The Hobbit movie news: An Unexpected Journey

Actually, the Trolls can be seen in the FotR movie - and in the FotR SEE there is also a reference to them (SAM: 'Look, Mr. Frodo. Mr Bilbo's Trolls!' - or something to that effect).

Since the trolls will be CGI it would be great if that scene could morph into a shiny new version of the stone trolls we have already seen!

Yup, I had forgotten that bit, but it would be great to return to that exactly as it was in the first film and fix it up to fit nicely with the Hobbit film. Real work of genius if that happened though.

From one of the links posted previously in the thread:

http://www.waitingforbilbo.com/comics/2008-06-15.jpg

:lol:

I don't care what anyone says, The Hobbit has been one of my favourite children's story books, and I'm just looking forward to the movie!

I'm quite happy at the fact that Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis will (hopefully) be back - that will be worth it for sure! :D

But seriously, 2012 is a long time!

Isn't it December 2011 for the first instalment?

Isn't it December 2011 for the first instalment?
Yep, I'm pretty sure that's the case.

A lot of people (including me, for a few weeks) got confused because imdb says 2012, but Guillermo del Toro confirmed to theonering.net that the rumor of a delay was false.

OK, so that's five months after the Deathly Hallows finale. :cool:

A good year for films, 2011. :D

I don't want to know anything until I see a trailer. :rockon:

I think Bilbo is in good hands. :tu:

I do think it's kind of cool, TH being released 10 years after FotR. :)


Oh, I was thinking ... I saw FotR last night at the Royal Albert Hall, with the London Orchestra and London Voices performing Howard Shore's score live, it was wonderful :love: and I got to thinking about talking beasts (as you do!)

I am so glad they didn't have Gwaihir talk in the films. :yuhup: I know he speaks in the book, :D and also in the BBC radio dramatisation of 1981, which works fine. :) But I just don't think that would have worked in Peter Jackson's films at all.

I do think, though, that a talking dragon, and Roac, will work just fine in Del Toro's forthcoming film. :cool:

I didn't believe Father when he first told me about The Hobbit being made a movie, how could he possibly know that before I did? :lol: I found out later he told the truth, and apologized for not believing him. :) He could've said it just to see my reaction when he told me he fooled me, so I chose not to believe him before I had it from someone else (that is, reliable sources on the Internet). :p

I kinda look forward to this movie, and I will probably watch it, but I think The Hobbit is such a nice book, I wouldn't like it to be ruined by a bad movie presentation of it. But I doubt it will be that bad, and I think of both the HP movies and the LotR movies as something totally different from the original books, so I don't think I should be worried anyway. :D

Awesome! I didn't know there was gonna be a movie for The Hobbit! I love that book, and LOTR.

Empireonline.com (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24610) has a world exclusive interview with Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson, revealing the format of The Hobbit.

We’ve known for a while that Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro’s eagerly-awaited adaptation of the Lord Of The Rings prequel, The Hobbit, would comprise two movies, due in December 2011 and 2012. But the make-up of those two movies has been up for debate… until now.

We spoke exclusively to both Del Toro and Jackson for our birthday issue, and they told us the latest, which is…

“We’ve decided to have The Hobbit span the two movies, including the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur,” says Del Toro.

“We decided it would be a mistake to try to cram everything into one movie,” adds Jackson. “The essential brief was to do The Hobbit, and it allows us to make The Hobbit in a little more style, if you like, of the [LOTR] trilogy.”

So there you go. The second film will not, as had previously been suggested, a film that will bridge the 60-year gap between The Hobbit and the start of Fellowship Of The Ring.

If they are making two films, I definitely think this is the best way, rather than having a "bridge film". I am so excited at this news, and that they will inlcude the White Council. Let's just hope they can get all of the original actors back. :tu::cool:

I was very suspicious that anyone could ever create something as beautiful as the LOTR movie triology - but right now I'm actually in little hope the Hobbit movies could become even nicer. It's great and something to really really look forward, too.

Neat move that they're going to include Gandalf's planings and Dol Guldor. It's sufficient that they're not explained in extense in the book, but it could work out really nice for the movies.

