:35 PM
With Beorn being cut they could have as well don't do it at all, it's like, big part of the plot...

Tengu_temp
2011-12-21, 01:35 PM
{Scrubbed}

Candle Jack
2011-12-21, 01:36 PM
Who's Tolkien?

Just some guy. He wrote a travel book called There and Back Again.

Spiryt
2011-12-21, 01:38 PM
Just some guy. He wrote a travel book called There and Back Again.

And really good jewelers guide/tome, AFAIR.

Traab
2011-12-21, 01:41 PM
With Beorn being cut they could have as well don't do it at all, it's like, big part of the plot...

Like what? He was the bombadil of the hobbit. A convenient excuse for them to rest and resupply. He may have great historical meaning and a rich history stretching back centuries, but none of that is remotely important to the hobbit itself. All he did was give them a roof to sleep under for a couple days, a short term loan of some ponies, and some food and water to carry with them to mirkwood. Like I said, yes he showed up at the final battle, but its hardly unusual for jackson to retcon events to work how he wants them to. It could have been passed off as friends of the elves, friends of gandalf, more help from radagast, maybe the eagles communicated with the bears, whatever. Beorn is hardly vital to the story.

Weezer
2011-12-21, 01:46 PM
Like what? He was the bombadil of the hobbit. A convenient excuse for them to rest and resupply. He may have great historical meaning and a rich history stretching back centuries, but none of that is remotely important to the hobbit itself. All he did was give them a roof to sleep under for a couple days, a short term loan of some ponies, and some food and water to carry with them to mirkwood. Like I said, yes he showed up at the final battle, but its hardly unusual for jackson to retcon events to work how he wants them to. It could have been passed off as friends of the elves, friends of gandalf, more help from radagast, maybe the eagles communicated with the bears, whatever. Beorn is hardly vital to the story.

It actually serves a nice narrative purpose. The rest at Beorn's marks the transition from Bumbling Bilbo to Helpful Bilbo, between threats to the journey being dealt with by the dwarves or Gandalf to Bilbo being the main rescuer/hero. Sure, it doesn't advance the plot, but it does create a nice division between the two rather distinct parts of the book.

Spiryt
2011-12-21, 01:48 PM
Like what? He was the bombadil of the hobbit. A convenient excuse for them to rest and resupply. He may have great historical meaning and a rich history stretching back centuries, but none of that is remotely important to the hobbit itself. All he did was give them a roof to sleep under for a couple days, a short term loan of some ponies, and some food and water to carry with them to mirkwood. Like I said, yes he showed up at the final battle, but its hardly unusual for jackson to retcon events to work how he wants them to. It could have been passed off as friends of the elves, friends of gandalf, more help from radagast, maybe the eagles communicated with the bears, whatever. Beorn is hardly vital to the story.

Well, according to that logic, Elrond isn't vital either, they can find maps and identify swords somewhere else, capture by the elves isn't necessary either, they can just loose their stuff and end up by the lake in some other manner....

Not to mention that it all would be actually easier to rearrange than band suddenly getting a lot supplies before Mirkwood, because without Beorn it would be pretty hard...

So not much is really 'vital' to the story, but without this stuff, it's not really the same story anyway.

Corvus
2011-12-21, 03:11 PM
Plus Beorn plays a rather major role in the Battle of Five Armies as he slays the goblin leader and his bodyguard, which breaks the resolve of the enemy.

Zen Monkey
2011-12-21, 03:18 PM
Hmm, so one book is being broken into two movies. The first will have a lot of discussion and walking through the woods, while the second will have the eventful parts with the action and story resolution that people wanted to see.

This sounds suspiciously familiar to another magical series that really didn't need an extra cash-grabbing end-delaying film to tell the story. I'm not at all implying imitation by authors, just that some studio execs may have swiped a page from the same bad playbook.

Weezer
2011-12-21, 03:40 PM
Hmm, so one book is being broken into two movies. The first will have a lot of discussion and walking through the woods, while the second will have the eventful parts with the action and story resolution that people wanted to see.

This sounds suspiciously familiar to another magical series that really didn't need an extra cash-grabbing end-delaying film to tell the story. I'm not at all implying imitation by authors, just that some studio execs may have swiped a page from the same bad playbook.

I think it will all hinge on how this is pulled off. If they do it the same way HP7 was done I'll be kind of angry. However they are inserting a lot of extra plot from other Tolkein writings, such as Unfinished Tales, which might excuse the length and unlike in HP7 there is a very smooth transition point, that of the rest at Beorn's where a break would not be jarring.

Truth be told I'm kind of hoping that this method becomes more common, books are simply too rich of a medium to be accurately captured in a 90 minute film and if done right two films can cover 4 or 5 hours without feeling too long thus allowing a more accurate conversion of a book to film.

Felhammer
2011-12-21, 04:30 PM
Hmm, so one book is being broken into two movies. The first will have a lot of discussion and walking through the woods, while the second will have the eventful parts with the action and story resolution that people wanted to see.

This sounds suspiciously familiar to another magical series that really didn't need an extra cash-grabbing end-delaying film to tell the story. I'm not at all implying imitation by authors, just that some studio execs may have swiped a page from the same bad playbook.

To be honest, all of the Harry Potter movies from 4 onwards SHOULD have been 2 movies. However, since the main actors were children, and apparently they need "time off" and "schooling", the books could not reasonably have been split into two movies each.

I'd venture to say most movies based on books jettison some of the best parts of the book with the aim of drilling down to the core story of the novel. Like Harry Potter for example, one of the coolest world building aspects of one of the books was Hermione's desire to free all house elves. Not only did this sub-plot showcase the darker side of wizarding society but it also helped Dobby grow as a character (which made his demise in HP7 so much more sad).

Having said that, HP7's split was truly caused by the book itself. The first half really is about 3 kids lost in the wilderness with no guidance for the first time in their lives, while the second half is all action. I believe the Hobbit can avoid this by including more Gandalf-scenes and pushing some of the combat scenes forward a bit.

Traab
2011-12-21, 05:14 PM
Hmm, so one book is being broken into two movies. The first will have a lot of discussion and walking through the woods, while the second will have the eventful parts with the action and story resolution that people wanted to see.

This sounds suspiciously familiar to another magical series that really didn't need an extra cash-grabbing end-delaying film to tell the story. I'm not at all implying imitation by authors, just that some studio execs may have swiped a page from the same bad playbook.

Not really, I mean, we have the troll encounter, we have the goblins in the misty mountains, we have gollum, we have the big chase scene where the dwarves and crew are chased up trees. Plus apparently dol guldir, though im not sure if that will be part 1 or two. There is actually plenty of action in the first half of the book. A lot of things that I want to see happen. Oh sure smaug and mirkwood are both going to be in part 2, but even so, part 1 should be far from boring.


Well, according to that logic, Elrond isn't vital either, they can find maps and identify swords somewhere else, capture by the elves isn't necessary either, they can just loose their stuff and end up by the lake in some other manner....

Not to mention that it all would be actually easier to rearrange than band suddenly getting a lot supplies before Mirkwood, because without Beorn it would be pretty hard...

So not much is really 'vital' to the story, but without this stuff, it's not really the same story anyway.

I think you are exaggerating things a bit. Beorns only vital function is showing up out of nowhere in the final battle and bear punching the goblin kings head off. Elrond and the elves at the last homely house may not play a huge role in that film, but this is their introduction to the series so later on they dont get this huge role out of nowhere in lotr.

The elves of mirkwood are important because they play a rather large role in the story. For starters, this is where the dwarves really start respecting and trusting bilbo. This is where bilbo proves he is worth his share of the treasure. Also, by showing us the elves now, we know who the hell these pointy eared jerks are showing up with an army to claim a portion of treasure that may or may not be theirs. Its part of what makes thorin and his party less of a group of ^&%$&% for refusing them and bards group a share of treasure.

That way its basically, "You expect me to just give treasure away to a bunch of elves that arrested me and my fellows for nothing more than starving to death while they feasted? Take your armies away and get rid of the elves, then we can talk." Instead of just being, "Haha! We got here first so you suffering people can go soak your heads again. This treasure is MINE!"

As far as getting supplies, the way I see it is, they got dropped off at a fairly safe spot by the eagles. They spend a couple days foraging and hunting for food, resting a bit, since they arent on a time table, and then they press on for mirkwood from there. Im not saying that beorn is unimportant, im just saying that of all the events that take place in the hobbit, beorn is the LEAST important.

McStabbington
2011-12-21, 05:17 PM
Aside from the fact that I had no idea that Thorin leveled bard, I thought it was pretty awesome.

EccentricCircle
2011-12-21, 06:09 PM
Beorn is a part of the theme of disparate and antagonistic people being brought together.

At the start of the Hobbit the Lonely Mountian which was once the centre of this vast alliance of cultures and nations is under the control of Smaug and everything has fallen apart, Dale is destroyed, the Lakemen are on their own against the dragon. Beorn lives in his house, and doesn't welcome strangers. the Elves of Mirkwood are hostile to outsiders, Wilderland is a divided realm full of isolated communities.

Over the course of the hobbit the actions of Bilbo and his companions change that status quo. and the adversity of facing the Dragon and the goblin hoard bring those isolated communities together and forge them into a new nation of sorts. one that is ready to endure the War of the Ring.

Renegade Paladin
2011-12-21, 06:09 PM
This (http://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=pEoAP1sg1cU) is my new background music. :smallbiggrin:
There's enough in the trailer to infer the melody; it's entirely possible to simply sing the whole poem to it.

In fact, I'm working that out now. :smallsmile:
Hmm, good question. I honestly dont know. I mean, I understood cutting out the entire bombadil and barrow wight section from lotr, but I cant think of what kind of unimportant stuff took place in the hobbit that could be erased. Especially since they are adding in new stuff like dol guldir, and even more especially because they are breaking it up into two movies. There is one place I could see them cutting. Beorn. All he does is give them a place to rest for a couple days, some food, and then lends them ponies that are only with them till they reach mirkwood anyways. Yeah he shows up at the final battle and all, but that can be hand waved easily enough. So basically, the eagles drop the crew off, they forage for some food and water, and start marching towards mirkwood.
The only movie version of The Hobbit I've ever seen cut Beorn entirely.

Wardog
2011-12-21, 06:43 PM
I... read the comments on YouTube. I think part of my brain (and/or soul) just died.


***

Also, regarding Bombadil: the first time I read LotR, I thought he (and that whole section) was silly and un-necessary, and the second time I read it I just skipped it. But on later readings, I came to realize it actually is an important part of the story, in terms of establishing the nature of the world they live in (both for the reader and for the hobbits), and in for marking the transition from the relatively safe and "normal" world of the Shire to the dangerous and alien world of Out There.

They might even have been able to fit it into the films, if they hadn't put in all the extra stuff (Arwen angsting, etc) that wasn't even in the book in the first place.

