The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Because these ignorants as you call them

I call them that, because that's what they are. They are ignorant of the source material. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge.

[Show spoiler]

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I need some of you guys who are extremely excited for these films explain something to me.

What in the hell are these two films going to tell me that the awesome prologue at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring didn't tell me?

I mean, isn't the end result of the whole deal that Biblo gets the Ring from Gollum and that's basically how all this mess starts?

If that's the case, the prologue covered that. What the hell else is there?

I'm not trolling. I just genuinely want to know the whole point of these films when the prologue summed up beautifully the history of Middle Earth and the Ring.

I'm not against Prequels. I love the Star Wars Prequels but these two films seem wholly unnecessary.

I take that to mean if one gives you an overhead of a book,you don't feel the need to read it?...I'm not particularly psyched about these movies,but gonna see them anyway because they will look fantastic-particularly looking forward to the mirkwood part.Like others here said:Hobbit was written before LotR,and besides:Lots of things happen in the Hobbit that isn't covered in the LotR movies.

[Monolithium]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I'm not against Prequels. I love the Star Wars Prequels but these two films seem wholly unnecessary.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

I need some of you guys who are extremely excited for these films explain something to me.

What in the hell are these two films going to tell me that the awesome prologue at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring didn't tell me?

I mean, isn't the end result of the whole deal that Biblo gets the Ring from Gollum and that's basically how all this mess starts?

If that's the case, the prologue covered that. What the hell else is there?

I'm not trolling. I just genuinely want to know the whole point of these films when the prologue summed up beautifully the history of Middle Earth and the Ring.

I'm not against Prequels. I love the Star Wars Prequels but these two films seem wholly unnecessary.

That prologue covered thousands of years before The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings takes place. It barely skimmed the surface of what happens in The Hobbit. It is a story about Bilbo's unexpected journey there and back again, and there are lots of really interesting and fascinating things that happen in The Hobbit. If you are not interested in it, then don't go see it.

I can't wait!

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by frogmort

there are lots of really interesting and fascinating things that happen in The Hobbit.

Yuuup-

[Show spoiler]












Finally...some Dwarven armies in action!!!!!

.

[Duffy12]

.

A Hi Res pic of Bilbo....

[Show spoiler]

Wallpaper time!

.

[BarnDoor]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

The only way I see these films as being necessary is if Jackson plans on going back to the trilogy and getting rid of the prologue that opens Fellowship so the five films can work as one piece....

I don't mean to be rude, and I'm sorry I can't offer anything more constructive than this, but since others have explained it, I'm afraid I can't say anything else but that this is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever seen on a forum.

[Blu-Benny]

after reading the hobbit and the lotr.....i never considered the actual ring to be that big of a part of the hobbit.

i always took it as more of a coincidence that bilbo happened to find it while on his journey w/the dwarves.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yuuup-

[Show spoiler]












Finally...some Dwarven armies in action!!!!!

.

I love that bottom pic!

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

after reading the hobbit and the lotr.....i never considered the actual ring to be that big of a part of the hobbit.

i always took it as more of a coincidence that bilbo happened to find it while on his journey w/the dwarves.

Tolkien suggested in LOTR that the Ring intentionally left Gollum and was trying to get back to its maker. There is a hint that Providence brought Bilbo along to take it instead. Of course this was not in Tolkien's mind when he originally wrote The Hobbit.

[Dubstar]

I'm surprised we haven't heard Jackson digitally inserting Martin Freeman as Bilbo into the 'Fellowship of the Rings' for that one flashback scene.

[supersix4]

Just pulled up the IMBD how are the LOTR characters going to be in it if this is all taking place prior to them meeting in LOTR?
*I am happy everyone seems to be coming back though

[toddly6666]

People worrying about the continuity between The Hobbit movie and The Lord Of The Rings movies should not be worrying at all. It's a totally pointless worry. The Hobbit does not have to make the ring seem more important at all. And it does not matter that it's a different actor playing Bilbo between the two films - it does not matter nor does it ruin any sort of continuity.
And there have been many sequels that do a brief summary of the previous films - it's no big deal, and I'm sure Peter Jackson will make all the transistions between the two stories just fine. This is Peter Jackson - a professional storyteller, not George Lucas - a director that just slopped scenes together to make it seem like the two trilogies have continuity.

