• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

The only characters I've seen/heard of that weren't part of The Hobbit novel are Frodo, Galadriel, Saruman, and possibly Legolas (don't remember if he showed up), and, in the case of Frodo, all indications are that he appears only as part of the 'framing story' for the movies, which is old Bilbo (Ian Holm) narrating the full tale of his adventures.

Yeah, Legolas will be there, too, as will Tauriel (played by Evangeline Lilly of TV's "Lost"), a character that did not previously exist in any way, shape or form. That being said, I'm looking forward to seeing what her inclusion will add to the mix.

If Jackson and Co. are in fact intending for the 'framing story' of The Hobbit movies to take place during the early part of Fellowship, they're going to have to eventually re-release new cuts of the Fellowship theatrical and extended editions in order to compensate, since, unless they do, it's going to be hard for fans to sit down and watch the eight movies in order on DVD without the 'narrative flow' being disrupted slightly.

It won't be hard for me to do this at all. In fact, I would be very displeased if Jackson & Co. took the George Lucas route of constantly going back and tweaking things that really don't need tweaking and thereby risking/causing the dilution of the overall product.
 
In the book timeline it's 77 years between The Hobbit and the bulk of LOTR, but Jackson's film ignored the 17 years between Bilbo's party and The Shadow of the Past.

I'm glad they did that. Whenever I read LOTR, I always wonder where the sense of urgency runs off to during the 17 years it took between those events to finally get the ball rolling. I can't imagine it taking 17 HOURS after discovering what the Ring is to decide that it is dangerous and must be dealt with, much less 17 years!
 
I think that was one of the points of the books. Distances are vast, traveling from A to B takes a lot of time, and the kinds of Gandalf, Sauron, the Elves, etc... have a lot of time, so they don't need to hurry things.
 
I think that was one of the points of the books. Distances are vast, traveling from A to B takes a lot of time, and the kinds of Gandalf, Sauron, the Elves, etc... have a lot of time, so they don't need to hurry things.

Okay, I'll buy that. If all parties feel the same way about the passage of time then I suppose that makes sense. Just seems like one side would gain a certain advantage by hastening things, which I would imagine is one part of why the movies flow the way they do.
 
8 Movies?

Hobbit 1
Hobbit 2
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King

Where do these other 3 movies come into the picture?
Oh haven't you heard? After 'The Hobbit', Jackson is going to do three, four hour long, 'Silmarillion' films.

;)
 
I think that was one of the points of the books. Distances are vast, traveling from A to B takes a lot of time, and the kinds of Gandalf, Sauron, the Elves, etc... have a lot of time, so they don't need to hurry things.

Okay, I'll buy that. If all parties feel the same way about the passage of time then I suppose that makes sense. Just seems like one side would gain a certain advantage by hastening things, which I would imagine is one part of why the movies flow the way they do.

IIRC the thinking in the book was that It'd be almost as dangerous the move against Sauron too soon as too late. Remember that the "free folk" weren't exactly a united front ready to pounce. The elves were all sidling off to the grey havens, the dwarves somewhat literally had their heads buried in the sand while the two kingdoms of men were busy with border wars. The best defence was in making Sauron think he had all the time in the world while they quietly slip into Mordor and dispose of the ring.

I think it was Christopher Lee who points out in one of the commentary that it's very important to understand who knows (or thinks they know) what is going on and when.

8 Movies?

Hobbit 1
Hobbit 2
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King

Where do these other 3 movies come into the picture?
Oh haven't you heard? After 'The Hobbit', Jackson is going to do three, four hour long, 'Silmarillion' films.

;)

I don't think anyone would with that on him!
 
8 Movies?

Hobbit 1
Hobbit 2
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
Return of the King

Where do these other 3 movies come into the picture?
Oh haven't you heard? After 'The Hobbit', Jackson is going to do three, four hour long, 'Silmarillion' films.

;)
I'm still not entirely convinced that they won't do that "bridge film" that was originally rumored to be the second part of this film project (before they instead decided to split The Hobbit). The studio's going to look at all that money these two movies will bring in and go "Why not make another one?" :p
 
Anybody seen Production Video #4 already? Seems like the 3D in this movie won't be anything like we've already seen. 5K, 48 frames per seconds instead of just 24, and cameras built to much better simulate human eyes.
 
I'm still not entirely convinced that they won't do that "bridge film" that was originally rumored to be the second part of this film project (before they instead decided to split The Hobbit). The studio's going to look at all that money these two movies will bring in and go "Why not make another one?" :p

I thought they already incorporated all/most of the "bridge film" stuff into the "Hobbit" (like what was Gandalf up to, the attack of the White Council,...)?
I mean: It's possible of course, but they are running out of things they have the rights to.
 
I agree. I don't think they'll do a bridge film at this point and The Silmarillion won't be made any time soon because Christopher Tolkien has the rights to them.
 
Even Tolkien said people probably wouldn't like The Silmarillion unless they were really deep into the world; "there's no Hobbits in it!"

Plus by this point we've met most of the major races and stuff, the feeling of "a whole new fictional universe" is gone.

But the Hobbit has all sorts of stuff we didn't see in LOTR.