Renegade Paladin
2011-12-21, 06:55 PM
I... read the comments on YouTube.
I have identified your problem. :smalltongue:

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2011-12-21, 07:01 PM
I dunno, I can't see Tom Bombadil fitting in the movies. But yeah, excited about this movie.

I agree that Beorn was a bit that could have been cut. However, considering there are 2 whole movies, I don't think much of any consequence was cut...

Weezer
2011-12-21, 07:29 PM
I... read the comments on YouTube. I think part of my brain (and/or soul) just died.



I tend to find them more amusing, I particularly liked this one:

"Quick question, how many of those warriors do u think will die? More/less than half? Because i cam feel getting attached to some of them and that i'm gonna be disappointed when they die just like with Boromir."

Traab
2011-12-21, 07:30 PM
I tend to find them more amusing, I particularly liked this one:

"Quick question, how many of those warriors do u think will die? More/less than half? Because i cam feel getting attached to some of them and that i'm gonna be disappointed when they die just like with Boromir."

I wish I could answer that question, I know SOME die, but I cant recall how many offhand or which ones entirely, (though I do remember some)

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2011-12-21, 07:48 PM
I wish I could answer that question, I know SOME die, but I cant recall how many offhand or which ones entirely, (though I do remember some)

Fili, Kili, and Thorin. Off the top of my head. Feel free to correct me.

Weezer
2011-12-21, 07:52 PM
Fili, Kili, and Thorin. Off the top of my head. Feel free to correct me.

I'm pretty sure that's right as well.

Corvus
2011-12-21, 08:24 PM
Just the three of them. Balin and a couple more go down between The Hobbit and LOTR in Khazad-dum though.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-12-21, 09:48 PM
The trailer triggered a chemical rush in my brain that lasted for several hours. I stumbled dazed around my living room in a state of euphoric glee, giggling like a child high on sugar, and making myself sandwiches.

I can't wait.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-12-21, 10:25 PM
Heh. Sophomore year the Fall play was The Hobbit. When the movie comes out the entire cast is going to raid the school's costume department and go see it together. I know this is a year away, but I'm pumped for it anyway.

Pokonic
2011-12-21, 11:54 PM
Te hee, I have never been more exited for a movie in my life.:smallbiggrin:

Dr.Epic
2011-12-22, 01:56 AM
Who's Tolkien?

Please tell me that was a joke, because if you honestly don't know who J.R.R. Tolkien is, please turn over your geek license this moment.:smallwink:

Turcano
2011-12-22, 04:44 AM
Unless of course they change things with how bilbo acts from the start. I really hope not, but after faramir, I cant be sure.

It took you that long? As soon as I saw Merry and Pippin acting like stumblebumbling chuckle****s at Bilbo's Birthday Bash, I knew that that movie was going to go in a bad direction. And I was right.

Avilan the Grey
2011-12-22, 04:49 AM
Meh. Really depends on your opinion of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. I didn't care for it, and I doubt that I'll really like his Hobbit.

Let's beat the Undead Horse!

...The LOTR trilogy was, quite frankly, the best possible adaption of that source material, although I understand that some people cannot judge the movies on their own merits.

Anyway: The Hobbit: *NerDGaSm!!!*



I tend to find them more amusing, I particularly liked this one:

"Quick question, how many of those warriors do u think will die? More/less than half? Because i cam feel getting attached to some of them and that i'm gonna be disappointed when they die just like with Boromir."

I actually LIKE these kind of questions because a wast majority of people have never read any Tolkien books and for them this is all new and exciting (instead of just exciting).

grimbold
2011-12-22, 07:27 AM
I dunno, I can't see Tom Bombadil fitting in the movies. But yeah, excited about this movie.

I agree that Beorn was a bit that could have been cut. However, considering there are 2 whole movies, I don't think much of any consequence was cut...

Beorn is amazing!
he's one of my favorite characters!

Mephit
2011-12-22, 01:26 PM
As I said before, they're apparently adding content from Unfinished Tales, so I don't think they'll be cutting a whole lot from the book.

Perhaps some small details will be removed, but Beorn is cast and I don't remember anything else they could have cut.

I understood Bombadil being cut because while I love the character and I think it's part in the books gives Middle Earth a lot of cover, he adds little to the narrative and the movies were already excessively long and cramped with content. The Hobbit, if you recall, is a fairly short novel and they're spreading it over two movies. What would they possibly cut if they have to fill all that time?

hamishspence
2011-12-22, 01:45 PM
There wasn't very much Hobbit content in Unfinished Tales- but what there was, seemed interesting. Gandalf persuading Thorin to take Bilbo (before the dwarves arrive at Bag End, and after).

Pokonic
2011-12-22, 01:50 PM
Could we see some things that where only mentioned in the poems and such? I know there not even ment to exist, but perhapes the hobbits where correct about something.

Traab
2011-12-22, 02:01 PM
I still say the biggest disappointment of the lotr series was not seeing the hobbits save the shire. I mean, I knew it wouldnt happen once saruman was killed at isengard, but man I really wanted to see it. It was like it was meant to show us that it isnt only the "hero" hobbits that can be brave and strong and fight, but that as a race they can do whatever it takes to protect their homes. All they needed was a spark to get them started.

Weezer
2011-12-22, 02:05 PM
I still say the biggest disappointment of the lotr series was not seeing the hobbits save the shire. I mean, I knew it wouldnt happen once saruman was killed at isengard, but man I really wanted to see it. It was like it was meant to show us that it isnt only the "hero" hobbits that can be brave and strong and fight, but that as a race they can do whatever it takes to protect their homes. All they needed was a spark to get them started.

The exclusion of the Scourging of the Shire from the movies mean't that one of the biggest take home messages of the trilogy was lost. It was supposed to demonstrate how much the Hobbits had grown and changed and show that anyone can be heroic.

Ravens_cry
2011-12-22, 02:23 PM
Heh, considering that the third movie started still in The Two Towers, the Scourging of the Shire could probably have made a whole other movie.
It is kind of weird, because there is foreshadowing for it in Fellowship of the Ring.

Traab
2011-12-22, 02:25 PM
Heh, considering that the third movie started still in The Two Towers, the Scourging of the Shire could probably have made a whole other movie.
It is kind of weird, because there is foreshadowing for it in Fellowship of the Ring.

Its possible that they originally intended to do it but they realized that it would add an extra hour or more to the total run time of the series and it wouldnt fit. So they shanked saruman and ended it right then and there.

t209
2011-12-22, 03:21 PM
Was Bilbo carrying Goblin Cleaver or Gnasher in the trailer? I know that from the book scene on escaping from goblin's lair.

Weezer
2011-12-22, 03:26 PM
Was Bilbo carrying Goblin Cleaver or Gnasher in the trailer? I know that from the book scene on escaping from goblin's lair.

It should be Sting, it's the only weapon Bilbo wields.

hamishspence
2011-12-22, 03:28 PM
What's "gnasher" anyway? (besides Dennis The Menace's pet)

Orcrist "Goblin-Cleaver" and Glamdring "Foe-Hammer" were the only weapons in the troll cave that were explicitly named.

Traab
2011-12-22, 03:37 PM
What's "gnasher" anyway? (besides Dennis The Menace's pet)

Orcrist "Goblin-Cleaver" and Glamdring "Foe-Hammer" were the only weapons in the troll cave that were explicitly named.

Well the goblins had names for them too, biter and beater.

hamishspence
2011-12-22, 03:41 PM
True. But I don't recall anything being named "Gnasher" though that might be an alternate translation of "Biter".

Weimann
2011-12-22, 04:15 PM
When I read the Hobbit, I must say I enjoyed it more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. While it'd be untrue to say I was excited over the movie, I will certainly watch it as it comes out.

t209
2011-12-22, 06:54 PM
True. But I don't recall anything being named "Gnasher" though that might be an alternate translation of "Biter".

It think I mixed up foe hammer with Gnasher.

Random_person
2011-12-22, 07:41 PM
Thorin didn't have a harp. The movie will be awful. End of story.
Nah, looks good. As a harper myself I wish Thorin had had his harp (I wanted to see a harp of gold), but the rest looks good.

Weezer
2011-12-22, 07:49 PM
Thorin didn't have a harp. The movie will be awful. End of story.
Nah, looks good. As a harper myself I wish Thorin had had his harp (I wanted to see a harp of gold), but the rest looks good.

I think that's due to the fact that it's rather large. Imagine hauling this thing through the wilderness for more than a year.

http://www.oldhalifax.com/county/images/Harp-Eliza-Ridgely-1818.jpg

Random_person
2011-12-22, 07:55 PM
Dude. I'm a harper. I know how big harps are.

Dienekes
2011-12-22, 08:00 PM
Is it sad that I'm now picturing how the movie would be if Thorin was played by Harpo Marx?

Weezer
2011-12-22, 08:05 PM
Dude. I'm a harper. I know how big harps are.

Didn't mean to imply you didn't, sorry. It's just that I myself didn't know the scale of harps until earlier this year and I thought that others who, like me, didn't know the size when they read the Hobbit would benefit from an example.

The Glyphstone
2011-12-22, 09:05 PM
Dude. I'm a harper. I know how big harps are.

Sure, but you don't have to harp on him for assuming otherwise.

Traab
2011-12-22, 09:17 PM
I think that's due to the fact that it's rather large. Imagine hauling this thing through the wilderness for more than a year.

http://www.oldhalifax.com/county/images/Harp-Eliza-Ridgely-1818.jpg


The lap harp usually consists of 22-26 strings and weighs from 5-10 lbs. The height of the harp ranges from 28-35 inches.

That was just the first type of harp I could find thats smaller than that behemoth. There may be smaller, but 28 inches isnt THAT bulky. At least, not with packhorses to help you carry them.

Felhammer
2011-12-22, 09:30 PM
I think that's due to the fact that it's rather large. Imagine hauling this thing through the wilderness for more than a year.

http://www.oldhalifax.com/county/images/Harp-Eliza-Ridgely-1818.jpg

This is why people like Samwise are born!

MammonAzrael
2011-12-22, 09:37 PM
Thorin's a dwarf. Maybe they've designed an equally sized harp?

Candle Jack
2011-12-22, 09:51 PM
People who play the harp are called harpers? I thought they were harpists.

Or maybe they should be called harpies?

Wyntonian
2011-12-22, 09:57 PM
Has Hollywood seriously come to this? This is such a total ripoff of the Lord of the Rings series that came out like a couple years ago. Seriously, they even used the same guy to play another freaking wizard!




The above opinion is not mine, but that of a now-ex facebook friend of mine. No, she wasn't trolling.

Kris on a Stick
2011-12-22, 10:32 PM
Sure, but you don't have to harp on him for assuming otherwise.

