Posted: 8/10/2012 10:17:48 PM EDT
|
Is it too early to start a thread on the upcoming release of The Hobbit?
Oops, too late, I just did. Honestly, though, have you heard it will be in three parts, not two as originally planned? ETA: Links - BA IMDB Link to Hobbit Part 1 IMDB Link to Hobbit Part 2 IMDB Link to Hobbit Part 3 |
|
The Hobbit will also contain material not originally in the book. There's a wealth of story material in the appendix of LotR; for example, the war between the Dwarves and the Orcs is found there. The character of Azog, featured in that war, has been cast for THTABA*, so apparently that is being filmed as well. (The Orc-Dwarf War occurred about 50 years before THTABA.)
*The Hobbit: There And Back Again |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, I am not sure about the whole three movies thing...it probably means we have to wait until the third movie to see Smaug, which sucks. Oh well, at least I know there will be two kick-ass movies released in 2015: Avengers 2 and Hobbit 3. I know Smaug is the central cause for the entire storyline but, if you think about it, his physical presence does not feature very prominently. 1. He talks to Bilbo, then leaves. 2. His attack on the dwarves cannot be seen by them, as they are inside the tunnel with the door closed. 3. His attack on Lake Town cannot be seen by the dwarves and does not last long. 4. Bard dispatches him with a single arrow. I'm probably over-simplifying but the point is, most of the story does not involve Smaug. We've seen so many dragons over the years and it seems dragons became more popular in the recent past since The Hobbit was first announced. To me, the most important part of Smaug is his head, voice and eyes when he can interact with Bilbo. Those are critical. They are close-ups (like the Balrog's head) and are our introduction to the beast who started it all. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, I am not sure about the whole three movies thing...it probably means we have to wait until the third movie to see Smaug, which sucks. Oh well, at least I know there will be two kick-ass movies released in 2015: Avengers 2 and Hobbit 3. I know Smaug is the central cause for the entire storyline but, if you think about it, his physical presence does not feature very prominently. 1. He talks to Bilbo, then leaves. 2. His attack on the dwarves cannot be seen by them, as they are inside the tunnel with the door closed. 3. His attack on Lake Town cannot be seen by the dwarves and does not last long. 4. Bard dispatches him with a single arrow. I'm probably over-simplifying but the point is, most of the story does not involve Smaug. We've seen so many dragons over the years and it seems dragons became more popular in the recent past since The Hobbit was first announced. To me, the most important part of Smaug is his head, voice and eyes when he can interact with Bilbo. Those are critical. They are close-ups (like the Balrog's head) and are our introduction to the beast who started it all. I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that you will indeed see the attack on the dwarves and the attack on Lake Town in the movie, and that it will last quite a long time. Thinking on it now, I would guess it's the climax of the second movie. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, I am not sure about the whole three movies thing...it probably means we have to wait until the third movie to see Smaug, which sucks. Oh well, at least I know there will be two kick-ass movies released in 2015: Avengers 2 and Hobbit 3. I know Smaug is the central cause for the entire storyline but, if you think about it, his physical presence does not feature very prominently. 1. He talks to Bilbo, then leaves. 2. His attack on the dwarves cannot be seen by them, as they are inside the tunnel with the door closed. 3. His attack on Lake Town cannot be seen by the dwarves and does not last long. 4. Bard dispatches him with a single arrow. I'm probably over-simplifying but the point is, most of the story does not involve Smaug. We've seen so many dragons over the years and it seems dragons became more popular in the recent past since The Hobbit was first announced. To me, the most important part of Smaug is his head, voice and eyes when he can interact with Bilbo. Those are critical. They are close-ups (like the Balrog's head) and are our introduction to the beast who started it all. I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that you will indeed see the attack on the dwarves and the attack on Lake Town in the movie, and that it will last quite a long time. Thinking on it now, I would guess it's the climax of the second movie. as a 7 year old, that cartoon Smaug scared the piss out of me. The look and voice was the stuff of a childs nightmare. That being said, this new Smaug needs to have the right head/voice combo to instill the fear that is implied during Smaug's speech to Bilbo. The movie (s) will be epic fail if I don't crap my pants or have a nightmare after seeing Smaug. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, I am not sure about the whole three movies thing...it probably means we have to wait until the third movie to see Smaug, which sucks. Oh well, at least I know there will be two kick-ass movies released in 2015: Avengers 2 and Hobbit 3. I know Smaug is the central cause for the entire storyline but, if you think about it, his physical presence does not feature very prominently. 1. He talks to Bilbo, then leaves. 2. His attack on the dwarves cannot be seen by them, as they are inside the tunnel with the door closed. 