I'm not a fan of splitting a book in half, as those on the movie threads will know :lol: but I do prefer the idea of a two-part Hobbit movie to the idea of this second 'bridge' film, which sounded ... very worrying, because this would just be, erm, making stuff up :shrug: and I couldn't see a central narrative emerging from the time inbetween The Hobbit and the events of LotR :hmm:

I do that the Hobbit movie is in excellent hands. Del Toro is a wonderful director. :)

I would think that the central narrative for the bridge film would have been the tale of Aragorn and Arwen from the corresponding LotR Appendix. There was a lot of fan speculation along those lines.

And making stuff up would be nothing new for Jackson or Del Toro. :/

Any raging debate on where the movie will be split? :D Or has that been announced? :hmm:

LOL..... yes, well, when I started that debate over at the COE (where it is still a little to quiet to be a 'raging' debate, really), I spared a wistful thought for the discussions which have been going on here about DH.

So far, on the COE at least, there is no-one who carries a signature along the lines of 'supporter of a Beorn split' (or better: 'Supporter of a Queer Lodgings Split') ;)

For what it is worth, I think they should split it after the Gollum encounter, when Bilbo re-unites with the dwarves. That's a reasonable ending, and the climax would be the riddle game.

I can't currently think of another place where I'd rather split the story.

I would think that the central narrative for the bridge film would have been the tale of Aragorn and Arwen from the corresponding LotR Appendix. There was a lot of fan speculation along those lines.

Yes, that would have made sense. :) Obvious choice, really. The only problem being that I'm really not into Aragorn/Arwen that much :yuhup: and I'm not sure I would trust the film-makers with how to give that story a decent treatment. PJ just about managed it, but only just about.

And making stuff up would be nothing new for Jackson or Del Toro. :/

Oh, sure. Jackson made plenty of stuff up for his adaptation of LotR. :grumble: I like the films, by the way. :) But I am glad that Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens curbed Peter's excesses. :whistle:

So far, on the COE at least, there is no-one who carries a signature along the lines of 'supporter of a Beorn split' (or better: 'Supporter of a Queer Lodgings Split') ;)

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

For what it is worth, I think they should split it after the Gollum encounter, when Bilbo re-unites with the dwarves. That's a reasonable ending, and the climax would be the riddle game.

I can't currently think of another place where I'd rather split the story.

I'd split it when Gandalf goes off and leaves them. :hmm: Is the riddle game even half way through the story? (It's been YEARS since I read it. My passion is for LotR, rather than its charming little prologue.)

I really, really hope they don't make The Hobbit too bloated. :sigh: It's not LotR, and it shouldn't be trying to be like LotR. :sigh:

I

Two movies?? I don't think there was nearly enough material in the Hobbit to make two movies. But it sounds like they'll be including some "bridge stuff" too, so I'll be interested to see how this goes... I think they should split after the dwarves are imprisoned by the wood-elves, and Bilbo is wondering what to do next. That's about the middle of the book, and seems a logical place to stop since it's pretty climatic (did I spell that right? :lol:).

I agree with Pearl_Took, I hope this isn't too bloated. The Hobbit is very different than the Lord of the Rings. It's much lighter, and is really only designed to set the stage for the LotR.

Well, there is suddenly a good deal of new information (weel, a good deal compared to the deafening silence we have had for months).

The whole stuff - Empire Magazine interview and a couple of Del Toro posta ar TORN - is collected here (http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12787).


I'd split it when Gandalf goes off and leaves them. :hmm: Is the riddle game even half way through the story? (It's been YEARS since I read it.)

Well, it's also years since I last read it. Apparently the Riddle Game is in ch. 6 (I am informed by people who seem more knowledgeable than I am). Some suggest that Film 1 should actually make it as far as Esgaroth.


Two movies?? I don't think there was nearly enough material in the Hobbit to make two movies.

Agreed....

I think it depends how you look on that movie. The ring story between Bilbo and Gollum alone could be a half movie. There are so many adventures included in the Hobbit, which Tolkien only tells us about rather fast, it could work. Others than in LOTR Tolkien doesn't take very much time to tell about the places and adventures in The Hobbit, but jumps from one event to the next without many breaks. Still there's not so less happen than in LOTR actionswise I believe. You could split between the travel and the actual events around Smaug and the final battle and probably get two good movies without problems.

I don't want the movie makers to do things up, but for me it seems there's enough adventure provided by Tolkien to create two movies out of it. :)

I think it depends how you look on that movie. The ring story between Bilbo and Gollum alone could be a half movie. There are so many adventures included in the Hobbit, which Tolkien only tells us about rather fast, it could work. Others than in LOTR Tolkien doesn't take very much time to tell about the places and adventures in The Hobbit, but jumps from one event to the next without many breaks. Still there's not so less happen than in LOTR actionswise I believe. You could split between the travel and the actual events around Smaug and the final battle and probably get two good movies without problems.