There's no need to keep stringing him along like that. You'll only cause more dischord. :smallannoyed:

TheCountAlucard
2011-12-22, 11:34 PM
I'm eager to see this! :smallbiggrin:

With this, the Avengers movie, and all the Exalted stuff coming out, it looks like 2012 will be an awesome year for me. :smallcool:

Random_person
2011-12-22, 11:42 PM
People who play the harp are called harpers? I thought they were harpists.

Or maybe they should be called harpies?

Technically, only a harper who plays a pedal harp is a harpist, or so my harp teacher claims.

Ravens_cry
2011-12-23, 02:22 AM
The above opinion is not mine, but that of a now-ex facebook friend of mine. No, she wasn't trolling.
*blink*
[Emotional reaction spoilered for size]
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/6598/eternalfacepalm.jpg

Porthos
2011-12-23, 02:46 AM
Has Hollywood seriously come to this? This is such a total ripoff of the Lord of the Rings series that came out like a couple years ago. Seriously, they even used the same guy to play another freaking wizard!




The above opinion is not mine, but that of a now-ex facebook friend of mine. No, she wasn't trolling.

She might have been trolling you as that exact same comment (nearly) was posted on YT and plastered all over the internet (http://i.imgur.com/e9WwU.jpg).

The person who made said comment was obviously trolling the YT trailer comments given his LOTR videos he made. Dude was bored, I guess.

Wardog
2011-12-23, 07:48 AM
The exclusion of the Scourging of the Shire from the movies mean't that one at least two of the biggest take home messages of the trilogy was lost. It was supposed to demonstrate how much the Hobbits had grown and changed and show that anyone can be heroic.

And also that you can't just sit back in your safe little isolated community and ignore evil going on in the world around you and expect it to leave you alone.

Tengu_temp
2011-12-23, 07:48 AM
I'm disappointed that youtube is stealing my jokes now.

Capt. Ido Nos
2011-12-23, 09:29 AM
Fili, Kili, and Thorin. Off the top of my head. Feel free to correct me.
Gosh, spoiler alert much? 9_9


The exclusion of the Scourging of the Shire from the movies mean't that one of the biggest take home messages of the trilogy was lost. It was supposed to demonstrate how much the Hobbits had grown and changed and show that anyone can be heroic.
To be fair, I actually think they managed to pull that message across. The scene in the prancing pony at the end (what, the 18th ending I think it was?) where they are just sitting and staring at each other. It so well contrasts the Prancy Pony scene from Fellowship, you get this feeling of "well now what?" in their faces. Then Sam mans up and marries Rosie, and everything is good. :smallbiggrin:


I think that's due to the fact that it's rather large. Imagine hauling this thing through the wilderness for more than a year.

http://www.oldhalifax.com/county/images/Harp-Eliza-Ridgely-1818.jpg
I see this, and I am immediately reminded of a campaign I once played, where our dwarf barbarian took ranks in Perform(keyboard). He apparently only knew how to play Greensleeves. Good times, good times.

Eldan
2011-12-23, 12:21 PM
That was just the first type of harp I could find thats smaller than that behemoth. There may be smaller, but 28 inches isnt THAT bulky. At least, not with packhorses to help you carry them.

That said, this is for the modern western harp. There's tons of instruments also commonly called harps, some of which are quite small enough to carry on one arm while playing with the other, including older European ones.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-12-23, 12:27 PM
Gosh, spoiler alert much? 9_9

I hope this was a joke.

Muz
2011-12-23, 04:59 PM
Any theories on why there seem to be so many webs in Gollum's cave toward the end of the trailer? Or is that a point in Mirkwood when Bilbo, for some reason, drops the ring?

I wish I knew where they'd be ending part one. :smallsmile:

MammonAzrael
2011-12-23, 06:43 PM
Gosh, spoiler alert much? 9_9

The book was published in 1937. All spoiler bets are off when something's been out for 74 years.


To be fair, I actually think they managed to pull that message across. The scene in the prancing pony at the end (what, the 18th ending I think it was?) where they are just sitting and staring at each other. It so well contrasts the Prancy Pony scene from Fellowship, you get this feeling of "well now what?" in their faces. Then Sam mans up and marries Rosie, and everything is good. :smallbiggrin:

That scene was at the Green Dragon, not the Inn of the Prancing Pony. :smalltongue: /nerdnitpick

Daftendirekt
2011-12-23, 06:50 PM
I'm pretty sure with a trailer of that quality we don't have to worry any more.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin:

Yeah, I thought that about Black Mesa: Source (http://blackmesasource.com/). The trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G32_q_3es8E) was put up in late 2008, advertised to come out in 2009. Where's the game? Who knows. BM:S and Half-Life 3 (or 2: episode 3) are tied for being the new Duke Nuke 'Em Forever.

Leon
2011-12-23, 07:18 PM
or so my harp teacher claims.

They tend to harp on tho

Ulysses WkAmil
2011-12-24, 02:41 AM
Can't wait! It will be interesting to see what they make of the war of 5 armies...

Salbazier
2011-12-24, 03:15 AM
Just noticed this. Am I allowed to SQUEE? :smallbiggrin:

TheCountAlucard
2011-12-24, 04:55 AM
Just noticed this. Am I allowed to SQUEE? :smallbiggrin:I believe, in these circumstances, it might be permissible. :smallamused:

Traab
2011-12-24, 09:12 AM
Any theories on why there seem to be so many webs in Gollum's cave toward the end of the trailer? Or is that a point in Mirkwood when Bilbo, for some reason, drops the ring?

I wish I knew where they'd be ending part one. :smallsmile:


Well, gollum isnt much for cleaning his cave, and he is a meat eater. Scraps of meat spawn maggots, which spawn flies, which spawns a good food source for spiders.

Mercenary Pen
2011-12-24, 09:26 AM
Just noticed this. Am I allowed to SQUEE? :smallbiggrin:

So long as you remember to pay the appropriate Squeeing tax for the region in which you find yourself (and also for the nation of which you are a citizen if you end up Squeeing abroad).

Addendum: There may be certain Squeeing tax exemptions for Middle Earth, Narnia and/or Krypton (amongst selected others) depending on your citizenship.

The Glyphstone
2011-12-24, 11:27 AM
They tend to harp on tho

How did this thread devolve into a string of harp puns?

Traab
2011-12-24, 11:44 AM
How did this thread devolve into a string of harp puns?

Because it was too hard to twist into monty python quotes?

Muz
2011-12-24, 03:11 PM
I'm a BIT concerned that Peter Jackson is taking too many liberties with the story, though. The most recent production video clearly shows an alternate method for the dwarves escaping the Wood Elves. :smallconfused: http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu53/mesrmuz/GITP/Hobbit.jpg
I'm kidding, obviously. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2011-12-24, 03:35 PM
I'm a BIT concerned that Peter Jackson is taking too many liberties with the story, though. The most recent production video clearly shows an alternate method for the dwarves escaping the Wood Elves. :smallconfused: http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu53/mesrmuz/GITP/Hobbit.jpg
I'm kidding, obviously. :smallbiggrin:

Better than the one where they called in Apache helicopters to replace the eagles at the Battle of Five Armies.

Muz
2011-12-24, 03:35 PM
Better than the one where they called in Apache helicopters to replace the eagles at the Battle of Five Armies.

Aww, man, that would be so cool. :smallwink:

Traab
2011-12-24, 03:39 PM
Better than the one where they called in Apache helicopters to replace the eagles at the Battle of Five Armies.

Too be honest, id rather have the apaches. I mean, big freaking deal, THE EAGLES ARE COMING! What are they going to do? Swoop down and snatch at goblins? Big deal! They are giant flying targets! Anybody got a sharp stick they can throw at them? Well look at that! You aint flying so well NOW are ya?

MammonAzrael
2011-12-24, 03:48 PM
Too be honest, id rather have the apaches. I mean, big freaking deal, THE EAGLES ARE COMING! What are they going to do? Swoop down and snatch at goblins? Big deal! They are giant flying targets! Anybody got a sharp stick they can throw at them? Well look at that! You aint flying so well NOW are ya?

Eagles are like Men - they were a lot more bad-ass when they had elven blood.

Prime32
2011-12-24, 05:22 PM
Eagles are like Men - they were a lot more bad-ass when they had elven blood....try not to think about that one too hard.

Mercenary Pen
2011-12-24, 06:03 PM
Better than the one where they called in Apache helicopters to replace the eagles at the Battle of Five Armies.

If they were going to replace the eagles with anything modern- was it too much to hope that they would have brought in some actual F-15 eagles?

The Glyphstone
2011-12-24, 09:13 PM
If they were going to replace the eagles with anything modern- was it too much to hope that they would have brought in some actual F-15 eagles?

Piloted by velociraptors? The tyrannosaurs are all busy flying the F-14s.

Traab
2011-12-24, 09:18 PM
Piloted by velociraptors? The tyrannosaurs are all busy flying the F-14s.

Nah, its time for the shire folk to shine.

"THE EAGLES ARE COMING!!! And... They are being piloted by HOBBITS?!"
/Flight of the Valkyries starts blaring out over the battlefield.

McStabbington
2011-12-24, 09:37 PM
Unfortunately, their guns have been replaced by walkie-talkies. . .

Traab
2011-12-24, 09:41 PM
Unfortunately, their guns have been replaced by walkie-talkies. . .

"FREEZE DIRT BAGS! Dont make me talk to my fellow hobbits! Ill do it! I have the device right here! Yeah, thats right, you better back down!"

Wardog
2011-12-25, 04:42 PM
The book was published in 1937. All spoiler bets are off when something's been out for 74 years.

I don't know...

I know it's both an old book and a famous one, but there is lots of classic literature that lots of people haven't got around to reading yet, and this attitude annoys me somewhat as it rather implies either "classic literature is Serious Business to be read for the sake of reading classic literature, not for fun", and/or "if you haven't read it already, you don't deserve to enjoy it".

Now, admittedly, given the nature of this forum and thread, most people are probably going to have read The Hobbit, but as a more general rule, I think it is worth avoiding spoilers even for "old" works.

Random_person
2011-12-25, 04:47 PM
Or, possibly, "If you haven't read it then avoid its discussions until you have."

Zevox
2011-12-25, 05:01 PM
Or, possibly, "If you haven't read it then avoid its discussions until you have."
Yeah. When you're dealing with a book this old and well-known, it's just unreasonable to expect people to use spoiler boxes and warnings. Anyone at all worried about spoilers in this case should be avoiding any discussions about the subject until after they've read it, not expecting others not to talk about it openly.

Zevox

dehro
2011-12-25, 07:44 PM
so... I finally saw the trailer.
I haven't properly read the hobbit in a few years now (as in back to back rather than snatching up a few of my favourite pages.)

so I think I'll be a lot more forgiving this time around, should there be minor inconsistencies towards the book.
that said, the trailer made me feel rather giddy and eager to watch it. very glad PJ was kinda forced back in the saddle, and mildly curious as to what influence Del Toro's time on the project will have on the finished product.

