[Hylean]

(Original post by Logi)
I knew there was something I didn't like but I couldn't put my finger on it.

It's the overly aggressive and proud look combined with the swept back hair and high foreheads, me thinks.

(Original post by Logi)
Thats exactly it!I could see him being involved if only because the necromancer is messing things up for his squirrels but even if he's not directly involved in the attack he lived right on the border of mirkwood and would have had valuable intel for the council.

Assuming he did anything. He might not have. We just don't know. This is why I'm not that fussed on the movies, because Jackson thinks it's okay to add in points with no basis in the books.

(Original post by Logi)
He's Thranduils son. The dwarves are in his caves for quite a while so it seems plausable enough that they might see each other there. If not then every elf in the area is involved in the battle of five armies including Thranduil so I don't think it's unreasonable for him to make an appearance there either. As long as he's not skateboarding on a shield this time I don't see the issue with him making a cameo.

I've no issue, because it is logical he might have appeared, but as a speaking role, there's nothing. The dwarves spent their entire time in cells and had little contact with the elves, so it's not logical to assume they saw him at all there, though. Certainly at the battle he could've been there.

(Original post by Logi)
I disagree. While it works in the books I do think it would seem strange for the audience if Gandalf just buggered off for one of the most dangerous sections of their journey without any explanation.

But that's the entire point about Gandalf. We're not meant to know everything about him and showing what he's up to so explicitly robs the story of some of its depth and magic. Adding in details like the raid on Dol Guldur has nothing to do with it being a movie, rather it's do to with big name cameos, etc. and more money.

(Original post by Logi)
Books and films are quite different. I expect most people who go to see the films won't even have read them so having tie-ins is going to be important for them.

The Hobbit is one of the best selling children's novels of all time and sells well every year. I'd be surprised if the majority of people going to see the movies hadn't read the book. The tie-in is not going to be that important and shouldn't have such a huge effect on the make-up of the movies.

(Original post by Logi)
Of course moneys important but I would still rather they make two films and include as much of the canon as they can than try to squash everything into one film.

The second movie contains all of 5 chapters of the book, precisely because Jackson is trying to include as much of the uncanon details as he can.

[pianofluteftw]

(Original post by Hylean)


The Hobbit is one of the best selling children's novels of all time and sells well every year. I'd be surprised if the majority of people going to see the movies hadn't read the book. The tie-in is not going to be that important and shouldn't have such a huge effect on the make-up of the movies.

Sorry to butt in here but I must say I think that 'most' people that will go to see the film will not have read the book. While there is an enormous group of people that have grown up with the Hobbit, in my experience I have found relatively few people of a younger age (talking under 20 here) who have actually read the actual book. Of those that have, they're all pretty much my friends who in turn have read the entire LOTR trilogy (as we're all just rather nerdy if I can say that much!) but if the average person I've met has read any Tolkein, it has been a half hearted attempt at the trilogy itself. Many people I've met have never heard of the Hobbit (until I educate them otherwise...)

But I think I'm always surprised at the lack of people who read books in general. Even in my A Level English literature class, people only had experience of Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and even Harry Potter through the films - again all best selling children's books.

I know there will be lots of people who have read the book, most likely slightly older viewers or those from families who give their children books to read, but as Lord of the Rings pulled in people from a huge area of society just because it was the latest amazing blockbuster I assume The Hobbit will be targeted in the same way at a more maintstream audience.

Although I do hope they don't change it too much to fit in with the Lord of the Rings image - they are such different works (as someone said earlier the Hobbit is such much more childlike) but I can understand that they will have to focus on more 'conventional' movie moments to pull in enough viewers to make it a success.(I mean look at the later Harry Potter books made into films...)
*Sigh*

[silverbolt]

(Original post by popple7)
although im not sure why they are bringing back old characters such as legolas? anyone care to enlighten me?

Cos orlando bloom needs money lol.

Storywise the dwarves are captured by the wood elves whose leader is thranduil, thranduil is the father of legolas so it can be done that legolas shows up

however it doesn not happene in the book

[emmanottinghil]

(Original post by silverbolt)
Cos orlando bloom needs money lol.

Storywise the dwarves are captured by the wood elves whose leader is thranduil, thranduil is the father of legolas so it can be done that legolas shows up

however it doesn not happene in the book

Hard to believe he does, given Miranda Kerr's earnings, which must be off the scale - although it will be great to see him again!