I don't want the movie makers to do things up, but for me it seems there's enough adventure provided by Tolkien to create two movies out of it. :)



Well, they'll somehow add some of the back story and the whole stuff about the rise of the 'Necromancer' in Dol Guldur, Gandalfs attempts to find out more about him, and finally the whole action to drive him out of Mirkwood. That's a lot of 'big' stuff they can add in to the smaller and more personal story of the Hobbit (well, till you get to the final scenes, obviously).

They can even have TWO large battles if they like - one at Dul Guldur, and one at Erebor. I am not saying that they'll do that, I am not even sure whether I want two huge lengthy battle scenes - but they could do that if they wanted. They could even do one per film, I guess.

The Empire Magazine (what a good issue that is, Hobbit, Star Trek, Potter, Viggo, what more could you want :) ) has one small but vital headline for me - "Shore's Back too". Now I have more of a feeling that Middle Earth is in safe hands. I'm still very undecided about Guillermo, but with Peter Jackson, Weta Digital, Fran and Phillipa, Andy Serkis and Ian McKellen, and New Zealand, I can start to relax a bit.

Shore's quote just made my day - "I like to do a lot of reading and research just to mentally put myself in Middle-earth so I can create new music from a sincere part of my being. It's just such a wonderful world to be in, Middle-earth."

And they have Alan Lee on board as well, so things are looking up ...

Indeed. I have to say for me Alan Lee is absolutely central to the success of LotR. I have been a fan since some time before he did the LotR centenary edition. There aren't many people illustrating ancient mythology (he did the odyssey and the Marbinogion, among other things) whose work I like and whose illustrations turn even a paperback into something that feels a bit like a valuable medieval book. :)


And having Howard Shore back is also excellent. :) I couldn't imagine it without him.

And yes - the new issue of Empire is excellent. :)

Is this going to be a cartoon? :hmm:

Is this going to be a cartoon? :hmm:

No. It's going to be in a similar style to the LotR films. Live action.




They still need artists to design everything, though - just as the LotR films did.

No. It's going to be in a similar style to the LotR films. Live action.




They still need artists to design everything, though - just as the LotR films did.

Oh okay. :D That makes it all the more better. I seen this cartoon animated one awhile back, and it wasn't great. :no: If this is to be like the LOTRs, then it should be good. Can't wait. :agree: :cool:

I heard they are going to make the Hobbit all dark and adult and milk the battles out.

That sounds really really bad. If Peter Jackson's films lacked anything it was whimsy. FOTR felt like a horror movie while TTT and ROTK felt like war movies. I guess that was okay for LOTR, but the Hobbit is such a more whimsical, light-hearted and child-friendly book...

It's unfortunate to hear they are going to sacrifice that just to get more ticket sales and please the masses..oh well.

I heard they are going to make the Hobbit all dark and adult and milk the battles out.

Where did you hear that?

Not sure how I feel about that. I loved the Battle of Helms deep, and if the battles are anything similar, I will love it. Bus as for making it dark, The Hobbit has been a child's book to me, and making it dark seems weird. :err:

Where did you hear that?

Not sure how I feel about that. I loved the Battle of Helms deep, and if the battles are anything similar, I will love it. Bus as for making it dark, The Hobbit has been a child's book to me, and making it dark seems weird. :err:

Klio, a member on this site who happens to be a massive LOTR fan informed me earlier today.

If she's around today, maybe she can clear it up.

I heard they are going to make the Hobbit all dark and adult and milk the battles out.


Well, that's not exactly what I said.

But you suggested that the Hobbit would be 'more kiddy' than Harry Potter, and as it happens, I think that's not going to happen.

There is pretty clear information as to the style of the movie in this month's Empire Magazine.

Links to scans of the article, and some online posts by Guillermo del Toro, are all collected
here (http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12787).



I am not sure how I feel about this, either. I am not the biggest fan of the LONG battles in TTT and especially RotK. But I guess that's how it'll go.

If they include the stuff Gandalf is doing while he leaves the dwarves alone, then we have at least one more battle (or something quite similar), as the White Council dislodges the 'Necromancer' (Sauron in a different guise) from Dol Guldur. And the Battle of the Five Armies may rival Pelennor Fields in length (yikes!!!!) - even IF they have decided that, like in the book, Bilbo is passed out through most of it.