****I'm really excited even though this is just a teaser trailer.

One point I like, which comes from expanding the screentime a bit, is that they want to play up the Elf-Dwarf mistrust as a major theme of the story here.

That is, because Tolkien hadn't written LOTR yet when he made "The Hobbit", the Elves are kind of funny in it (singing in Rivendell) -- only later would he explain the Elf-Dwarf hatred.


So I see a lot of it being an expansion of what WAS in the original, the morality of friendship and revenge; i.e. Thorin doesn't like the Wood-Elves of Mirkwood, but the Men of Dale are friends with them, and the Men of Dale helped Thorin so he owes them.

Similarly, from on-set reports on AICN, apparently they play up that Thorin is a bit reluctant to go to Rivendell at first, but Gandalf has to convince him that Elrond is Gandalf's friend and thus will trust Gandalf that he should help Thorin.

This isn't ridiculous or anything; from the report it seems that Thorin is just hesitant for a moment at the suggestion of going to Rivendell after the Troll attack, Gandalf tells him that while Elves and Dwarves don't generally get a long he has no particular feud with Elrond, so for a brief moment we see Thorin weigh his options and decide that its the right thing to do ( the report stressed that it was very subtle, not some huge hyped thing).

I mean just, logically, at this point in Middle-earth's history moreso than LOTR, given that the Dwarves and Elves have hated each other for thousands of years, logically, wouldn't Thorin be a little hesitant to trust Elves? Indeed, the Wood-Elves of Mirkwood don't like him at all (though even Tolkien stressed that its because they got into an argument with an entirely separate group of dwarves, who even then felt partially justified in fighting Thranduil given that he'd kind of ripped them off by refusing their payment), though even they aren't presented as genocidally wanting to kill Dwarves on sight.

Indeed, one of the reasons that the Dwarves trust the Elves as much as they do in LOTR - enough to come ask Elrond for help in Rivendell at the council - is because of the help he gave them in "The Hobbit" -- so logically, because that hasn't happened yet, we should see more of the Elves and Dwarves *starting out* barely tolerating each other, even as Gandalf insists that their mutual distrust is pointless (which we get shown to greater or lesser degrees) -- which progresses to the point that by the *end* of LOTR, Gimli and Legolas become friends.
 
It trades a bit TOO much on LOTR nostalgia for my taste instead of giving us glimpses of exciting things to come. I was hoping for some money shots.


It's practically a given that we get a shot like this

hobbittlr12.jpg



It's become synonymous with Peter Jackson and LOTR's


I thought so a bit too, but then I realized: this is just a teaser trailer. All they've really got to go on are "hey its Ian McKellan in full Gandalf makeup" and "hey its the New Zealand countryside"......but the "Dark Knight Rises" teaser trailer was just character voices and such.

Its JUST a teaser trailer. Not even the full trailer.

So I'm confident that the upcoming "full trailer" will set it apart more and not just be nostalgia.

But I was excited just to see the Dwarves in full costume.
 
Only on the surface does it looks like retread of LOTR's.

Another collection of different races trekking through the New Zealand terrain.
 
Even Tolkien said people probably wouldn't like The Silmarillion unless they were really deep into the world; "there's no Hobbits in it!"

Well, almost. Hobbits - called in the text Halflings, Periannath, or Little People - are only mentioned in the part of the chapter "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" which covers events from the timeframe of The Hobbit and LOTR: Bilbo ( not named but referred to as "a wayfarer" ) finding the Ring and bringing it back to the Shire; Gandalf setting a watch upon the Shire and biding his time; Frodo and "his servant" taking the Ring to Mount Doom where it was unmade ( though The Silmarillion's account claims that Frodo cast the Ring into the fire ).
 
I'm still not entirely convinced that they won't do that "bridge film" that was originally rumored to be the second part of this film project (before they instead decided to split The Hobbit). The studio's going to look at all that money these two movies will bring in and go "Why not make another one?" :p
I thought they already incorporated all/most of the "bridge film" stuff into the "Hobbit" (like what was Gandalf up to, the attack of the White Council,...)?
I mean: It's possible of course, but they are running out of things they have the rights to.
Not that I'm trying to give the studio ideas or anything, but if they really wanted to try and squeeze as much money out of this franchise as they could, the only other potential movie I can think of would be to do something about Aragorn during his younger days, when he's first made aware of his heritage and when he first meets Arwen. After that he went off and had several adventures, such as serving King Thengel in Rohan, clashing with young Denethor in Gondor, etc. They could also incorporate Aragorn's search for Gollum after he escaped Barad-dûr; he eventually caught Gollum and gave him over to the Elves in Mirkwood, from whom Gollum later escaped.

I'm not saying I'm absolutely in favor of such a thing happening, but if they really, really did want to do another movie after these, that's probably their best option.
 
I agree. I don't think they'll do a bridge film at this point and The Silmarillion won't be made any time soon because Christopher Tolkien has the rights to them.
The Silmarillion would be problematic given the lack of a consistent cast of characters throughout.

I've said it before (possibly in this very thread) but I think the Silmarillion (or rather parts of it) would be great for something akin to the Animatrix or Gotham Knights DVDs. But yeah, getting the rights would be difficult and if they were going to do something like that then they would've had to have made a start on it already if they intended it to be released ahead of, or even between the movies.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top