3. His attack on Lake Town cannot be seen by the dwarves and does not last long. 4. Bard dispatches him with a single arrow. I'm probably over-simplifying but the point is, most of the story does not involve Smaug. We've seen so many dragons over the years and it seems dragons became more popular in the recent past since The Hobbit was first announced. To me, the most important part of Smaug is his head, voice and eyes when he can interact with Bilbo. Those are critical. They are close-ups (like the Balrog's head) and are our introduction to the beast who started it all. I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that you will indeed see the attack on the dwarves and the attack on Lake Town in the movie, and that it will last quite a long time. Thinking on it now, I would guess it's the climax of the second movie. as a 7 year old, that cartoon Smaug scared the piss out of me. The look and voice was the stuff of a childs nightmare. That being said, this new Smaug needs to have the right head/voice combo to instill the fear that is implied during Smaug's speech to Bilbo. The movie (s) will be epic fail if I don't crap my pants or have a nightmare after seeing Smaug. am i wrong to want sean connery as the voice of smaug? also, the story, while smaug is the antagonist mostly, is simply about Bilbo getting out of the shire. "there and back again, a hobbits tale" |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, I am not sure about the whole three movies thing...it probably means we have to wait until the third movie to see Smaug, which sucks. Oh well, at least I know there will be two kick-ass movies released in 2015: Avengers 2 and Hobbit 3. I know Smaug is the central cause for the entire storyline but, if you think about it, his physical presence does not feature very prominently. 1. He talks to Bilbo, then leaves. 2. His attack on the dwarves cannot be seen by them, as they are inside the tunnel with the door closed. 3. His attack on Lake Town cannot be seen by the dwarves and does not last long. 4. Bard dispatches him with a single arrow. I'm probably over-simplifying but the point is, most of the story does not involve Smaug. We've seen so many dragons over the years and it seems dragons became more popular in the recent past since The Hobbit was first announced. To me, the most important part of Smaug is his head, voice and eyes when he can interact with Bilbo. Those are critical. They are close-ups (like the Balrog's head) and are our introduction to the beast who started it all. I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that you will indeed see the attack on the dwarves and the attack on Lake Town in the movie, and that it will last quite a long time. Thinking on it now, I would guess it's the climax of the second movie. as a 7 year old, that cartoon Smaug scared the piss out of me. The look and voice was the stuff of a childs nightmare. That being said, this new Smaug needs to have the right head/voice combo to instill the fear that is implied during Smaug's speech to Bilbo. The movie (s) will be epic fail if I don't crap my pants or have a nightmare after seeing Smaug. am i wrong to want sean connery as the voice of smaug? also, the story, while smaug is the antagonist mostly, is simply about Bilbo getting out of the shire. "there and back again, a hobbits tale" Benedict Cumberbatch is doing Smaug. Since he and Martin Freeman already have a chemistry through Sherlock, the exchange between them should be everything it should be. |
|
Quoted:
Benedict Cumberbatch is doing Smaug. And he is voicing The Necromancer. Here's today's tidbit, straight from Benedict Cumberbatch, hissef (emphasis below is mine): "Filming The Hobbit brought challenges of a different kind. Although he plays two roles, a necromancer and Smaug (a fantastical villain he describes with undisguised glee as ‘a 400-year-old fire-breathing worm who lives in the middle of a mountain on top of a pile of gold, who is three or four times bigger than the Empire State Building and can fly’), he barely encountered any other members of the cast. He worked on his scenes with the director, Peter Jackson, shooting against a green screen while wearing a motion-capture suit. ‘It’s sort of a grey all-in-one jumpsuit, with a skullcap, a Madonna headset and Aboriginal-like face paint,’ he explains. ‘You feel like a tit in all that gear but Peter is so lovely you soon forget.’ ” " Here's a link in case you didn't already know of TORN: The One Ring Net Also, if you haven't yet seen Peter Jackson's video blogs, they are must-see items. IIRC, there are seven or eight of them, each better than the last. |
| I'm now curious where they'll cut the story into three parts. I originally thought they'd stop the first movie when the eagles set down Thorin's company at the Carrock, but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps they'll end the first one where Bilbo reunites with the company on the eastern side of the Misty Mountains, and the second will end with the slaying of Smaug. That would leave a pretty good action set/battle scene for the climax of each movie (the battle/escape from the Goblins, Smaug's attack, and the Battle of Five Armies). At this point I'll continue to be careful not to be too optimistic. I liked all three of the LotR movies, including the extended versions, but I thought that King Kong, while I enjoyed it as well, was overly long by at least twenty minutes. |
|
Quoted:
I'm now curious where they'll cut the story into three parts. I originally thought they'd stop the first movie when the eagles set down Thorin's company at the Carrock, but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps they'll end the first one where Bilbo reunites with the company on the eastern side of the Misty Mountains, and the second will end with the slaying of Smaug. That would leave a pretty good action set/battle scene for the climax of each movie (the battle/escape from the Goblins, Smaug's attack, and the Battle of Five Armies). At this point I'll continue to be careful not to be too optimistic. I liked all three of the LotR movies, including the extended versions, but I thought that King Kong, while I enjoyed it as well, was overly long by at least twenty minutes. As I pointed out, the Battle between Orcs and Dwarves will be a part of the movie; that should take up at least 1/3 of an entire feature (if they go into any detail). (A feature is one complete movie-length segment: 1:90 or longer.) The casting out of the Necromancer* from Dol Guldur by the White Council** should be good for at least 1/3 to 1/2 of a feature. *who of course turned out to be Sauron himself. **Here's a thought: since Saruman was part of this action, wouldn't Saruron kind of hold a grudge against him? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm now curious where they'll cut the story into three parts. I originally thought they'd stop the first movie when the eagles set down Thorin's company at the Carrock, but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps they'll end the first one where Bilbo reunites with the company on the eastern side of the Misty Mountains, and the second will end with the slaying of Smaug. That would leave a pretty good action set/battle scene for the climax of each movie (the battle/escape from the Goblins, Smaug's attack, and the Battle of Five Armies). At this point I'll continue to be careful not to be too optimistic. I liked all three of the LotR movies, including the extended versions, but I thought that King Kong, while I enjoyed it as well, was overly long by at least twenty minutes. As I pointed out, the Battle between Orcs and Dwarves will be a part of the movie; that should take up at least 1/3 of an entire feature (if they go into any detail). (A feature is one complete movie-length segment: 1:90 or longer.) The casting out of the Necromancer* from Dol Guldur by the White Council** should be good for at least 1/3 to 1/2 of a feature. *who of course turned out to be Sauron himself. **Here's a thought: since Saruman was part of this action, wouldn't Saruron kind of hold a grudge against him? Sauron was known for being very sly about dealing with his opponents. When the Numenoreans came on the scene with their armies, ready to crush Sauron and his forces, Sauron quickly surrendered and offered his services as a sort of servant/counselor to the Numenoreans. Once he had their trust he worked to destroy the Numenoreans from within. I don't doubt that he had a similarly sly plan for Saruman. Sauron surely offered Saruman power and glory, and intended to kill him off or reduce him to slavehood once the rest of Middle Earth was subjugated. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm now curious where they'll cut the story into three parts. I originally thought they'd stop the first movie when the eagles set down Thorin's company at the Carrock, but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps they'll end the first one where Bilbo reunites with the company on the eastern side of the Misty Mountains, and the second will end with the slaying of Smaug. That would leave a pretty good action set/battle scene for the climax of each movie (the battle/escape from the Goblins, Smaug's attack, and the Battle of Five Armies). At this point I'll continue to be careful not to be too optimistic. I liked all three of the LotR movies, including the extended versions, but I thought that King Kong, while I enjoyed it as well, was overly long by at least twenty minutes. As I pointed out, the Battle between Orcs and Dwarves will be a part of the movie; that should take up at least 1/3 of an entire feature (if they go into any detail). (A feature is one complete movie-length segment: 1:90 or longer.) The casting out of the Necromancer* from Dol Guldur by the White Council** should be good for at least 1/3 to 1/2 of a feature. *who of course turned out to be Sauron himself. **Here's a thought: since Saruman was part of this action, wouldn't Saruron kind of hold a grudge against him? Sauron was known for being very sly about dealing with his opponents. When the Numenoreans came on the scene with their armies, ready to crush Sauron and his forces, Sauron quickly surrendered and offered his services as a sort of servant/counselor to the Numenoreans. Once he had their trust he worked to destroy the Numenoreans from within. I don't doubt that he had a similarly sly plan for Saruman. Sauron surely offered Saruman power and glory, and intended to kill him off or reduce him to slavehood once the rest of Middle Earth was subjugated. Good point. By all accounts, Sauron wasn't a very enlightened employer. And as a general, he was a bitch. Also true was that the Ishtari (the wizards) weren't even resident in Middle-Earth during that battle; they came along later. |
|
i saw the trailer in 3D and the 3D parts look pretty shitty to me, ive heard they filmed it faster and it just becomes a blur when they are tossing plates and a few other parts of it, so Im sticking with the 2D version. The regular trailer seems normal at this part. i thought it was just me but i know several other people who said the same thing about the blurs.
that being said i wanna see the movie, not enough solid movies set in this theme, the majority are either lacking good cgi or acting , costumes, or just feel wrong. |
|
Quoted:
I sincerely pray that Jackson doesn't screw this up. The Hobbit holds a special place for me. It was the book that convinced me that reading was worth while. That's interesting. I'd dare to say I had a similar experience. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings were the books that started cemented my reading for enjoyment. Now, you have me worried. Think of how future generations might watch the movies and never pick up the books. |
|
You should be able to read The Hobbit in one weekend.
I don't know if this makes sense to do because I have read all these stories so many times, but you could read The Hobbit, then get Book 3 of Lord of the Rings and read the Appendices. The Appendices will give you a LOT of information in a Reader's Digest/Cliff Notes format. I'm just not sure you will understand it all if you haven't read LOTR. Still, they retell the story of The Hobbit in the Appendices. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.