I agree that this could be a problem.... but 'kiddy' it won't be, so much is clear.

I heard they are going to make the Hobbit all dark and adult and milk the battles out.

That sounds really really bad. If Peter Jackson's films lacked anything it was whimsy. FOTR felt like a horror movie while TTT and ROTK felt like war movies. I guess that was okay for LOTR, but the Hobbit is such a more whimsical, light-hearted and child-friendly book...

Yes, it is :) , and certainly much more lightweight than LotR. But, like many of the best children's books, it has dark elements. :cool:

And the Battle of the Five Armies may rival Pelennor Fields in length (yikes!!!!) - even IF they have decided that, like in the book, Bilbo is passed out through most of it.

Oh heavens, I hope they don't make the Battle of the Five Armies like Pelennor. :whistle: The Battle of the Five Armies is REALLY cool in the book (quite scary for an eight year old, which is how old I was when I had TH read to me :) ) And it ought to be a fantastic sequence on screen. :tu: But making it as long and complicated as Pelennor ... :no: I hope they don't go down that route.

So we are getting The Hobbit in two parts. :cool:

Humph. :p I think you all know how I feel about stories being split in half. ;)

I'm not overly worried about the tone of the films though. :)

Yet. :D

The Internet Movie Data Base site has the actor Doug Jones listed alongside Andy Serkis and Ian McKellan - but no information about the part he will be playing. Does anyone know anything about this? I haven't been checking the rumours lately - have I missed something? - gone through a time warp? Is he any good?

Ginger - that's the first I had heard of that!


The answer might be in this detail (found on his profile on imdb):

Frequently has a role in the films of Guillermo del Toro.

He won't be a hobbit, though - if the scale issue is solved in the same manner as before, people who play hobbits have to be well under 6 foot. He could make a good elf (in terms of stature), and the obvious choice would be Thranduil - but that's purely me speculating.

He could make a good elf (in terms of stature), and the obvious choice would be Thranduil - but that's purely me speculating.

Many fans seem to like the idea of Doug Jones as Thranduil (Elven-king of Mirkwood, father of Legolas) but I think I remember reading a quote from del Toro saying that he has a role in mind for Jones, but it is not Thranduil.

I've looked for that particular quote, but I'm unable to find it at the moment.

Del Toro will definitely make this interesting to watch, if his previous films are any indication.

I'm STILL worried, though, about it being split. The one big advantage The Hobbit has in comparison to LOTR is its simplicity and accessibility. It does not NEED to be a massive, sprawling, epic series. It really is not complex enough to allow that without adding in a whole bunch of side stuff.

Del Toro will definitely make this interesting to watch, if his previous films are any indication.

I'm STILL worried, though, about it being split. The one big advantage The Hobbit has in comparison to LOTR is its simplicity and accessibility. It does not NEED to be a massive, sprawling, epic series. It really is not complex enough to allow that without adding in a whole bunch of side stuff.

I agree. And there will be a lot of side stuff - which will (I assume) mostly be on a more 'epic' scale than the Hobbit - White Council/big politics stuff, and then you have Dol Guldur and the Necromancer (a lot more 'commonplace' fantasy stuff) and of course whatever battles they might want to add in Southern Mirkwood....

I dunno, it could work, but I am worried about the split, and how they'll handle the difference in scale of these disparate elements. Will the stuff they make up from a few lines in the appendices completel overshadow the 'smaller scale' TH story (OK, 'small scale' until the end, but still).

Del Toro will definitely make this interesting to watch, if his previous films are any indication.

:agree:

I'm STILL worried, though, about it being split. The one big advantage The Hobbit has in comparison to LOTR is its simplicity and accessibility. It does not NEED to be a massive, sprawling, epic series. It really is not complex enough to allow that without adding in a whole bunch of side stuff.

Word. :tu:

I dunno, it could work, but I am worried about the split, and how they'll handle the difference in scale of these disparate elements. Will the stuff they make up from a few lines in the appendices completel overshadow the 'smaller scale' TH story (OK, 'small scale' until the end, but still).

Yup, that's what worries me. :cool:

I dunno, it could work, but I am worried about the split, and how they'll handle the difference in scale of these disparate elements. Will the stuff they make up from a few lines in the appendices completel overshadow the 'smaller scale' TH story (OK, 'small scale' until the end, but still).

