LOTR fans

MetalSpice

A slave who forever rocks
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/696464/The-Hobbit-Guillermo-Del-Toro-Reveals-New-Details.html#readmore

The-Hobbit-Guillermo-del-Toro-Reveals-New-Details.jpg


We are a LONG way from the December, 2011 release of the first installment of The Hobbit, and Director, Guillermo del Toro has been keeping anxious fans afloat with much-needed tidbits. However, according to del Toro, in just a few weeks he is going to drop a bombshell on us, revealing the answer to a question we've been asking for 5 years: "Who will play Bilbo Baggins?" (The odds currently seem to be favoring James McAvoy.)

In the meantime, in a recent interview on BBC Radio's Simon Mayo Show, del Toro has already taken the initiative to reveal some news:

Firstly, del Toro had what could be considered somewhat of a casting scoop. (Even though we've pretty much carried on the past years "knowing" it was going to happen.) Andy Serkis will return as Gollum, Ian McKellen will return as Gandalf, and Hugo Weaving will return as Elrond, all reprising their Lord of the Rings trilogy roles. Again, most any given fan would likely have never even thought that they would NOT return. However, it's still a warm and fuzzy feeling to at least get that little bit of news, straight from the horse's mouth.


Secondly, the film will take some liberties with sub-plot material that is briefly discussed in the book. Most notably among this, is Gandalf's departure from Bilbo and the Dwarves to confer with The White Council in Dol Guldur on dealing with an entity called the Necromancer (which later turns out to be Sauron himself.) We've always suspected this based on some statements, but this time, the intention to document Gandalf's quest (which is not covered greatly in the book) was articulated clearly. This is an excellent move, and should make the "Hobbit to Lord of the Rings" transition seem all the more smooth. Hopefully, it will be done in such a way that even casual audiences will be able to make the connection.

Finally, regarding Smaug the Dragon, del Toro revealed that after eight whole months of design work, they have only just “cracked the basic engineering.” It is anticipated that another six or seven months of application will be needed before the great flying, fire-breathing, gold smuggler will be in any kind of presentable form. (Holy crap, he should look AMAZING!)

The Hobbit is going to rule, plain and simple. I have no reservations with flying the fanboy flag like that. Until then, if things don't work out with Andy Serkis and Gollum, I think a short-term deal might be able to worked out with a current resident of North Kern State Prison in Delano, California. (Hint: He went over Paul McCartney's head and added an orchestra to "The Long and Winding Road.")


The-Hobbit-Guillermo-del-Toro-Reveals-New-Details.jpg
 
We are a LONG way from the December, 2011 release of the first installment of The Hobbit, and Director, Guillermo del Toro has been keeping anxious fans afloat with much-needed tidbits.

Can't wait! But...FIRST installment? How many are there??? I love the story...but I'm not sure it warrants "installments".
 
From what I've read (although I may be a little out of date at this point), the first movie will cover The Hobbit, and the second movie will cover the timespan between The Hobbit and LOTR, namely the Appendices that are in most editions of Return of the King. My standing guess is that, this being Hollywood, they will focus in part on how Aragorn and Arwen got together - and if they do, they'll probably beef the story up a bit, since as it stands it consists of Elrond telling Aragorn to get his kingdom back before he can get it on with Arwen, and Aragorn faffing off in an emo fit for a few decades.

* Elrond saw many things and read many hearts. One day, therefore, before the fall of the year he called Aragorn to his chamber, and he said: "Aragorn, Arathorn's son, Lord of the Dúnedain, listen to me! A great doom awaits you, either to rise above the height of all your fathers since the days of Elendil, or to fall into darkness with all that is left of your kin. Many years of trial lie before you. You shall neither have wife, nor bind any woman to you in troth, until your time comes and you are found worthy of it."

* Then Aragorn took leave lovingly of Elrond; and the next day he said farewell to his mother, and to the house of Elrond, and to Arwen, and he went out into the wild. For nearly thirty years he laboured in the cause against Sauron...
 
*bump*

Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland and Atonement), and David Tennant (the 10th and current doctor in Dr Who) are all rumors to be possible casting choices for Bilbo.