[silverbolt]

(Original post by The Lyceum)
Functional? Not at all they look for the most part like random fantasy blades imo. I also don't understand why they refer to the "bladesmiths" at WETA as such, I've handled some of the more expensive replicas of their swords and they feel completely different to all the actual period pieces and better modern made swords.

Aragorn's looked good, basic, functional looking but most of them turned out looking like wallhangers I think.

You're right, wrong period but I was just throwing that out there in general to get my idea across in regards to gear. I suppose something like Saxon or Frankish would be better suited. I didn't mean in regards to fluffy pants etc lool.

I don't supposed you've ever read the old graphic novel version of the Hobbit have you? I loved the look of there Dwarves there...

There supposed to be fantasy blades - its a fantasy setting. Also bear in mind the company of nine and who they were, two sons of royalty, (legolas and Boromir) one descended from royalty, (Aragorn) one son whose father helped reclaim Erebor, (gimli) barrowwight blade armed hobbits (sam Merry and Pippin) and Gandalf has Glamdring and Frodo Sting. All thier weapons are more ornate due to who wields them rather than the general plonk given out.

However even the foot soldiers do have more pretty than practical looking weapons than humans in our historyt have done. But why not both the elves and dwarves loved to craft fine things and couldnt bear bland ugly creations. Humans would follow this same trend.

(Original post by Hylean)
The dwarves strike me as very Klingon for some reason, and I don't like it. They just don't seem Tolkien to me.

The dwarves, especially with their Norse names, have always struck me as a mixture of Scandinavians from the Viking era and Jews.



Assuming Radagast took an active part in the attack. He is described as having abandoned his quest in favour of looking after animals and plants. Even his message from Saruman to Gandalf was considered a burden. I don't really see him being there.




Legolas isn't in the book at all. Don't talk crap.

Galadriel may be part of the White Council, but she's nothing to do with Mirkwood. Obviously, if they're dealing with the attack on Dol Guldur, they can include her, but that part is only alluded to in The Hobbit, which is half the point. It's not relevant to the story, not even for a Lord of the Rings tie-up. The two books are popular precisely because Tolkien mentions happenings elsewhere and doesn't clarify, it gives the notion of depth. Jackson is robbing the tales of that depth and needlessly complicating the narrative by including all these extra details.

As for making them feel part of the same story, no one has ever complained about such things with the books.

Like I said before, it's all about getting more money at the end of the day.

That picture of Thorin bears a remarkable resemblance to gowron in my mind maybe its the expression - but i do agree with you. They seem very Klingdon and not dwarven. Gimli was good but these short bearded non fat guys just doesnt strike me as right.

As for Radaghast, its not even stated thats hes part of the council of the five wizards Radaghast is the only one who we dont know if hes part of it or not. Whether Jackson is doing a retcon (which i doubt) or is just going to throw him in there (elves at helms deep anyone) we will have to see.

Your right, Legolas is not in the book whatsoever, its possible he may have been in the throne room when the dwarves are interogated but hes never mentioned by name.

Galadrial may have nought to do with Mirkwood but as part of the white council and potentially one of the most powerful she would have been involved against he Necromancer. I think it does say at some point that Galadrial was there. As for relevance maybe not but it is the reason why gandalfs not there for much of it.

[bluenose14]

This thread has inspired me to re-read the book because I haven' t read it since I was about ten.
I'm wondering how they're going to depict the trolls in this. The trolls in the book could talk, but the trolls in the LOTR film look less intelligent and didn't talk if I remember correctly.

[Mo-Amin]

I've been watching the Lord of the Rings series again and after finishing Two Towers, I've just realised how refreshing The Hobbit would be in terms of it's representation of Dwarves.Gimli's pretty much the only dwarf and is basically comic relief half the time so it'll be cool to see the dwarves get proper love on the big screen this time round ahaha.

[emmanottinghil]

(Original post by Mo-Amin)
I've been watching the Lord of the Rings series again and after finishing Two Towers, I've just realised how refreshing The Hobbit would be in terms of it's representation of Dwarves.Gimli's pretty much the only dwarf and is basically comic relief half the time so it'll be cool to see the dwarves get proper love on the big screen this time round ahaha.