Yeah. I don't want Bilbo's hilarious little adventure drowned out by all this LOTR-esque drama. If I wanted LOTR I'd watch LOTR. The thing that makes The Hobbit so endearing is that it's extremely different from LOTR, in terms of scale and tone.

For example.

LOTR: "I CAN'T RECALL THE TASTE OF FOOD, SAM, OR THE FEEL OF GRASS, OR SUNLIGHT, OR SMILING"

The Hobbit: "I wish I was back in my Hobbit-hole having breakfast. I'm hungry. This adventure isn't any fun. Harrumph!"

It's...well...quite a difference.

Yes. It is.

I think they WILL have to strike a balance. The Hobbit WILL have to be more mature than the book - because this comes out after LotR, and there are expectations. If they make it too farcical (elves sitting in trees singing silly songs), people wil turn out for the first weekend full of excitement and then audiences will dry up.

I think the general public will want to return to the Middle Earth they know, but will accept a story set within that grand, epic world which is a little more light hearted (even if it has epic elements). I think they'll particularly buy this light-heartedness if the main actor is well chosen, and the lighter tone really pivots around the central performance. (ideally with Thorin as a good 'foil' to bring out Bilbo's whimsical side properly).

I think this is what really worries me - the casting. We need a really good Bilbo, one that we can sympathize with. As with all movies, the audience has to care about the characters they are watching. They have to tell the story well enough for the audience to be engaged - that suspension of disbelief has to hit in straight away.

With LotR , for me, anyway, I was grabbed immediately - Middle-earth held me captivated from the first few minutes, and, although I know the book very well (having, along with Christopher Lee, read it every year of my adult life) I believe that Jackson et al, managed to turn an epic work of fiction into a series of epic, and justifiably popular movies.

The Hobbit is a much more difficult book to film. It is brief, it was a story told to his children by an author who had no intention (originally) to see the work in print. It was re-written, changed, worked on, abandoned, taken up again, and almost completely re-written again, over the course of many years.

I really hope that they don't do a "Gimli" when they set about trying to depict the dwarves. He was (imo) one of the least successful characterizations in LotR - all those "witty" lines - well I found them really irritating - and goodness, if we're faced with a dozen like him ...

And some of the dwarves have very little to say, there's very little characterization, there's going to have to be some major writing - and yes, I know the scriptwriters are good - but I reckon I prefer Tolkiens words to some that they forced Gimli to utter.

Oh dear, I seem to have worked myself up into a bit of a state here. I have been working on both volumes of "The History of The Hobbit" - a major work by John D Rateliff - (helping to bring them into a braille edition for the National Library for the Blind) - and it's fascinating stuff. But you can't get away from the fact that The Hobbit was a simple, short, funny little story that a father told to his children at bedtime.

Good, yes, our beloved Middle-earth, yes, but an epic - no. And TWO epics?

I think this is what really worries me - the casting. We need a really good Bilbo, one that we can sympathize with.
Absolutely. It's a matter of taste, but I am rooting for James McAvoy. I don't think we'll see an actor who'll look Bilbo's actual age. I'd like to see that, but we won't. Not after they made Frodo look like a 12-year old... OK.... 14-year old.

(Pearl is going to kill me! ARGH!).


The Hobbit is a much more difficult book to film.

THANK you for saying this. I totally agree. But few people seem to realise this. I think it's going to be really hard, actually.


I really hope that they don't do a "Gimli" when they set about trying to depict the dwarves. He was (imo) one of the least successful characterizations in LotR - all those "witty" lines - well I found them really irritating - and goodness, if we're faced with a dozen like him.

And some of the dwarves have very little to say, there's very little characterization, there's going to have to be some major writing - and yes, I know the scriptwriters are good - but I reckon I prefer Tolkiens words to some that they forced Gimli to utter. ...

And another detail where we agree completely. We can't have 13 characters like Gimli. I think we can't even have 13 people with that kind of rubber face.

Thorin has to be a serious character, not a funny one - although there is space for comic relief with some of the other characters. I think Thorin should be very seriously 'epic' 'kingly' and 'heroic' - and it won't be easy to pull this off without maing him ridiculous. Bilbo needs someone to play against, as contrast: a serious Thorin would allow them to develop Bilbo's whimsical side without making him ridiculous, IMHO.