V'icternus
2011-12-25, 09:44 PM
Ah, this trailer has put me in the most rare of moods!

The mood to dive into Tolkein's world once more, and burst into a hobbity song!

There is an inn, a merry old in, beneath an old grey hill...

Pokonic
2011-12-25, 09:55 PM
You tell us, your the mod.:smallbiggrin:

Traab
2011-12-25, 10:32 PM
Im thinking most of us have heard either the cartoon hobbit movie, or even listened to the hobbit on tape. I wanted to know, what version of various songs is their favorite? For example, when the goblins capture the dwarves and bilbo and are singing down to goblin town, my personal favorite is the cartoon movie. Its just really menacing. I have the book on tape by some british radio group, professional actors, sound effects and music, but they just did it kinda crappy in that case. Which is odd because everything else kicked ass in that version.

Hands_Of_Blue
2011-12-27, 01:37 PM
This is obviously the best Hobbit song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-MSZSLC5w).

V'icternus
2011-12-27, 09:15 PM
I don't know whether to be offended or grin cheesily.

Instead, I shall be cheesily offended as a compromise.

grimbold
2011-12-29, 07:52 AM
Better than the one where they called in Apache helicopters to replace the eagles at the Battle of Five Armies.

some of the pictures from this shoot...

Newman
2011-12-29, 12:45 PM
Threadhopping! I've seen the trailer, and I do not like what I see.

THERE IS WAAAY TOO MUCH GANDALF FOCUS! THIS SMELLS LIKE FANSERVICE!

Xondoure
2011-12-29, 02:49 PM
Threadhopping! I've seen the trailer, and I do not like what I see.

THERE IS WAAAY TOO MUCH GANDALF FOCUS! THIS SMELLS LIKE FANSERVICE!

That would be because they're filling in what Gandalf was doing while the questers ventured into Mirkwood. So yeah, there will be more Gandalf, but hopefully they shouldn't be taking away from the story of the Hobbit.

hamishspence
2011-12-29, 03:03 PM
Given the links between GW and New Line (with GW being allowed to do models of characters from the movies)- might the movie version of Sauron as The Necromancer resemble the GW version- long green robes, armour, etc?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat460007a&prodId=prod1080027&rootCatGameStyle=

Newman
2011-12-29, 04:35 PM
I thought Sauron needed the One Ring to be corporeal...

hamishspence
2011-12-29, 04:42 PM
In the movie (but not the book) Gandalf says "he cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency" before mentioning the Lidless Eye.

Zevox
2011-12-29, 06:43 PM
I thought Sauron needed the One Ring to be corporeal...
Yeah, that's something the movie version got wrong. In the book in fact there's strong evidence that he can take physical form: Gollum mentions having seen that Sauron was missing a finger on one of his hands when he was being tortured.

Zevox

Newman
2011-12-29, 07:29 PM
Speaking of the Lidless Eye, that was the scariest thing I had ever seen in my life back when I first saw it in Fellowship, especially with all the shadow-world ring-enhanced-perception thing...

Then we get to see him as a freaking lighthouse and prison floodlight, and it got simply embarassing. The bit with him scanning for the Hobbits, while legitimately scary, seems a little stupid when one knows he is in posession of a Palantir...

Prime32
2011-12-29, 07:55 PM
Yeah, that's something the movie version got wrong. In the book in fact there's strong evidence that he can take physical form: Gollum mentions having seen that Sauron was missing a finger on one of his hands when he was being tortured.Yeah, the movie implies that the Eye was Sauron's actual body after his return.

...it wasn't.

EDIT:

Then we get to see him as a freaking lighthouse and prison floodlight, and it got simply embarassing. The bit with him scanning for the Hobbits, while legitimately scary, seems a little stupid when one knows he is in posession of a Palantir...I'm pretty sure the floodlight was a visual representation of him using the Palantir.

Newman
2011-12-29, 08:56 PM
Mordor in general was handled rather clumsily, I think. At least Saruman's side had that industrial theme to it. And the Uruk Hai running upright was pretty damn scary too...


It's quiet now. They came from the blackness.

Arminius
2011-12-29, 09:32 PM
My cold evil heart has melted and I am squeeing like a 12 year old girl. I can't wait for this to come out! The Hobbit was the first *real* book I ever read. This is going to be awesome.

Alive without breath;
as cold as death;
never thirsty, ever drinking;
clad in mail, never clinking;

TheCountAlucard
2011-12-29, 09:37 PM
Now I want fish sticks. :smallamused:

Arminius
2011-12-29, 09:48 PM
Try Mrs. Smeagol's fish sticks. They are made with only the finest hand caught fish from underground lakes. May contain traces of Goblin.:smallwink:

Kris on a Stick
2011-12-30, 08:23 AM
My cold evil heart has melted and I am squeeing like a 12 year old girl. I can't wait for this to come out! The Hobbit was the first *real* book I ever read. This is going to be awesome.

Alive without breath;
as cold as death;
never thirsty, ever drinking;
clad in mail, never clinking;

You know, it never actually clicked with me until now: I'd always read these riddles in my head with a sort of upbeat, riddley sort of tone. Now I've just realized that it's Gollum reading these riddles and imagined with his voice and cadence... :eek:

hamishspence
2011-12-30, 08:29 AM
In LOTR- he recites the same riddle to himself, at the pool where Faramir catches him- only with some extra lines, which are:

Drowns on dry land,
thinks an island,
is a mountain,
thinks a fountain,
is a puff of air.
So sweet, so fair,
What a joy to meet!
We only wish
to catch a fish
so juicy sweet!

Dr.Epic
2011-12-30, 11:26 AM
I do wonder where they'll stop the first film and pick up with the second. I just watched Brad Jones's worst films of the year and he made a comment about a lot of films breaking up one movie into one part and usually one segment has a lot of filler, and the next is just like the climax and action. I guess this could be true of the Hobbit. The second film will probably be half that battle knowing Jackson, but there's enough plot in the Hobbit that it can stretch out to two films and each will be fine.

Traab
2011-12-30, 11:31 AM
I do wonder where they'll stop the first film and pick up with the second. I just watched Brad Jones's worst films of the year and he made a comment about a lot of films breaking up one movie into one part and usually one segment has a lot of filler, and the next is just like the climax and action. I guess this could be true of the Hobbit. The second film will probably be half that battle knowing Jackson, but there's enough plot in the Hobbit that it can stretch out to two films and each will be fine.

Its got to be the scene with the eagles saving them from the goblins. Its just practically tailor made to split the story in half. There is plenty of action before then, plus the cool stuff like gollum, so its not like it would basically be the boring setup where we get introduced to everyone, the plot exposition happens, then we have to wait for part 2 to see anything cool happen. Im just sad because my favorite parts will almost all happen in part two.

Dr.Epic
2011-12-30, 12:49 PM
Its got to be the scene with the eagles saving them from the goblins. Its just practically tailor made to split the story in half. There is plenty of action before then, plus the cool stuff like gollum, so its not like it would basically be the boring setup where we get introduced to everyone, the plot exposition happens, then we have to wait for part 2 to see anything cool happen. Im just sad because my favorite parts will almost all happen in part two.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

grimbold
2011-12-30, 07:14 PM
Its got to be the scene with the eagles saving them from the goblins. Its just practically tailor made to split the story in half. There is plenty of action before then, plus the cool stuff like gollum, so its not like it would basically be the boring setup where we get introduced to everyone, the plot exposition happens, then we have to wait for part 2 to see anything cool happen. Im just sad because my favorite parts will almost all happen in part two.

i agree
this would be completely awesome

Salbazier
2012-01-01, 03:27 AM
It just occured to me that this would be the first time since The Abomination that is Eragon that I want to watch a fantasy novel adaptation by Hollywood. Unless Game of Thrones count.

Newman
2012-01-01, 05:35 AM
Game of Thrones is Hollywood?

Salbazier
2012-01-01, 08:39 AM
Game of Thrones is Hollywood?

No idea at all. I just throw it there because that is the only live action, West produced, fantasy novel adaptation that I dare to watch ever since Eragon.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-01, 10:58 AM
Its got to be the scene with the eagles saving them from the goblins. Its just practically tailor made to split the story in half. There is plenty of action before then, plus the cool stuff like gollum, so its not like it would basically be the boring setup where we get introduced to everyone, the plot exposition happens, then we have to wait for part 2 to see anything cool happen. Im just sad because my favorite parts will almost all happen in part two.

It might be a bit of too obvious cliff hanger. *snerk*

I'd put money on it being entering Mirkwood and Gandalf leaving the party right after Beorn.

littlekKID
2012-01-01, 01:04 PM
I've put it on another thread, but I feel it's appropriate here as well

ladies and gentle-Hobbits -
Suddenly, Smeagol! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luj8g_Oj6pA&feature=youtu.be)

'cuase Israely nerds can be awesome

Traab
2012-01-01, 01:14 PM
It might be a bit of too obvious cliff hanger. *snerk*

I'd put money on it being entering Mirkwood and Gandalf leaving the party right after Beorn.

That actually is a good place as well. Its very transitional. They have recovered, they are ready to enter the next dangerous area, and now they are on their own, as gandalf is leaving. I guess it all depends on how they want to start the next one. With my idea, we get a synopsis of events that happened in movie one to remind us of whatever we forgot. Remember they had to tell beorn everything that happened. So it starts off actually sort of similar to the first movie. We are in a house, the plot is being revealed, and they are in a safe place discussing things and getting ready. There is some nice symmetry there. With yours they can sort of gloss over the synopsis at beorns house like they did in the book towards the end of movie one, and the 2nd movie kicks off with them just inside mirkwood. So instead of boring exposition, the audience gets right into the action, such as it is. (iirc, they wandered along the path with nothing but creepy backgrounds going on for several days) At least up until fat boy falls into the water, they run out of supplies, and they get lost chasing banquets.

grimbold
2012-01-03, 03:52 AM
I've put it on another thread, but I feel it's appropriate here as well

ladies and gentle-Hobbits -
Suddenly, Smeagol! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luj8g_Oj6pA&feature=youtu.be)

'cuase Israely nerds can be awesome

that is VERY awesome :smallbiggrin:

Dr.Epic
2012-01-03, 11:03 PM
What are the odds ten years from now they'll do a Beren and Luthien film? Or would we have to have an animated film of that that's just okay and wait a few more decades before someone can make a really awesome, long, epic film of that?

Traab
2012-01-03, 11:42 PM
What are the odds ten years from now they'll do a Beren and Luthien film? Or would we have to have an animated film of that that's just okay and wait a few more decades before someone can make a really awesome, long, epic film of that?

The odds probably arent good. I mean, I like tolkien and all and I barely even recognize who they are. Its possible, but it would be hard to hype up. Only the people who read the simillarion would have any idea whats going on, and other than dropping tolkiens name to try and create interest, it might as well be an original movie as far as the majority of america would be concerned.