That made me a bit sad watching the films as well. Moria was so beautifully done and it was quite moving when they discover Balin's tomb - a nice chance to show some history of Moria stuff perhaps? Which didn't happen. Gimli was played as you say for laughs a lot and there was none of that feeling you get in the books of all the history and sadness of the dwarves and not much of Gimli's heroism and stoicism, or at least, not as much. The run across Rohan was well done though. Just that in the books he was somehow a more "grown-up" character than in the movies.

[Hylean]

(Original post by silverbolt)
That picture of Thorin bears a remarkable resemblance to gowron in my mind maybe its the expression - but i do agree with you. They seem very Klingdon and not dwarven. Gimli was good but these short bearded non fat guys just doesnt strike me as right.

That's who he reminds me of! I was sitting there for ages trying to figure out exactly which klingon it was. If you gave Thorin some ridges on his forehead, they could be twins. Do you think they're using the klingons as a basis? The societies are similar-ish.

(Original post by silverbolt)
As for Radaghast, its not even stated thats hes part of the council of the five wizards Radaghast is the only one who we dont know if hes part of it or not. Whether Jackson is doing a retcon (which i doubt) or is just going to throw him in there (elves at helms deep anyone) we will have to see.

He might add him as a member of the council anyway. Messing about with details has never bothered him before, after all.

(Original post by silverbolt)
Your right, Legolas is not in the book whatsoever, its possible he may have been in the throne room when the dwarves are interogated but hes never mentioned by name.

Exactly, so even if he is there, Legolas never had a speaking part. It is also perfectly possible that the son mentioned when discussing the mithril coat is not Legolas, but some other son.

(Original post by silverbolt)
Galadrial may have nought to do with Mirkwood but as part of the white council and potentially one of the most powerful she would have been involved against he Necromancer. I think it does say at some point that Galadrial was there. As for relevance maybe not but it is the reason why gandalfs not there for much of it.

Oh, obviously. I'm not disputing that, just the idea that we need to see the White Council or their attack on the Necromancer. By showing it, it takes away from Gandalf's depth and mystery. The attack never even gets described in the book. If it had been, fair enough, but it wasn't, so.

[Ape Gone Insane]

[Sonny_J_D]

My major concern is how they'll tackle the feast at Beorn's hall - it's one definite part where I would hope they differ from the books. While I get that it's meant to show his oneness with nature and command of animals, I feel that dogs walking on two feet and serving dinner will be to far for my suspension of disbelief to stretch.

[emmanottinghil]

(Original post by Sonny_J_D)
My major concern is how they'll tackle the feast at Beorn's hall - it's one definite part where I would hope they differ from the books. While I get that it's meant to show his oneness with nature and command of animals, I feel that dogs walking on two feet and serving dinner will be to far for my suspension of disbelief to stretch.

It was interesting the way they smoothed out some completely magical or childlike elements in the LOTR movies, as in the mysterious vanishing of Tom Bombadil, talking foxes and trees, etc. I suspect we are in for more of the same from Hobbits I & II.

[Hylean]

(Original post by emmanottinghil)
It was interesting the way they smoothed out some completely magical or childlike elements in the LOTR movies, as in the mysterious vanishing of Tom Bombadil, talking foxes and trees, etc. I suspect we are in for more of the same from Hobbits I & II.

As in, completely removed them? That won't bode well for the movies then.

Will be interesting to see how they deal with the differing nature of the elves. The elves in The Hobbit are much closer to the British conception of pixies: playful, teasing, etc. than the noble and aloof elves we see in Lord of the Rings.

[Sonny_J_D]

(Original post by Hylean)
So he goes from a mention, with very little characterisation, to a full-blown character? There's no justification for that, not really. I mean, they might be using the info in Unfinished Tales, but that can't really be considered "canon" in regards to characters or even plot points.

Assuming Radagast took an active part in the attack. He is described as having abandoned his quest in favour of looking after animals and plants. Even his message from Saruman to Gandalf was considered a burden. I don't really see him being there.

Legolas isn't in the book at all. Don't talk crap.

Galadriel may be part of the White Council, but she's nothing to do with Mirkwood. Obviously, if they're dealing with the attack on Dol Guldur, they can include her, but that part is only alluded to in The Hobbit, which is half the point. It's not relevant to the story, not even for a Lord of the Rings tie-up. The two books are popular precisely because Tolkien mentions happenings elsewhere and doesn't clarify, it gives the notion of depth. Jackson is robbing the tales of that depth and needlessly complicating the narrative by including all these extra details.

As for making them feel part of the same story, no one has ever complained about such things with the books.