The recent interview PJ and GdT gave in Empire showed that they have certainly started to give some serious thought to the problems presented by having to put 13 dwarves on screen. I hope this will work, but it's not easy.


I posted links earlier:

There is pretty clear information as to the style of the movie in this month's Empire Magazine.

Links to scans of the article, and some online posts by Guillermo del Toro, are all collected
here (http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12787).

13 Gimlis and no Legolas will be a hard sell.

Absolutely. It's a matter of taste, but I am rooting for James McAvoy. I don't think we'll see an actor who'll look Bilbo's actual age. I'd like to see that, but we won't. Not after they made Frodo look like a 12-year old... OK.... 14-year old.

(Pearl is going to kill me! ARGH!).

No, not at all. :)

Now that my, erm, swooning days are long over -- :lol: -- I am far more dispassionate about EJW's casting. :cool: He captured Frodo's purity of spirit, and he looked mighty purty :tu: but a rather older-looking Frodo would have been so much better, really, and a more mature, steely Frodo to boot. :(


I agree with all of you that TH is not as easy as it looks.

*does double take*

Pearl. We need you to swoon. It's fun watching!!!!

*does double take*

Pearl. We need you to swoon. It's fun watching!!!!

:lol:

I swoon over Snape. :p (More Fanon/Rickman Snape, admittedly!) Isn't that enough? :yuhup:

I also swoon for Book Frodo, Book Faramir, Film Faramir and the 2009 Spock. :D

Frolijah still has his little moments. :) But PJ makes Frodo fall down far too many times in the first film. Meh. :no: And don't get me started on dropping his sword at Weathertop ... and sending Sam away ... :grumble:

;)

:huggles:

It's OK, Pearl... it's OK.

:) EW as Frodo never really did it for me - not that this is news. I still think it was a lost opportunity (I stick by my favourite choice from back in 2000 - I would have loved to see Joaquin Phoenix in the part. This may sound odd now - but he looked a bit different from now back in the early 2000s....

I never really liked Frodo as a character. I found Bilbo to be a lot more dynamic and interesting...and also less of a stereotypical "hero." I always thought Frodo was pretty wooden, at least compared to Bilbo. Bilbo's a fat, pampered old Hobbit going along for the ride on a quest he wants no part of. Frodo's got an evil ring around his neck trying to possess him and destroy the world.

I suppose it comes back to the difference between LOTR and TH. Bilbo's just more "fun."

I never really liked Frodo as a character. I found Bilbo to be a lot more dynamic and interesting...and also less of a stereotypical "hero." I always thought Frodo was pretty wooden, at least compared to Bilbo. Bilbo's a fat, pampered old Hobbit going along for the ride on a quest he wants no part of. Frodo's got an evil ring around his neck trying to possess him and destroy the world.

I suppose it comes back to the difference between LOTR and TH. Bilbo's just more "fun."

Tolkien said in his Collected Letters that Frodo 'was not so interesting' because he was 'high-minded and had a vocation' and therefore was not as ... interesting. :shrug:

It took me a long time to forgive the Professor for that. :upset: :grumble: :lol:

Actually, I do agree that Frodo is a bit 'wooden' in the early part of FotR, I think that's because Tolkien was trying not to write him to be another Bilbo ... :whistle: But I liked Frodo from the moment we first see him: he's a bit quiet and sad, not wanting to talk to the other shocked, chattering hobbits -- this is after Bilbo does his vanishing act at the Party and walks out of Frodo's life -- and then he drains his wine and slips out of the pavilion. I just love that brief little character portrait ... :love: ... ahem. :p

Nitpickery: Bilbo isn't old in TH, at fifty he is the hobbit equivalent of a human 33 year old. :cool:

Klio, I remember you suggesting Joaquin Phoenix back in the Elder Days. :p Good choice. :tu: I was very taken with that suggestion, and then New Line released these piccies of Frolijah lying in bed at Rivendell, in that silken Elvish nightshirt, and I was, like, 'Joaquin who?' :yuhup: :D

On reflection, though, a thirtysomething Frodo would have fit the bill better.

I can't believe we now agree on this. What are we coming to? :yuhup:

Anyway - I have always preferred Frodo to Bilbo.

I like Bilbo. And I understand that he is pompous and bumbling quite by design.... but I like thoughtful and doom-laden Frodo better.

Of course, on balance, I'll always like Sam best. :)

In a recent interview, Guillermo del Toro pretty much confirms that Hugo Weaving will return as Elrond in "The Hobbit".