*EDIT* What id like to see are some of the other big name writers getting a chance to make movies out of their books. Especially the ones like, mercedes lackey, who has written a VAST number of separate series about the same world. The best part would be you could keep making them till they stop being popular, just set them up a trilogy at a time, or however they work out. A studio could last for a couple decades before running out of valdemar related movies if they stayed popular. Or eddings. Just his belgariad, mallorean, elenium and taumli series would each take almost as long to finish as the harry potter series did, then you have the stand alone books like belgarath the sorcerer and polgara the sorceress. Or the redemption of althaus.

The main problem is, that it seems like for every lord of the rings movie translation, you also get an eragorn. If its handled right, it would be awesome. If its not, you get the entire thing shut down after a single movie and then people who havent read the book sure as hell wont do it now.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-04, 12:54 AM
Yeah I'm not sold on Beren and Luthien either. For one the story isn't terribly fleshed out. You'd need gobs and gobs of exposition to appreciate the mythos it takes place in. Otherwise its guy sees girl, jerkass dad sends guy for macguffin, hilarity ensues.

Dienekes
2012-01-04, 01:20 AM
Gotta agree with above. Beren and Luthien is alright but it's really just a side story for a lot of events that would need to be explained.

Personally I'd like to see the life of Feanor. Mostly to watch Gothmog slay his arrogant elven arse at the end.

The Mad Hatter
2012-01-04, 03:36 AM
I must say one thing.




GandalfvsDumbleder=Gandalf.

grimbold
2012-01-04, 06:46 AM
Yeah I'm not sold on Beren and Luthien either. For one the story isn't terribly fleshed out. You'd need gobs and gobs of exposition to appreciate the mythos it takes place in. Otherwise its guy sees girl, jerkass dad sends guy for macguffin, hilarity ensues.

yeah

a lot of tolkien is so epic in scale that it's almost abstract

lotr is one of the most straightforward things he did

it'll be hard for them to work this out i think

Newman
2012-01-04, 08:13 AM
I must say one thing.
GandalfvsDumbleder=Gandalf.

Dumbledorf of the Darkmeal may be less powerful than Gandalf, but he's much more of a planner. Wait, are we talking Gandalf the Grey or the White?

Dr.Epic
2012-01-04, 11:09 AM
Dumbledorf of the Darkmeal may be less powerful than Gandalf, but he's much more of a planner. Wait, are we talking Gandalf the Grey or the White?

Really? Dumbledore is more of a planner? The guy who let how many times dark agents and even Voldermort himself sneak onto Hogwarts grounds?

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-04, 11:18 AM
yeah

a lot of tolkien is so epic in scale that it's almost abstract

lotr is one of the most straightforward things he did

it'll be hard for them to work this out i think

Well Beren and Luthien is more a adventure story then an epic. Sure they are pulling one over on Morgoth himself, but there's little movement of armies or the like. Its cool because well.... they pull one on Morgoth but they don't fight him or anything like Fingolfin did.

For what we'd cinematically expect I have to think that the Fall of Gondolin or Turin would work better as a movie.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-04, 11:21 AM
I'd like to see The Silmarillion done right as well (preferably as a series of interconnected films a la what Marvel's doing). The major problems, as has been noted, is that much of the set-up is on a mythological scale, which doesn't readily translate well to film as there's a lot of abstract exposition up front, and the rather unpolished/unfinished state of some of the major tales.

On top of that, the Tolkien estate doesn't seem interested in licensing any more IP for adaptation. JRRT sold the rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings himself, but was less than convinced that it was possible to do them right.

Maybe whoever takes over the estate once Christopher retires/dies will have a different opinion on the matter, but I think that's one of the saddest parts of it - Christopher is probably the person with the most knowledge of the setting/most direct experience with its construction who's still alive and so is the person you'd most want to involve as a consultant if you're trying to adapt any of it.

Weezer
2012-01-04, 12:13 PM
I think the problem with a group of connected movies is that the first few will not hook people at all, but are needed for understanding the rest of the story. While I really enjoy reading it, gods singing Arda into existence followed by some very abstract god infighting and mass elf migrations are not exactly the kinds of plots that make blockbusters.

However I think maybe a TV series, in the vein of Game of Thrones and/or Sherlock, could do a great job with this topic. You have enough time in one or two seasons to tell most of, if not all, of the stories in the Silmarillion and you have some wiggle room with length, so the shorter stories can be told in a single episode while the longer ones (Turin, Berin and Luthien) could be told in a two parter. In truth lately I've become more and more enamored with the ability of TV shows to adapt books far more faithfully than a movie ever could.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-04, 12:19 PM
I'd like to see The Silmarillion done right as well (preferably as a series of interconnected films a la what Marvel's doing).

I don't think many of the stories it in could make for a full length film. If they did a Silmarillion film, it'd have to be like a series of short stories like Sin City.

I suggested Beren and Luthien because it's probably the most well known, it stands out the best in those works, and I think it'd be the easiest to turn into a film. You could have like a 10 minutes prologue like the first LotR explaining many of the plot points, and just do flashbacks throughout the film explaining lots of the other major points of the Silmarillion.

I guess it'd be a little odd in terms of a film. It'd probably more resemble a motion picture encyclopedia.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-04, 12:33 PM
Hmmm...

Good points. I guess allowing for some stories to be longer than others just by stretching across multiple episodes would be an effective way to deal with variable lengths.

There's still the problem of tone shifts and audience expectations.

Beren and Luthien is largely about love overcoming all obstacles.
The fall of Gondolin is concerned with Tuor finding the place and then the big battles.
Turin is pretty bleak, thematically, but has some good dragony bits.
The whole quest to reclaim the Silmarils is moot because the sons of Feanor have done such horrible things in the process that they've lost any claim to them.

There's probably enough shifts there that the audience would be hard to hold onto. Even the "happy" endings are pretty melancholy (and there are few enough of those as it stands). Audiences might not be up for an ongoing series of tragedies (or they might, what do I know).

Traab
2012-01-04, 12:57 PM
But what about my idea of taking in the series of other authors and putting them on screen? I would KILL for a chance to see mercedes lackeys black/white/silver gryphon trilogy on the big screen. I mean, yeah it might be tough with several of the lead characters being cgi gryphons, but it would still be awesome. And the best part is, you can quit doing the books at the end of any trilogy without leaving huge gaping questions. I mean good lord, I read the whole thing way out of order, grabbing one series here, another there, and it didnt ruin a thing. Sure there were lots of tie ins to show the connection between series but you didnt have to read the previous stuff to follow along just fine.

Newman
2012-01-04, 01:11 PM
^^^That prologue was probably the most brilliant piece of cinema I had seen since I was born, at the time it came out. The music, the narration, the everything... I had never heard of LOTR before. That small segment served to hook me and set me in the mood for the entire story. By the end of it, I was eating out of Peter Jackson's hands. The seamless transition from all that darkness straight into the light warm freshness (yeah, I know) of "Concerning Hobbits"... Everyone in that scene was so huggable... especially Gandalf...

If they manage to pull this off with the Silmarilion... chapeau.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-04, 01:21 PM
But what about my idea of taking in the series of other authors and putting them on screen? I would KILL for a chance to see mercedes lackeys black/white/silver gryphon trilogy on the big screen. I mean, yeah it might be tough with several of the lead characters being cgi gryphons, but it would still be awesome. And the best part is, you can quit doing the books at the end of any trilogy without leaving huge gaping questions. I mean good lord, I read the whole thing way out of order, grabbing one series here, another there, and it didnt ruin a thing. Sure there were lots of tie ins to show the connection between series but you didnt have to read the previous stuff to follow along just fine.

I've never read any Mercedes Lackey, and so couldn't comment on that, specifically.

Honestly, most of the stuff I read doesn't operate that way (as series of trilogies). They're either one-book stories or longer series that aren't broken up into shorter arcs like that. I suppose I've read the first three Foundation books, but nothing after that, and I guess the original Dune books kind of had a 3-1-2 blocking, but I think you'd still need to be familiar with the early ones to get the later ones (I haven't bothered with the recent ones).

The Mad Hatter
2012-01-04, 01:32 PM
Dumbledorf of the Darkmeal may be less powerful than Gandalf, but he's much more of a planner. Wait, are we talking Gandalf the Grey or the White?

Grey Gandalf VS Cursed Dumbles.

Traab
2012-01-04, 04:31 PM
I've never read any Mercedes Lackey, and so couldn't comment on that, specifically.

Honestly, most of the stuff I read doesn't operate that way (as series of trilogies). They're either one-book stories or longer series that aren't broken up into shorter arcs like that. I suppose I've read the first three Foundation books, but nothing after that, and I guess the original Dune books kind of had a 3-1-2 blocking, but I think you'd still need to be familiar with the early ones to get the later ones (I haven't bothered with the recent ones).

Yeah she did good stuff, the vast majority of her valdemar works are in trilogy form, with a few stand alone novels or two part series here and there. But the best part is that you really dont need to start from the start of the timeline to enjoy it, and there are very few spoilers from reading books xyz, before lmn. It helps to read them in order, because it adds to the overall feel of the stories if you know all the events that led up to the current set, but they generally mention enough as the story goes on that you know the gist of it and arent lost.

If I had to compare it to something, imagine reading harry potter. Then getting ahold of a book that describes dumbledoores life from childhood to the year harry is due to show up at the school. You dont need that biography to enjoy the harry potter series, but it would be neat to know exactly the kind of person dumbledoore was and is, and what motivates him. Thats kind of the way her books work. You generally have the main character, who is being helped by some older ones, and the previous trilogy covers how those adults got where they are.

Newman
2012-01-04, 04:56 PM
Yeah she did good stuff, the vast majority of her valdemar works are in trilogy form, with a few stand alone novels or two part series here and there. But the best part is that you really dont need to start from the start of the timeline to enjoy it, and there are very few spoilers from reading books xyz, before lmn. It helps to read them in order, because it adds to the overall feel of the stories if you know all the events that led up to the current set, but they generally mention enough as the story goes on that you know the gist of it and arent lost.

If I had to compare it to something, imagine reading harry potter. Then getting ahold of a book that describes dumbledoores life from childhood to the year harry is due to show up at the school. You dont need that biography to enjoy the harry potter series, but it would be neat to know exactly the kind of person dumbledoore was and is, and what motivates him. Thats kind of the way her books work. You generally have the main character, who is being helped by some older ones, and the previous trilogy covers how those adults got where they are.

So it's kinda like Discworld, huh?

Feytalist
2012-01-05, 03:45 AM
So it's kinda like Discworld, huh?

In structure, perhaps. In tone, not even the slightest.


Speaking of adaptions, I'd dearly love to see a good adaption of Eddings, as mentioned. A lot of the plot of his novels revolves around dialogue, so I think the transition to screen should be okay, with some cool magic visuals thrown in to keep everyone happy.