The Hobbit is the better story anyway. If Jackson can work wonders with The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit will be a piece of cake for him.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

People worrying about the continuity between The Hobbit movie and The Lord Of The Rings movies should not be worrying at all. It's a totally pointless worry. The Hobbit does not have to make the ring seem more important at all. And it does not matter that it's a different actor playing Bilbo between the two films - it does not matter nor does it ruin any sort of continuity.
And there have been many sequels that do a brief summary of the previous films - it's no big deal, and I'm sure Peter Jackson will make all the transistions between the two stories just fine. This is Peter Jackson - a professional storyteller, not George Lucas - a director that just slopped scenes together to make it seem like the two trilogies have continuity.

The Hobbit is the better story anyway. If Jackson can work wonders with The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit will be a piece of cake for him.

I am just worried about the dialogue from Smaug - I don't want him sounding like Sean Connery

[seeweda]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

People worrying about the continuity between The Hobbit movie and The Lord Of The Rings movies should not be worrying at all. It's a totally pointless worry. The Hobbit does not have to make the ring seem more important at all. And it does not matter that it's a different actor playing Bilbo between the two films - it does not matter nor does it ruin any sort of continuity.
And there have been many sequels that do a brief summary of the previous films - it's no big deal, and I'm sure Peter Jackson will make all the transistions between the two stories just fine. This is Peter Jackson - a professional storyteller, not George Lucas - a director that just slopped scenes together to make it seem like the two trilogies have continuity.

The Hobbit is the better story anyway. If Jackson can work wonders with The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit will be a piece of cake for him.

I agree, I've always felt the Hobbit was the better story and was a bit surprised Jackson didn't do it first. Though if I remember right the LOTR rights were going to revert back to someone else if they didn't start filming within a certain time frame so that may have influenced that decision.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by seeweda

I agree, I've always felt the Hobbit was the better story and was a bit surprised Jackson didn't do it first. Though if I remember right the LOTR rights were going to revert back to someone else if they didn't start filming within a certain time frame so that may have influenced that decision.

I'm pretty sure the film rights to The Hobbit were not available at the time LOTR was filmed.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I'm surprised we haven't heard Jackson digitally inserting Martin Freeman as Bilbo into the 'Fellowship of the Rings' for that one flashback scene.

He could pull a George Lucas and digitally insert Freeman over Holm in LOTR.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I am just worried about the dialogue from Smaug - I don't want him sounding like Sean Connery

That's another issue to not worry about because the Dragonheart more or less sucked. Talking creatures will work just fine when the movie is awesome itself. Remember, the CGI characters in Peter Jackson films have personality, life, and soul when compared to other lifeless CGI characters (except for Rise of the Apes) from other movies. Jackson directed and created awesome voices for all the characters in The Lord Of The Rings movies anyway. There is nothing off in all aspects of those films.

And better a voice like Connery rather than a dragon lamely voiced by Rachel Weisz (Eragorn)

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

That's another issue to not worry about because the Dragonheart more or less sucked. Talking creatures will work just fine when the movie is awesome itself. Remember, the CGI characters in Peter Jackson films have personality, life, and soul when compared to other lifeless CGI characters (except for Rise of the Apes) from other movies. Jackson directed and created awesome voices for all the characters in The Lord Of The Rings movies anyway. There is nothing off in all aspects of those films.

And better a voice like Connery rather than a dragon lamely voiced by Rachel Weisz (Eragorn)

'Old' and 'Powerful' are the main 2 prerequisites for the voice of Smaug in any medium. Can't remember the name of the actor who did it for the previously mentioned BBC radio adaptation, but it was spot on. My first choice would have been the likes of John Hurt, or perhaps Brian Blessed. What intrigues me the most is basically Smaug's design, because that badboy needs to be without a doubt the most amazing dragon ever seen on screen in cinema. I mean the simple look of the guy should blow people away. I for one wouldn't be against him being a jewel-studded metallic red, as the book so indicates.

[Walts Ghost]

First Trailer for THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Finally, the first trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has been released. Peter Jackson returns to direct the adventure of young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who sets out on an adventure with a company of dwarves. We’ll have our thoughts on the trailer up shortly, but we wanted to make it available as soon as it was online.

The film also stars Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom, Andy Serkis, Luke Evans, Benedict Cumberbatch, Evangeline Lilly, and Stephen Fry. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be released on December 14, 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=G0k3kHtyoqc

Source

Christmas is here early, everyone. Enjoy!

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=G0k3kHtyoqc

Source

Christmas is here early, everyone. Enjoy!

Nevermind.