Listen to the interview here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l1xpz/Simon_Mayo_09_06_2009/). The interview begins at 02:04:30 and the mention of the cast is at 02:10:50.

Interviewer: "Andy Serkis...he's back."
GDT:" Yes, Ian McKellen is back, and Hugo Weaving...as, you know, the roles that they originated in the trilogy."

I'm fairly certain this is the closest we've been to a confirmation of Weaving's involvement. There hasn't been much talk about him at all. I'm very excited and relieved, but I'm still waiting to hear something more definite, like comments we've heard from, and about, Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis.

I was actually coming here to post something about that, Aiwendil, but you beat me to it. :)

I'm happy about the sort-of confirmation. It would be odd to see another actor take his place as Elrond.

Well, I've been hoping to see The Hobbit movie would really be coming out. It would be nice to use most same actors and director as in the LOTR movies though they should give it originality from LOTR.

.... It would be nice to use most same actors and director as in the LOTR movies though they should give it originality from LOTR.


Well.... the original director (Peter jackson) is producing, and a new director is taking over (Guillermo del Toro). The fans are generally happy with this, as far as I can tell.

A new director, and one who is a visual artist in his own right, will certainly ensure originality. :)


As for the actors - there isn't much chance for many of them to come back, because their roles simply don't exist....

I'm very excited that they're doing this movie!! But why are they doing it in two parts?
I'm happy that Ian McKellan and Hugo Weaving are returning.
I'm not too thrilled about Del Toro though.
I didn't care much for Pans Labrynth, and Hellboy was okay, but I don't like his ideas of monsters and such. I don't know......it'll be interesting to see what he comes up with.

I'm very excited that they're doing this movie!!

I'm looking forward to it too. :) Particularly Smaug. :D

And I want a great Bilbo and a great Thorin.

But why are they doing it in two parts?

That's what I say about the Deathly Hallows movie all the time. :yuhup:

I'm happy that Ian McKellan and Hugo Weaving are returning.

I adore McKellan's Gandalf. :clap: I can live with Hugo's uber-grumpy Elrond. :rockon: He's good entertainment value, at any rate.

I'm not too thrilled about Del Toro though.
I didn't care much for Pans Labrynth, and Hellboy was okay, but I don't like his ideas of monsters and such. I don't know......it'll be interesting to see what he comes up with.

Oh, I think he's a great choice. :) He really seems to understand the power of myth in movie-making. (I loved Pan's Labyrinth, which explains my enthusiasm.)

Much as I love Peter Jackson, I'd had enough of his tendencies towards self-indulgence, the Extended Edition of RotK just about finished me off. :rolleyes: My patience with Peter's liberty-taking finally ran out. :grumble: (I love the other Extended Editions though.)

I'm pleased that Peter is still involved, of course. :) And we have to have WETA. :love:

But I welcome a fresh directorial hand. :cool:

I have it on some reliable rumors that this project will actually be two movies.....does anyone else have any concrete info on The Hobbit being split into two flicks?

I'm happy that Ian McKellan and Hugo Weaving are returning.
I really could not imagine anyone else except Sir Ian McKellan playing the role of Gandalf.
Though it might be weird seeing him back in a Grey cloak. :lol:

I have it on some reliable rumors that this project will actually be two movies.....does anyone else have any concrete info on The Hobbit being split into two flicks?

Yes, the rumor that The Hobbit will be in two parts has been around for quite some time. It was originally thought that Part 1 would follow the story of The Hobbit, and Part 2 would be a "bridge film" featuring events from the 60 years between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.

However, back in April, director Guillermo del Toro and executive producer Peter Jackson confirmed that the story of The Hobbit will actually be split in order to feature in both Part 1 and Part 2.

You can read more, including a link, in post #209 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5284377#post5284377) of this thread.

Definitely NOT a rumour - the split is a certainty.

I can't say I am convinced that it is a good move. But split books seem to be much in fashion these days - it seems the be the film companies' means of choice when it comes to milking an established franchise. :rolleyes:



Looking back, it seems almost unbelievable now that the Weinsteins grudgingly agreed to making TWO LotR movies, until Disney took over and insisted in compressing the story into ONE movie. What were they thinking? :lol:

I can't say I am convinced that it is a good move. But split books seem to be much in fashion these days - it seems the be the film companies' means of choice when it comes to milking an established franchise. It's certainly a way of milking the franchise, but it is also cost effective. They save on all facets of filming costs, from transportation to filming sites and lodging to the cost of sets and costumes. I suspect they can also save on actor's and crew salaries since time is money.