Hands_Of_Blue
2012-01-05, 05:11 AM
So I was looking at Benedict Cumberbatch's(Sherlock Holmes in BBC's Sherlock) wikipedia page because I heard he was going to be in the next Star Trek movie, and I noticed something odd in his filmography.

"2012-2013 The Hobbit Smaug (portray through motion capture)"

How...how do you mo-cap a DRAGON?

Traab
2012-01-05, 09:25 AM
So I was looking at Benedict Cumberbatch's(Sherlock Holmes in BBC's Sherlock) wikipedia page because I heard he was going to be in the next Star Trek movie, and I noticed something odd in his filmography.

"2012-2013 The Hobbit Smaug (portray through motion capture)"

How...how do you mo-cap a DRAGON?

You put him in the proper stances, then use cgi to enlarge the image. For example, make a scaled down in size dragons lair set and have him move through it like the dragon should. Then you can basically put those images into cgi, blow them up to full scale, and you have a gigantic smaug stepping up and down cavern halls, ducking around stalagmites, and climbing over his own treasure mound.

Hopeless
2012-01-05, 09:27 AM
But what about my idea of taking in the series of other authors and putting them on screen? I would KILL for a chance to see mercedes lackeys black/white/silver gryphon trilogy on the big screen. I mean, yeah it might be tough with several of the lead characters being cgi gryphons, but it would still be awesome. And the best part is, you can quit doing the books at the end of any trilogy without leaving huge gaping questions. I mean good lord, I read the whole thing way out of order, grabbing one series here, another there, and it didnt ruin a thing. Sure there were lots of tie ins to show the connection between series but you didnt have to read the previous stuff to follow along just fine.

Well if they can do Aslan, I don't see why not!

The CGI bill would be staggering though but as much as the final fantasy movie cost?

Hopeless
2012-01-05, 09:29 AM
So I was looking at Benedict Cumberbatch's(Sherlock Holmes in BBC's Sherlock) wikipedia page because I heard he was going to be in the next Star Trek movie, and I noticed something odd in his filmography.

"2012-2013 The Hobbit Smaug (portray through motion capture)"

How...how do you mo-cap a DRAGON?

Wait he's voicing Smaug!!!

Weezer
2012-01-05, 10:56 AM
Wait he's voicing Smaug!!!

And (I think) the Necromancer

Avilan the Grey
2012-01-05, 01:46 PM
Speaking of dragon mo-cap... did anyone notice that the dragon from Once Upon A Time moves almost exactly like the dragons in Skyrim? :smallbiggrin:

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-05, 04:28 PM
So I was looking at Benedict Cumberbatch's(Sherlock Holmes in BBC's Sherlock) wikipedia page because I heard he was going to be in the next Star Trek movie, and I noticed something odd in his filmography.

"2012-2013 The Hobbit Smaug (portray through motion capture)"

How...how do you mo-cap a DRAGON?

IMDb lists him as the VA so I'm don't know but um I'll hazard.... facial expressions?

No seriously I don't wanna sound mean but at least in this picture (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU5MDkwNDg3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjI5NTIxNw@@._ V1._SY314_CR8,0,214,314_.jpg) I TOTALLY see a dragon's face


And (I think) the Necromancer

IMDb confirms both.... which is incredible because this guy in another movie is going to be....


KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!....... (khannn)


Okay I don't actually know that but he's the villian in the next Trek (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1676776/benedict-cumberbatch-star-trek-2-villain.jhtml) movie.


So apparently I need to check this dude out because he's apparently the new Gary Oldman or Christopher Lee or something. (Speaking of Dracula we are going to see Saruman in The Hobbit apparently. But not doing much as it was only filmed in London, poor Christopher Lee has apparently admitted he's getting old)

Hands_Of_Blue
2012-01-06, 12:41 AM
IMDb lists him as the VA so I'm don't know but um I'll hazard.... facial expressions?

No seriously I don't wanna sound mean but at least in this picture (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU5MDkwNDg3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjI5NTIxNw@@._ V1._SY314_CR8,0,214,314_.jpg) I TOTALLY see a dragon's face



IMDb confirms both.... which is incredible because this guy in another movie is going to be....


KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!....... (khannn)


Okay I don't actually know that but he's the villian in the next Trek (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1676776/benedict-cumberbatch-star-trek-2-villain.jhtml) movie.

Facial expressions is pretty much the only thing that seems plausible.

And I doubt he'll be Khan, since Khan would still be on the Botany Bay asleep, and wouldn't really have any reason to vehemently hate Kirk and the Enterprise right after waking up. Perhaps he's a Klingon?

TheCountAlucard
2012-01-06, 05:43 AM
Agreed; it's unlikely they'll try and do The Wrath of Khan again so soon, considering how last time they tried to rip off pay homage to that movie, it didn't turn out so well. Maybe they'll encounter the Botany Bay, but this seems unlikely.

Besides, we've probably got more Star Trek cliches to cross off the list first. :smallamused:

Newman
2012-01-06, 07:30 AM
Agreed; it's unlikely they'll try and do The Wrath of Khan again so soon, considering how last time they tried to rip off pay homage to that movie, it didn't turn out so well.

You mean STAR TREK the 2009 movie? First Star Trek product I ever saw.

Beautiful soundtrack.

TheCountAlucard
2012-01-06, 07:32 AM
You mean STAR TREK the 2009 movie?Wha-? :confused:


First Star Trek product I ever saw.Fair enough, but let me just say, "no, the 2009 was not an homage to The Wrath of Khan."

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 08:54 AM
You put him in the proper stances, then use cgi to enlarge the image. For example, make a scaled down in size dragons lair set and have him move through it like the dragon should. Then you can basically put those images into cgi, blow them up to full scale, and you have a gigantic smaug stepping up and down cavern halls, ducking around stalagmites, and climbing over his own treasure mound.
I know Peter Jackson loves Mocap, but . . .a dragon has a very different body structure than a human. Gollum and King Kong were both humanoid, but dragons tend to be lizard, snake or dinosaur like.
I really don't see how it would aid anything, especially with all the changes they would have to do thanks to the differences in mass and size as well. For example, Ang Lees Hulk moved like a human sized humanoid, which feels floaty and wrong when scaled up Hulk Size. I haven't seen King Kong, but still, as I said, that's still humanoid.
Dragons . . .aren't.

Traab
2012-01-06, 09:24 AM
I know Peter Jackson loves Mocap, but . . .a dragon has a very different body structure than a human. Gollum and King Kong were both humanoid, but dragons tend to be lizard, snake or dinosaur like.
I really don't see how it would aid anything, especially with all the changes they would have to do thanks to the differences in mass and size as well. For example, Ang Lees Hulk moved like a human sized humanoid, which feels floaty and wrong when scaled up Hulk Size. I haven't seen King Kong, but still, as I said, that's still humanoid.
Dragons . . .aren't.

True, maybe it will be a combination of motion capture and cgi then? I dont pretend to understand the various cost versus benefit ratios of using one over the other, so I dunno if there is an economic reason to decide which to use. Also, there may be the whole thing where its easier for the actors to act when they arent having a conversation with empty air? I mean, sure most of the whole bilbo/smaug interaction is a setup of dueling monologues, but im sure it would still flow better if they each had someone to actually talk to while they do it.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 09:43 AM
True, maybe it will be a combination of motion capture and cgi then? I dont pretend to understand the various cost versus benefit ratios of using one over the other, so I dunno if there is an economic reason to decide which to use. Also, there may be the whole thing where its easier for the actors to act when they arent having a conversation with empty air? I mean, sure most of the whole bilbo/smaug interaction is a setup of dueling monologues, but im sure it would still flow better if they each had someone to actually talk to while they do it.
Motion capture isn't verses CGI, it's a way of getting naturalistic motions for animating CGI, kind of like a 3D version of Rotoscoping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping), so of course it's going to be in combination.
But like Rotoscoping, it can fail because what looks right for live action doesn't always look right for animation. See, The Polar Express or, for Rotoscoping, Gulliver's Travels.
And having someone to talk to isn't necessarily mocap either.
For example, in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the voice actor for Roger would appear on set, but off camera, and do his lines, in a Roger Rabbit costume. While this might, IIRC, have been just for rehearsal, apparently it added a lot of energy and spontaneity to the give and take between Bob Hoskins and Charles Fleischer's characters.

TheCountAlucard
2012-01-06, 10:17 AM
For example, in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the voice actor for Roger would appear on set, but off camera, and do his lines, in a Roger Rabbit costume. While this might, IIRC, have been just for rehearsal, apparently it added a lot of energy and spontaneity to the give and take between Bob Hoskins and Charles Fleischer's characters.Contrast the latter two of the Star Wars prequels, where so damn much of the set was CGI that it was clear on the actors' faces in almost every frame that they had no idea what they were looking at.


General Grievous unfurls himself and does a flourish with four lightsabers, and Kenobi's body language shows no reaction. :smallsigh: A guy in a suit jumping at him would've provoked a response.
In none of the Coruscant scenes do you ever get the sense that any of these characters is really looking out over a vast cityscape; even a matte painting would've done the trick in this instance.
You ever really see someone walk a great distance in these scenes? It's pretty evident that the greenscreen runs out after only so many feet. Heck, in one scene in Revenge of the Sith, Anakin is running, and as he gets to the edge of the set, he visibly slows down to a mere walk.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-06, 10:29 AM
Facial expressions is pretty much the only thing that seems plausible.

And I doubt he'll be Khan, since Khan would still be on the Botany Bay asleep, and wouldn't really have any reason to vehemently hate Kirk and the Enterprise right after waking up. Perhaps he's a Klingon?

That's the other speculation and a more then legit possibility.

But your objections have issues. One establishing why Khan hates Kirk, movie potential yes? Two the reboot series has no real reason to follow anything established in Trek.

(Wanna bet the Klingons are y'know Klingons)


I know Peter Jackson loves Mocap, but . . .a dragon has a very different body structure than a human. Gollum and King Kong were both humanoid, but dragons tend to be lizard, snake or dinosaur like.
I really don't see how it would aid anything, especially with all the changes they would have to do thanks to the differences in mass and size as well. For example, Ang Lees Hulk moved like a human sized humanoid, which feels floaty and wrong when scaled up Hulk Size. I haven't seen King Kong, but still, as I said, that's still humanoid.
Dragons . . .aren't.

King Kong worked fine, which is perhaps the best point of contrast. We are talking about a true master of CGI here.

Also a dragons still generally have hands and often follow the mammalian body structure versus the squatter lizard one. Now have someone down on all fours and you are mostly worrying about the different leg lengths and the neck.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 10:29 AM
Contrast the latter two of the Star Wars prequels, where so damn much of the set was CGI that it was clear on the actors' faces in almost every frame that they had no idea what they were looking at.