Radcliffe seems incredibly young to play that role. He's only 19. Meanwhile Tennant is 38. Bilbo should probably be a bit on the older side since the ring is supposed to keep him looking kind of young for his age over the 60 year period between Hobbit and LOTR. He was 50 in the book, after all. McAvoy might be the best choice acting wise. He was fantastic in Last King of Scotland. I personally think Colin Firth could be a good choice. He's about the right age and even kind of looks like Holm a little bit.

Also, someone I know mentioned Martin Freeman (Tim from The Office UK). I could see him making a decent Bilbo.
 
Elrond telling Aragorn to get his kingdom back before he can get it on with Arwen, and Aragorn faffing off in an emo fit for a few decades.

I bet reading the whole Hobbit, re-written in this style, would be pretty entertaining :) (or maybe a Drunken-History style video retelling)

Anyway, two movies is the maximum The Hobbit warrants, even with appendix'd material added. That said this has a major potential for being really good.
 
I'm extremely excited about The Hobbit movie. However, they better leave out the overly intense homo-erotic hobbit-on-hobbit love fests that plagued LOTR. Seriously, I support GLBT rights as much as anyone, but what Peter Jackson did to those hobbits pissed me off so bad. A) They weren't that touchy/feeling and there was no talk of loving/longing gazes in the book, and B) He cut out the Scouring of the Shire, which is where the hobbits display their immense badassery by ousting the wizard tyrant and getting all of the other-wise sedentary hobbits to raise arms as well. I know he took artistic license, but, don't misrepresent the characters themselves! Bilbo needs to be a badass, the scenes with Gollum under the mountain need to be creepy as hell, and the spiders better be terrifying!

Edit: While I'm on the LOTR topic, don't you guys think a Silmarillion movie be way more entertaining? Unless Pete is banking off of the fact that 'The Hobbit' is better known! Either way, theres some big controversy right now where the studio hasn't paid a dime to the Tolkien family (similarly to their attempt to shaft Peter Jackson for royalties) and they want $$ as well as rights to suppress any further development on JRR's creative works. That would suck if they ruin the production (although, they really should get some $$).
 
However, they better leave out the overly intense homo-erotic hobbit-on-hobbit love fests that plagued LOTR.

Hmmm...can't say that this was a big deal to me. However, perhaps I was too pissed off at whiny, wimpy Aragorn*, evil Faramir, and no Scouring of the Shire to really notice.

I enjoyed all the films -- I watched them all multiple times in the theaters and bought the extended versions on DVD. But the one thing that really grated on me was that Jackson felt the need to give flaws to characters that were not in the original books...apparently so the story would be more exciting when the flaws were resolved. Yeah, clearly the original story lacked excitement. :Smug:

*OK, whiny, wimpy and HOT, but still whiny and wimpy. :lol:
 
Hmm, for me, the sourest note in the three films -- and it wasn't in the original books -- was bringing the elves to Helms Deep.
To die.
Sorry 'bout that, Haldir! You were THERE the day Sauron lost the Ring, and now, thousands of years later, you're going to die because....well, just because.

Oh, I didn't really pick up too much of a homoerotic vibe between the hobbits, but then again, I wasn't looking for it, either. The media and the pundits really joked a lot about it, but that's why they're basically all fools.
 
Ah yes, I forgot about the killing of Haldir. I was so angry when I saw that in the theater. The absence of the Rangers at Helms Deep was also sad (I wanted to see what a pack of Rangers would look like).

As for the hobbit-love vibe, I think the general dissatisfaction that the media (and myself) have with it is its overstated presence. They spend countless scenes trying to establish that bond between Frodo and Sam. It gets tiresome! Character development, in general, is lacking in the movies. Most of that Frodo/Sam screen time could have been used to flesh out Arwen's, Elrond's, Denethor's, or even Gandalf's stories (those maiar wizards are interesting enough to merit their own movie). Aragorn's grudging acceptance of his royal fate/duty, or Legolas and Gimli's blossoming friendship were far more deserving of screen time than the hobbits, IMO.

The Scouring is the biggest atrocity, however. The one overarching theme to the entire story is the loss of the hobbits' innocence. Of their rightful place in determining the fate of the world, regardless of their size or humble origins. They prove that those life lessons are a part of them, in perpetuity, in that final scene. Its absence has pained me since I saw RoTK. Thankfully the scope of the Hobbit movies is far narrower, they really shouldn't have to leave anything out or mangle any characters to make it entertaining on the big screen!