HOBBIT CASTING

[TordelBack]

Hmm. I'm the other way - I felt more hopeful when Del Toro was in the director's chair.

I have a lot of time for Jackson (and his King Kong), but I was sorry to see him replace Del Toro.  A 'different' Hobbit, possibly keeping just Ian McKellan (well), and playing to the more fantastical tone of the book, could have been something new - in using the same crew, cast and locations, there's a very strong chance that it will never get further than being a re-run. Worst of all, I fear the amping-up of the action in the manner of the Narnia films (themselves taking their lead from the LotR films) - cute kids' books pointlessly turned into Braveheart.  There's a really epic scrap at the end, and a nice goblin rumble early on, but a great deal of it should be talking birds, doing the dishes and riddles in the dark.  I know we're broadening the scope to include Dol Guldur, teh White Council and the Necromancer, but it would be a pity to lose The Hobbit altogether.

On the plus side:  Barry Humphries!

[klute]

Hmm. I'm the other way - I felt more hopeful when Del Toro was in the director's chair.

I have a lot of time for Jackson (and his King Kong), but I was sorry to see him replace Del Toro.  A 'different' Hobbit, possibly keeping just Ian McKellan (well), and playing to the more fantastical tone of the book, could have been something new - in using the same crew, cast and locations, there's a very strong chance that it will never get further than being a re-run. Worst of all, I fear the amping-up of the action in the manner of the Narnia films (themselves taking their lead from the LotR films) - cute kids' books pointlessly turned into Braveheart.  There's a really epic scrap at the end, and a nice goblin rumble early on, but a great deal of it should be talking birds, doing the dishes and riddles in the dark.  I know we're broadening the scope to include Dol Guldur, teh White Council and the Necromancer, but it would be a pity to lose The Hobbit altogether.

On the plus side:  Barry Humphries!

Ive only really seen barry Humphries work as Dame edna so im intrigued to see his performance in the hobbit.

 I know when i heard PJ was doing king kong i dont know what i was expecting??? but atleast something good and worth a watch...a lot of people didnt like it but...i did maybe not enough to be in my top 10 list but enough to have bought the dvd.

The lovely bones i loved the book the film wasnt bad but wasnt good either.

I suspect after LOTR people put PJ on a pedestal and have been viewing his more recent works in there LOTR haze.

but it would be a pity to lose The Hobbit altogether.

I said the same when i heard LOTR was going to be filmed and yet aside a few gripes i have about legolas (Oranlo Bloom) and some of the things done with his character in atleast the last 2 films of the trilogy and bits and pieces i would loved to have seen in the films i dontt think PJ did a bad job.

[TordelBack]

I said the same when i heard LOTR was going to be filmed and yet aside a few gripes i have about legolas (Oranlo Bloom) and some of the things done with his character in atleast the last 2 films of the trilogy and bits and pieces i would loved to have seen in the films i dontt think PJ did a bad job.

He did an amazing job, the quality of which was only emphasised by a recentish re-read of the books - Jackson shoehorns in little elements which i had forgotten into odd places in the films because he's had to cut their source scenes, but knows they are important to the feel - I really respect that (example:  Frodo's dream in Tom Bombadil's house, which appears instead as Gandalf's speech to Pippin during the defense of Minas Tirith).  There's loads of things I'd like to have seen done differently, and changes I felt were needless and detrimental, but it's still a clever and sustained blockbuster adaptation with real genuine heart and some great performances.

[Goaty]

He did an amazing job, the quality of which was only emphasised by a recentish re-read of the books - Jackson shoehorns in little elements which i had forgotten into odd places in the films because he's had to cut their source scenes, but knows they are important to the feel - I really respect that (example:  Frodo's dream in Tom Bombadil's house, which appears instead as Gandalf's speech to Pippin during the defense of Minas Tirith).  There's loads of things I'd like to have seen done differently, and changes I felt were needless and detrimental, but it's still a clever and sustained blockbuster adaptation with real genuine heart and some great performances.

That I agree...

[Goaty]

First Hobbit Stills,

Martin Freeman in full Bilbo Baggins outfit and make-up along with Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20504849,00.html

[JOE SOAP]

Interesting to know that the 2 Hobbit films have as many shooting days as the 3 LOTR films.

[DrJomster]

Perhaps the extended edition DVDs are going to be ridiculously long? O_o

[Noisybast]

I suspect after LOTR people put PJ on a pedestal...

Leave the Holden droid alone! He might not be the tallest mech in the module, but he's not a hobbit!

[Goaty]

More pics...

[Colin_YNWA]

Doesn't being 3'6'' (or whatever) make Martin Freeman look young!

[TordelBack]

Doesn't being 3'6'' (or whatever) make Martin Freeman look young!

Indeed, but these stills do little to address my fear that he's going to wear his signature permanently-bewildered look throughout.  I might buy it from Arthur Dent, but I expect more from a Baggins.

[vzzbux]

Having not read the book yet I cannot comment on this but today I told my Bro in law that it was going to be over two films and his reaction was surprise and said that it shouldn't need two films. He then said that they were probably padding it out to see how much money they can make.
Do any of you feel the same or is my Bro in law talking a steaming pile of shite.




V

[Mardroid]

The main storyline of The Hobbit shouldn't need two films, that's true. The entire book is thinner than just one book in Lord of the Rings. (The Fellowship of the Ring, for example.)  However there is a part of the story where Gandalf leaves the band for some adventures of his own 'off-stage' as it were. We find out what happens in the book but we don't see anything in depth. (I actually think more detail in that thread is actually covered in the timeline in the appendices section of Lord of the Rings but I'm not sure. We get a brief account from Gandalf himself in The Hobbit.)

My guess is that they will show that stuff on screen and expand on it more. Not a bad thing actually as it could be interesting stuff, and it actually relates to the events of Lord of the Rings. I won't spoil much, just to say that it concerns The Grey Council* and a particular adventure that will have repercussions...

*In The Hobbit, The Grey Council is described as a council of Wizards, but according to the LotR appendices actually includes Elrond and Galadriel along with Gandalf and Saruman. Which isn't out of place I guess they're being sorcerers of a kind....

[The Cosh]

Having not read the book yet I cannot comment on this but today I told my Bro in law that it was going to be over two films and his reaction was surprise and said that it shouldn't need two films. He then said that they were probably padding it out to see how much money they can make.
Do any of you feel the same or is my Bro in law talking a steaming pile of shite.

While I don't think it automatically follows that it will make them bad films, I completely agree with him. Or, at least, those were my exact thoughts on first hearing about it.

As someone has been cast as Radagast the Brown, I assume the "padding" is going to be material culled from the vast library of Unfinished Tales, vague references and assorted writings, so will be soundly based on Tolkein's own backstory rather than made up by Jackson and del Toro. However, while this might well be good, exciting stuff I think it will unavoidably change the tone and tenor of the story as a whole. Bringing in Dol Guldur and all that stuff is going to make it much more kin to LotR and risk losing the breezy adventure story that is the book.

While we might quibble over minor details and elisions (alas poor Glorfindel) I don't think anyone could seriously claim the LotR films are anything but painstakingly literal interpretations of the books. It sounds like The Hobbit (my proposed titles are I: There; II: Back Again) is going to be a rather different beast.

Christ, I've gone on like one of the mentalists on the Dredd film thread. Oops.

[TordelBack]

...my proposed titles are I: There; II: Back Again...

Cosh wins the internet.