General Grievous unfurls himself and does a flourish with four lightsabers, and Kenobi's body language shows no reaction.:smallsigh: A guy in a suit jumping at him would've provoked a response.
In none of the Coruscant scenes do you ever get the sense that any of these characters is really looking out over a vast cityscape; even a matte painting would've done the trick in this instance.
You ever really see someone walk a great distance in these scenes? It's pretty evident that the greenscreen runs out after only so many feet. Heck, in one scene in Revenge of the Sith, Anakin is running, and as he gets to the edge of the set, he visibly slows down to a mere walk.

I got the same feeling in Phantom Menace a lot as well. Liam Neeson is a fine actor, but it's obvious in the scenes with Watto he isn't actually looking at anything.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit did other tricks as well to help the actors get the effect "Something there" across when it wasn't, like doing a rehearsal run with rubber mannequins of the Toon characters to give the actors an idea of mass and eye distance during interactions.
Despite using no CGI whatsoever, it still remains, in my opinion, the best full length fusion of animation and live action, 2D or 3D.

Newman
2012-01-06, 10:29 AM
Contrast the latter two of the Star Wars prequels, where so damn much of the set was CGI that it was clear on the actors' faces in almost every frame that they had no idea what they were looking at.


General Grievous unfurls himself and does a flourish with four lightsabers, and Kenobi's body language shows no reaction. :smallsigh: A guy in a suit jumping at him would've provoked a response.
You get no sense that Anakin is really looking out over a vast city-world; even a matte painting would've done the trick in this instance.
You ever really see someone walk a great distance in these scenes? It's pretty evident that the greenscreen runs out after only so many feet. Heck, in one scene in Revenge of the Sith, Anakin is running, and as he gets to the edge of the set, he visibly slows down to a mere walk.

With careful editing, may of these problems could have been avoided. See Darths and Droids, where Anakin is actually a moving, interesting character. Completely insane, though, he and his wife are. Which is good.

Traab
2012-01-06, 10:38 AM
Contrast the latter two of the Star Wars prequels, where so damn much of the set was CGI that it was clear on the actors' faces in almost every frame that they had no idea what they were looking at.


General Grievous unfurls himself and does a flourish with four lightsabers, and Kenobi's body language shows no reaction. :smallsigh: A guy in a suit jumping at him would've provoked a response.
In none of the Coruscant scenes do you ever get the sense that any of these characters is really looking out over a vast cityscape; even a matte painting would've done the trick in this instance.
You ever really see someone walk a great distance in these scenes? It's pretty evident that the greenscreen runs out after only so many feet. Heck, in one scene in Revenge of the Sith, Anakin is running, and as he gets to the edge of the set, he visibly slows down to a mere walk.

Yeah all that got mentioned in plinketts review. The most common "fix" for the last one was to have whoever is doing all the walking stop, talk to someone for a bit, then they reset the screen and start walking again.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 10:47 AM
King Kong worked fine, which is perhaps the best point of contrast. We are talking about a true master of CGI here.

Also a dragons still generally have hands and often follow the mammalian body structure versus the squatter lizard one. Now have someone down on all fours and you are mostly worrying about the different leg lengths and the neck.
Which is why I mentioned dinosaurs. Unlike existing lizards, the quadrupeds ones legs were directly under them, like a horse rather than spread out and straddling like most lizards.
But while a dragon may have manipulators, it depends on portrayal, the human body plan is very different from the basic mammalian body plan. We are bipedal heel walkers, that's pretty rare in the mammal world, non-existent exclusively except for us, and even those that do occasionally engage in this behaviour, like bears and some primates, still have marked differences. And no, a human crawling is not the same.

TheCountAlucard
2012-01-06, 10:54 AM
I got the same feeling in Phantom Menace a lot as well. Liam Neeson is a fine actor, but it's obvious in the scenes with Watto he isn't actually looking at anything.Another excellent point.


Despite using no CGI whatsoever, it still remains, in my opinion, the best full length fusion of animation and live action, 2D or 3D.Been a bit since I've seen it last, but at bare minimum, it's one of the better ones. :smallsmile:


With careful editing, may of these problems could have been avoided.Oh, for sure.


See Darths and Droids, where Anakin is actually a moving, interesting character.That's a writing problem, not an effects failure.


Yeah all that got mentioned in plinketts review.Yes, yes it did. Still very true, though.

But anyway, Hobbit discussion again, I watched the trailer again. Really looking forward to it. :smallbiggrin:

Newman
2012-01-06, 11:11 AM
That's a writing problem, not an effects failure.

No, no, I mean look at how the characters' expressions are paced and matched with their words. I especially liked how they managed to make Palpatine look like a good guy who was wounded and disfigured, rather than a guy who was so evil he couldn't help but display it.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-06, 11:20 AM
Which is why I mentioned dinosaurs. Unlike existing lizards, the quadrupeds ones legs were directly under them, like a horse rather than spread out and straddling like most lizards.
But while a dragon may have manipulators, it depends on portrayal, the human body plan is very different from the basic mammalian body plan. We are bipedal heel walkers, that's pretty rare in the mammal world, non-existent exclusively except for us, and even those that do occasionally engage in this behaviour, like bears and some primates, still have marked differences. And no, a human crawling is not the same.

Broader shoulders, rotated hips for being upright, and proportionately longer legs. Of which shoulders are concealable with a thick torso and neck, hips are the least visible and most flexible, leaving us with just the legs. Given that Smaug in canon doesn't actually walk anywhere on screen and his action scene is aerial we don't really need full motion. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get away with torso up.

So I think I'm going to be on mo-cap being for the subtler bits. Rather then looming around or moving around the lair much.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 11:32 AM
Broader shoulders, rotated hips for being upright, and proportionately longer legs. Of which shoulders are concealable with a thick torso and neck, hips are the least visible and most flexible, leaving us with just the legs. Given that Smaug in canon doesn't actually walk anywhere on screen and his action scene is aerial we don't really need full motion. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get away with torso up.

So I think I'm going to be on mo-cap being for the subtler bits. Rather then looming around or moving around the lair much.
Which raises the question why Motion capture is needed at all. Give the differences in size and mass, even those subtle gestures are going to need a lot of tweaking to look right.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-06, 12:14 PM
Which begs the question why Motion capture is needed at all. Give the differences in size and mass, even those subtle gestures are going to need a lot of tweaking to look right.

I don't presume to be a technical expert but it seems to be that its a lot harder to get just a model to y'know act without something to base it on. Gollum didn't exactly have a regular face either, he's almost got anime proportion eyes.

(Speaking of anime look at how much animation exaggerates their characters in some way to convey emotion.)

And while yeah we all rag on CGI and all Jackson I think deserves some credit for being someone who actually knows what he's doing with it and doesn't use it as simply as cheap cop-out. So I will extend a little credit, if he thinks there is merit in motion capture then evidently there is and I won't dispute it too much unless I see a failed result.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 12:34 PM
Yes, but it was still a humanoid face. Unless Smaug is going to look like the strangely primate Dragons on the cover of the Eragon novel, a shuddersome thought, there isn't many cues in common. Peter Jackson uses CGI better than many, for example he knows when NOT to use it, but it still seems an odd choice in the face of things.
And by 'it' I mean motion capture, CGI is definitely needed here.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-06, 12:45 PM
Yes, but it was still a humanoid face. Unless Smaug is going to look like the strangely primate Dragons on the cover of the Eragon novel, a shuddersome thought, there isn't many cues in common. Peter Jackson uses CGI better than many, for example he knows when NOT to use it, but it still seems an odd choice in the face of things.
And by 'it' I mean motion capture, CGI is definitely needed here.

And I think you are letting yourself be caught in the differences too much. I totally see a dragon in this guys face already.

And ultimately I'll say I think you have it backwards. Its adding humanity that is hard, not taking it away. If Smaug is going to stare at us with both eyes, its still a human face. And dragons generally are made that way.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 01:00 PM
A lot of animal faces look human from dead front, the fore shorting squishes the muzzle
Of course, it's probably going to need human elements at least in expression and expressiveness.
But I am still not getting motion capture for this. Sounds like more a job for a competent animation team, no motion capture required, one of which will be needed anyway.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-06, 01:19 PM
A lot of animal faces look human from dead front, the fore shorting squishes the muzzle
Of course, it's probably going to need human elements at least in expression and expressiveness.
But I am still not getting motion capture for this. Sounds like more a job for a competent animation team, no motion capture required, one of which will be needed anyway.

You answered your own question.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-06, 01:54 PM
You answered your own question.
Did I? Facial expression motion capture is great for when you want to capture the nuances of a particular actors facial performance in CGI in a face that is humanoid, like with Davy Jones, Voldemort or Dr. Manhattan. But a dragons face is very in-humanoid that such nuances will be lost.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-06, 04:38 PM
Did I? Facial expression motion capture is great for when you want to capture the nuances of a particular actors facial performance in CGI in a face that is humanoid, like with Davy Jones, Voldemort or Dr. Manhattan. But a dragons face is very in-humanoid that such nuances will be lost.

See all my previous comments, particularly about over estimating differences.

Boiling down you basically are of the opinion that it sounds like an animation team would be better. That's a perfectly fine opinion and all but evidently Jackson and his team disagreed.

Weezer
2012-01-06, 05:23 PM
See all my previous comments, particularly about over estimating differences.

Boiling down you basically are of the opinion that it sounds like an animation team would be better. That's a perfectly fine opinion and all but evidently Jackson and his team disagreed.

And, in the end, all we can do is wait and see if his choice turned out to be the correct one.

Hands_Of_Blue
2012-01-07, 01:36 AM
(Wanna bet the Klingons are y'know Klingons)
I'm assuming this is refering to Original Series ridiculously human Klingons versus TNG era Klingons, and a deleted scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W66bSajPGtQ) from the recent movie they had Klingons wearing helmets that showing the familiar forehead ridges, but none ever take it off. So it's not shown if they look human under there. I thought it was neat.

Ravens_cry
2012-01-07, 10:32 AM
See all my previous comments, particularly about over estimating differences.

Boiling down you basically are of the opinion that it sounds like an animation team would be better. That's a perfectly fine opinion and all but evidently Jackson and his team disagreed.
Yes, and I want to know why. I am just worried it's case of using a tool you are more comfortable with, even though it's not the best tool for the job.
Anyway, I have high hopes for these movies, though I know at least a few are going to be dashed.
'Tis the nature of a translation from one medium to another.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-07, 02:33 PM
Has anyone asked the most important question yet? Will Leonard Nimoy get to do a song in the film?:smallwink:

Felhammer
2012-01-07, 03:54 PM
Has anyone asked the most important question yet? Will Leonard Nimoy get to do a song in the film?:smallwink:

Bilbo, Bilbo, Bilbo Baggins - the Bravest Little Hobbit of Them All! (http://youtu.be/XC73PHdQX04)

Traab
2012-01-07, 04:20 PM
It would be an interesting easter egg if at some point when bilbo is feeling particularly good about himself, he starts humming the theme.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-07, 04:26 PM
It would be an interesting easter egg if at some point when bilbo is feeling particularly good about himself, he starts humming the theme.

