THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
I stand corrected. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've incorrectly recalled the name of that place.
The Grinch Doctor said:
Though the attack on Dol Guldur is mentioned in the ROTK appendices' Tale of Years, pages 301-302 of The Silmarillion go into a little more detail and explain the Radagast-Saruman connection: Saruman was actively searching for the Ring by this point and using a host of spies that included birds summoned by Radagast, who ( like the White Council ) did not yet know that Saruman had "fallen to the dark side" in Star Wars parlance. I expect to see this touched on in the films. Probably a Saruman-Radagast scene where Radagast looks troubled and turns away, and then we see Saruman looking evil.
I dunno. This Tolkienite gasped when he saw Bilbo looking on the Shards of Narsil, and that sure as heck isn't in Tolkien's writings.
I think The Hobbit will work as a two-part film, and I have a pretty good idea of where the story will "break" (it has to be when they reach Laketown and see the Lonely Mountain because that's the natural midpoint in Bilbo's journey). I trust Jackson and Philippa Boyens. And I especially trust Guillermo del Toro, and seeing his name on the screenplay in the trailer the first time was more of a thrill for me than hearing Andy Serkis.
Ironically, it looks like Jackson has accomplished what Tolkien did not fully -- making The Hobbit part of the The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien's last unfinished revision of The Hobbit was in a Lord of the Rings style
Except that's how the character is in The Hobbit. Thorin is a king reclaiming his lost throne, so they're going to have similar story beats.
That still doesn't address the fact that there are many, many people for whom viewing a 3-D movie is simply a physically uncomfortable, "take you out of the movie" experience, not counting those who simply can't see the effect at all. As I mentioned elsewhere, a myth has arisen around the idea that "oh, well, there'll always be a 2-D version playing somewhere." Wrong. I live in a city of a million people and I was unable to see Hugo, Three Musketeers, Toy Story 3, the last Resident Evil film and about 3-4 other movies because either no one brought it in as 2-D or they played it in one screen out of dozens of theatres. And when I went to see Harry Potter Deathly Hallows 2 in 2-D the picture was so dark and muddy I was reminded of the Boston Globe expose that revealed some theatres are showing 2-D prints using 3-D projectors, which just doesn't work right. The result is I no longer become excited about theatrical releases - I'm disenfranchised as far as that goes and if they closed all the movie theatres tomorrow I'd be rather ambivalent as opposed to if they closed all the DVD/Blu-ray shops (which is coming, I know - pretty soon I'll be a hermit; nah, my feet are too hairy - I'll be a hobbit.).
The only good thing about 3-D movies is that the 2-D versions often look really really good on HD because of the added resolution. So if nothing else, Hobbit 1 & 2 will be a kick-ass Blu-ray release.
Alex
You're right - it doesn't address the uncomfortablility issue. I live in a town of 100,000, with one 10-screen theater. Two of those screens are 3D. We didn't get Hugo until two weeks after its release, but at least we got both 2D and 3D versions.
Have you complained to the theaters? Or maybe written a letter to the editor of the paper? I would think that a city the size of yours would have more options available for screenings.
Well I wasn't just referring to locations, but the general look of the movie (cinematography, production design, direction, etc). I figured Jackson would want to differentiate it just a little from LOTR, instead of making it look like it was filmed at the exact same time as the other movies. But oh well.
I also wonder, with all these LOTR characters popping in, are we actually supposed to watch this story out of order now, when all is said and done?
I'm sure it's been suggested here before, but I'm kinda hoping we get an alternative, "Hobbit Only" cut when it comes out on blu-ray, where they leave out all the LOTR call-backs and just tell the story straight.
I'm sure it's been suggested here before, but I'm kinda hoping we get an alternative, "Hobbit Only" cut when it comes out on blu-ray, where they leave out all the LOTR call-backs and just tell the story straight.
While I've read LotR I've never read The Hobbit...sometime over the next year I will.
Oh this looks spectacular. I love how they completely kept the atmosphere of the other movies. It would have been a horrible mistake to change the director. So glad Jackson returned.
I think two movies is just right as long as they don't make each of them three hours each. The Hobbit is shorter than Lord of the Rings, but still quite lengthy (272 pages) in its own right, especially for a children's book. This isn't Narnia we're talking about.
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.
When exactly the 'framing story' takes place in terms of the timeline and chronology of the LotR films is something I don't believe we've been told, although I could be wrong on that.
The time isn't dramatically different. Most of these places in Middle Earth are timeless sort. Time is marked in ages more or less and this all took place within the same age. Sure it's 60 years (book timeline, the movie is a bit more ambiguous), but not much would change with styles and weapons. This isn't modern progress. Did things really look all that different in 1090 compared to 1030? How about between the death of Julius Caesar and the death of Augustus Caesar?
Of course, things regarding the Dark Lord moved swiftly during this time with regards to things like the fall of Minas Morgul, but that's not something that would affect the story. Either way, such political things aren't going to affect appearances.
I don't think he means the look of the sets. I think he means the general visual style. With it being a separate movie(s), you'd think Jackson might want to do something visually to distinguish it from the LOTR with things like colors and lighting and cinematography.
It takes place in the early scenes in Fellowship, around the point in time when Gandalf says to Frodo, "If you are referring to the affair with the dragon, I was barely involved. All I did was give your uncle a little nudge out the door."
Oh, that would be nice if they'd actually include these scenes from Fellowship and added the new bits. Like they repeated the bridge of Khazad dum scene in The Two Towers.
Hmm. Not sure how that's going work, if it's true, because at the exact moment that Frodo and Gandalf are having their conversation on the cart that includes that line, Bilbo is in his study writing the first part of his book, poring through old maps, and frantically searching for the Ring when he thinks he's lost it.
I'm not sure how it's going to work, but they did reshoot the scene of Frodo and Gandalf on the cart recently.
By the way, that scene is one of the reasons the Theatrical version o Fellowship rather than the extended version, which breaks the rhythm
It was pretty much a certainty that my group of friends will be going to see it. I've just watched the trailer and if anything, I'm even more eager to see it now.
Similar threads