Like I said before, it's all about getting more money at the end of the day.

Radagast was almost definitely a member of the council and it's completely plausible for him to have taken part on the assault on Dol Guldur - the Necromancer was corrupting the forests that he loved etc. There's also enough background material that they can easily extrapolate to create a rounded but faithful to the source material character.

The assault itself is actually essential to the story - Gandalf is said to have made sure that Thorin's expedition took place at the same time so Sauron and Smaug coul not help each other - although it's not really expanded upon in the Hobbit (it's a children's fantasy book after all the A plot is the only true essential) it would be a missed opportunity to not cover it in a film. Also it sets up the deteriorating relationship between Saruman and Gandalf.
This isn't a Lucas-esque attempt to spoon-feed lazy backstory and retcon existing events, this is more a chance to see some of the lesser-known but nevertheless important events mentioned in the books.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Sonny_J_D)
Radagast was almost definitely a member of the council and it's completely plausible for him to have taken part on the assault on Dol Guldur - the Necromancer was corrupting the forests that he loved etc. There's also enough background material that they can easily extrapolate to create a rounded but faithful to the source material character.

Why was he almost definitely a member? Where in the source material does it even suggest that? The source material for Radagast states that he turned away from his quest again Sauron in favour of animals and plants. Though given he is one of Yavanna's maia, this is not suprising. It also states he didn't travel much and though his abode was near Dol Guldur, it is by no means certain that he joined in the attack.

Beyond that, for characterisation, there isn't much to make a rounded character, to be honest. Tolkien didn't really write much about him.

(Original post by Sonny_J_D)
The assault itself is actually essential to the story - Gandalf is said to have made sure that Thorin's expedition took place at the same time so Sauron and Smaug coul not help each other - although it's not really expanded upon in the Hobbit (it's a children's fantasy book after all the A plot is the only true essential) it would be a missed opportunity to not cover it in a film. Also it sets up the deteriorating relationship between Saruman and Gandalf.

Except it's not important in terms of the story. It plays no part in the story except as a way of getting rid of Gandalf for a long stretch. It would not be a missed opportunity, because it adds nothing to the actual story and serves only to give Jackson a chance to add in some of the faces from the first three movies.

The Hobbit is about Bilbo and is written from his perspective. How the hell can he describe things that he was never a party to? As they appear to be using that same framing, it's going to be a jarring change unless Gandalf suddenly appears and explains it all.

As for the deteriorating relationship between Gandalf and Saruman, that didn't really exist. Gandalf thought Saruman to be his friend right up until Saruman captured him.

(Original post by Sonny_J_D)
This isn't a Lucas-esque attempt to spoon-feed lazy backstory and retcon existing events, this is more a chance to see some of the lesser-known but nevertheless important events mentioned in the books.

I hardly think the attack on Dol Guldur is a lesser-known event. As for the book, it's not important. For Lord of the Rings, it plays a small part, but not for The Hobbit. Besides, Tolkien not only retconned The Hobbit, he went back and properly changed the entire text after Lord of the Rings was published. If he had wanted to, he could've added the attack. He didn't. The story is loved for a reason, why fix what ain't broken? By doing these things, Jackson is essentially saying he knows better than Tolkien himself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I will love both movies and enjoy them and I realise that certain things need to be changed for books to work in movies. Pacing, setting, etc. I understood and supported that Boromir died at the end of the first movie. It makes sense to end it there, rather than where the first part ends in the book. I understood that dialogue got left out or given to other characters. Hell, I even sort of understood the elves appearing in Helm's Deep and Arwen's increased role, though I didn't support either. I just don't see the need to fill the movies with unneeded information or plot points, especially when they weren't in the original book. Even more so when the second movie will only contain the last five chapters of the book.

[misterb123]

I just finished the book

This film is going to be epic

[Scubar]

hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbithobbitho bbithobbithobbithobbithobbithobb ithobbithobbithobbithobbithobbit hobbithobbithobbithobbit



I'm very very excited about this

[The Lyceum]

(Original post by Hylean)
X

Question, was Tolkien as a child the springboard for you onto actual Scandinavian literature?

[Hylean]

(Original post by The Lyceum)
Question, was Tolkien as a child the springboard for you onto actual Scandinavian literature?

Actually, no.

Got into Scandinavian literature through an ex girlfriend.

[Brotherhood]

http://www-images.theonering.org/tor...BT-DWF-007.jpg