Not during the actual movie. Like, maybe during the credits. I kind of think it would ruin the tone of the film. Though during the credits would be fine. The stories been told.

grimbold
2012-01-07, 04:40 PM
It would be an interesting easter egg if at some point when bilbo is feeling particularly good about himself, he starts humming the theme.

YES

easter eggs in general would be fun

dehro
2012-01-07, 04:54 PM
YES

easter eggs in general would be fun

easter eggs make me feel stupid.
half the time I need them pointed out to me

hamishspence
2012-01-08, 07:47 AM
See all my previous comments, particularly about over estimating differences.

Boiling down you basically are of the opinion that it sounds like an animation team would be better. That's a perfectly fine opinion and all but evidently Jackson and his team disagreed.

Dragonheart- how did they handle Draco's facial expressions in that- and is something like that a good precedent for what Smaug may look like?

dehro
2012-01-08, 10:28 AM
this may have already been pointed out, but with PJ solidly at the helm of this thing, I can't help expecting that he'll try to be as consistent as possible with MOTR, which means Smaug is probably going to look like how Alan Lee and/or John Howe envision him.
do we know if either of them is in PJ's team at the moment?

warty goblin
2012-01-08, 12:47 PM
Hmmm...

Good points. I guess allowing for some stories to be longer than others just by stretching across multiple episodes would be an effective way to deal with variable lengths.

There's still the problem of tone shifts and audience expectations.

Beren and Luthien is largely about love overcoming all obstacles.
The fall of Gondolin is concerned with Tuor finding the place and then the big battles.
Turin is pretty bleak, thematically, but has some good dragony bits.
The whole quest to reclaim the Silmarils is moot because the sons of Feanor have done such horrible things in the process that they've lost any claim to them.

There's probably enough shifts there that the audience would be hard to hold onto. Even the "happy" endings are pretty melancholy (and there are few enough of those as it stands). Audiences might not be up for an ongoing series of tragedies (or they might, what do I know).

Yeah, I reread the Quenta Silmarillion a few months ago (I skipped Akelabeth because I find it less interesting), and realized that, really, the Lord of the Rings was that story's happy ending. Just, you know, six thousand years later and after the world had been irredeemably damaged, so not so much.

Zea mays
2012-01-08, 01:03 PM
this may have already been pointed out, but with PJ solidly at the helm of this thing, I can't help expecting that he'll try to be as consistent as possible with MOTR, which means Smaug is probably going to look like how Alan Lee and/or John Howe envision him.
do we know if either of them is in PJ's team at the moment?

Yes (http://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ), yes we do. :smallcool:
Scroll down to see both men sporting 3-D glasses.

Sadly, I expect they'll keep Smaug's final design a secret for some time yet.

Weezer
2012-01-08, 01:08 PM
Yes (http://www.facebook.com/PeterJacksonNZ), yes we do. :smallcool:
Scroll down to see both men sporting 3-D glasses.

Sadly, I expect they'll keep Smaug's final design a secret for some time yet.

Almost certianly, it is perfect material to make for an exciting trailer released either closer to the 1st movie or to drum up excitement for the 2nd movie. Smaug has become the quintessential dragon in western fantasy and I hope they make full use of that fact.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-08, 01:32 PM
Almost certianly, it is perfect material to make for an exciting trailer released either closer to the 1st movie or to drum up excitement for the 2nd movie. Smaug has become the quintessential dragon in western fantasy and I hope they make full use of that fact.

One could assume, based on the availability of this item from Weta (http://www.wetanz.com/smaug-the-golden-faux-bronze/), that they'll be using John Howe's design for Smaug, which I prefer as far as these things go.

"Quintessential" as Smaug is, there's a trend in fantasy gaming/literature to ennoble dragons, whereas in Tolkien they're vile, nasty, evil creatures. Intimidating, yes. Impressive, yes. Charming in personality, when they want to be, sure. Beautiful or admirable? Do Not Want.

Weezer
2012-01-08, 03:36 PM
One could assume, based on the availability of this item from Weta (http://www.wetanz.com/smaug-the-golden-faux-bronze/), that they'll be using John Howe's design for Smaug, which I prefer as far as these things go.

"Quintessential" as Smaug is, there's a trend in fantasy gaming/literature to ennoble dragons, whereas in Tolkien they're vile, nasty, evil creatures. Intimidating, yes. Impressive, yes. Charming in personality, when they want to be, sure. Beautiful or admirable? Do Not Want.

I do like Howe's design, but how does its availability point towards the fact that they will be using it?


I agree that Dragons are losing their nastiness and their selfishness in recent decades, which is somewhat saddening. One of my favorite dragons is still Fafnir, and you don't get much more vile than that.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-08, 04:34 PM
I do like Howe's design, but how does its availability point towards the fact that they will be using it?

None, directly.

It's possible that it's just a joint project between Howe and Weta and it's a coincidence that one of the artists on board for the films as a design consultant is having some sculptures done by the company who did the props and special effects for the films.

But a man can dream.

(edit - my initial point being that if they're doing these, I'd assume that they'd like to be able to market them as a movie tie-in eventually unless they're going to do this all over again with a miniature of whatever other design they come up with)

Felhammer
2012-01-08, 05:52 PM
"Quintessential" as Smaug is, there's a trend in fantasy gaming/literature to ennoble dragons, whereas in Tolkien they're vile, nasty, evil creatures. Intimidating, yes. Impressive, yes. Charming in personality, when they want to be, sure. Beautiful or admirable? Do Not Want.

I think its more 50/50. Look at D&D 4E - none of the dragons are truly nice or good - they're just varying degrees of self-obsessed gold hoarders. Look at Harry Potter - Dragons are basically evil, magical, super reptiles. Beowulf also has an evil Dragon, as does Dragon Age.

But that could easily be countered by Eragon (the main Dragon is super nice), several dragon Digimon (almost all of whom are nice), How to Train Your Own Dragon, Dragonheart and Jake Long.

Dragons are what the story needs - Evil, cruel and feral or Good, Wise and Loving.

grimbold
2012-01-09, 11:05 AM
I think its more 50/50. Look at D&D 4E - none of the dragons are truly nice or good - they're just varying degrees of self-obsessed gold hoarders. Look at Harry Potter - Dragons are basically evil, magical, super reptiles. Beowulf also has an evil Dragon, as does Dragon Age.

But that could easily be countered by Eragon (the main Dragon is super nice), several dragon Digimon (almost all of whom are nice), How to Train Your Own Dragon, Dragonheart and Jake Long.

Dragons are what the story needs - Evil, cruel and feral or Good, Wise and Loving.

this

they seem to be creatures of extremes


also
some of the dragons in Eragon are mean...

Astrella
2012-01-09, 12:00 PM
Aren't dragons in HP pretty much neutral though? They never seemed evil to me; we only encountered them in captivity after all. (either protecting their eggs or having been tortured for years.)

Muz
2012-01-09, 02:00 PM
Dragonheart- how did they handle Draco's facial expressions in that- and is something like that a good precedent for what Smaug may look like?

Ohh, I hope not. I never liked the look of Draco. Far too simian. Granted, there is a problem of it being a lot easier to form words with a non-simian mouth, but I hope they'll find a way around that.

Prime32
2012-01-09, 04:35 PM
Eragon (the main Dragon is super nice)
Correction: the main dragon is popular. :smalltongue: She's constantly advising Eragon to boast about himself, break promises and kill people.

Some of your other examples are Chinese dragons, which are entirely different.

Feytalist
2012-01-10, 02:36 AM
I'm reminded of the dragon in Merlin (the TV series), who is awesome simply because it has the voice of John Hurt.

grimbold
2012-01-10, 09:53 AM
i was thinkng

christopher lee should do it

somehow...

i just think he;s the worlds best bad guy and its worth giving him a shot

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-10, 10:07 AM
i was thinkng

christopher lee should do it

somehow...

i just think he;s the worlds best bad guy and its worth giving him a shot

But he's already in the movie (which gives one an idea of how much they are expanding the let's go get the Necromancer thread of plot)

Feytalist
2012-01-11, 01:58 AM
But he's already in the movie (which gives one an idea of how much they are expanding the let's go get the Necromancer thread of plot)

As Saruman? That's pretty cool.

Wait. Was Saruman even in The Hobbit?

Zevox
2012-01-11, 02:31 AM
As Saruman? That's pretty cool.

Wait. Was Saruman even in The Hobbit?
No, but he is in parts of the story that occurred, for lack of a better term, off-screen. Remember what Gandalf was up to after leaving Bilbo and the Dwarves at Mirkwood - the White Council ousted the Necromancer from Dol Guldur at that point, and Saruman is of course part of the White Council (its leader, in fact). Since the movies intend to show things like that which are important to how the story connects to LotR but weren't directly shown in the book, I'd wager that'll be a major plotline in the movies, which means Saruman will be in them.

Zevox

Feytalist
2012-01-11, 03:31 AM
No, but he is in parts of the story that occurred, for lack of a better term, off-screen. Remember what Gandalf was up to after leaving Bilbo and the Dwarves at Mirkwood - the White Council ousted the Necromancer from Dol Guldur at that point, and Saruman is of course part of the White Council (its leader, in fact). Since the movies intend to show things like that which are important to how the story connects to LotR but weren't directly shown in the book, I'd wager that'll be a major plotline in the movies, which means Saruman will be in them.

Zevox

I vaguely recall something like that, yes. But then, I read the Hobbit about 12 years ago last.

I can't help thinking that this whole extra plotline is included just to keep the fans of the previous movies happy, and not so much the fans of the book. Oh well, I'll probably go see it anyway.

Xondoure
2012-01-11, 03:59 AM
I vaguely recall something like that, yes. But then, I read the Hobbit about 12 years ago last.

I can't help thinking that this whole extra plotline is included just to keep the fans of the previous movies happy, and not so much the fans of the book. Oh well, I'll probably go see it anyway.

If the worse thing they do to this movie is add in a side plot that happened off the pages I will be very pleased.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-01-11, 10:09 AM
Its not like there isn't a fairly good idea of what happened from the indexes at the back of Return of the King so simply showing that on screen is fine.

However we all know it won't be quite as seemless. I spotted Galadriel in Rivendell in the trailer which so it will be a matter of how much variation and is this the very forgivable Arwen rescuing Frodo instead of Glorfindel... the elves at Helm's Deep... or an extraneous battle and derailing of Faramir?

dehro
2012-01-11, 11:47 AM
I wants BRIAN BLESSED to play Beorn and Christopher Lee to play everyone else

Dienekes
2012-01-11, 11:50 AM
I wants BRIAN BLESSED to play Beorn and Christopher Lee to play everyone else

This is what everyone wants. We'll just have to settle for what Peter Jackson gives us.