However, if we look at what they've done with Deathly Hallows, it only seems like a way to milk the franchise, since if any book should have been split, it should have OotP. In this case, I can see enough Tolkien material to fill two movies.

However, back in April, director Guillermo del Toro and executive producer Peter Jackson confirmed that the story of The Hobbit will actually be split in order to feature in both Part 1 and Part 2.

Ah, thank you. I also heard that they will include a lot of input from various appendices and notes, etc. not contained in the formal text....they sampled similar elements for the LoTR trilogy, no?

Ah, thank you. I also heard that they will include a lot of input from various appendices and notes, etc. not contained in the formal text....they sampled similar elements for the LoTR trilogy, no?

Yes. From what we have heard, it seems that they are going to include the stuff Gandalf does while he goes away - i.e. getting the White Council together (Elrond confirmed, but not, as yet, Galadriel and Saruman) and dealing with the 'Necromancer' who turns out to be Sauron.

Perhaps they'll also show us some of the story of Gandalf sneaking into Dol Guldur (the 'Necromancer's' fortress) before the whole story starts - after all, there he got the key and the map (IIRC) for Erebor). It would be great of they could sneak ion some of the stuff we get in Unfinished Tales (since the outline at least is included in the lotR appendices, too).

What's not clear yet is what they'll do in the end - are they doing a quick 'catch-up' sort of thing up to the beginning of Lotr? Thatw as mentioned once, before they wrote the screenplay, but hasn't been mentioned since, and the screenplay is probably done.

Oh, I think he's a great choice. :) He really seems to understand the power of myth in movie-making. (I loved Pan's Labyrinth, which explains my enthusiasm.)
Hmm....Well, perhaps he can redeem himself to me with this movie. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.:lol:

I haven't seen much yet about the hobbit. I know gandalf is back and gollum.. but any chance we will get legolas back ? :)) Would luv to see orlando back again. That's still my favorite role for him.

I am watching Hobbit news like a hawk, because I do news coverage at a LotR fansite.

So far no news of Orlando-as-Legolas coming back. It would make sense, though. They wouldn't even have to ask us to suspend disbelief. It makes absolutel sense that Thran duil's son would be there when the dwarves (& hobbit) arrive there, and Legolas could also be involved in the Battle of Five Armies - with the Mirkwood contingent. All this would be pretty natural. The only thing they'd have to explain is how Legolas could, in this case, get drunk, if he couldn't in the extended version of TTT (I think it was TTT?). Drunk elves (as in the Hobbit book) will generally be a somewhat tricky concept, after what they established in the LotR films..... And I definitely don't want to see Legolas sitting in a tree singing silly rhymes.

I am watching Hobbit news like a hawk, because I do news coverage at a LotR fansite.

So far no news of Orlando-as-Legolas coming back. It would make sense, though. They wouldn't even have to ask us to suspend disbelief. It makes absolutel sense that Thran duil's son would be there when the dwarves (& hobbit) arrive there, and Legolas could also be involved in the Battle of Five Armies - with the Mirkwood contingent. All this would be pretty natural. The only thing they'd have to explain is how Legolas could, in this case, get drunk, if he couldn't in the extended version of TTT (I think it was TTT?). Drunk elves (as in the Hobbit book) will generally be a somewhat tricky concept, after what they established in the LotR films..... And I definitely don't want to see Legolas sitting in a tree singing silly rhymes.

That's what I was thinking too- isn't legolas the prince of the mirkwood elves? So if the elves are involved in th e battle of the 5 armies I would hope he would be there. Still can't believe it's been 10 yrs since the first one.
It would be so amazing to see orlando back as legolas.

I haven't seen much yet about the hobbit. I know gandalf is back and gollum.. but any chance we will get legolas back ? :)) Would luv to see orlando back again. That's still my favorite role for him.
I so agree with you there. I loved Orlando as Legolas. I liked him as Will Turner too, in the first POTC, but not as much as Legolas.

I am watching Hobbit news like a hawk, because I do news coverage at a LotR fansite.
I haven't read The Hobbit, so I don't know, but what about Aragorn's elf friend that died in the battle at Helm's Deep in the second movie? I really liked him.
Is he in the Hobbit book at all?

Drunk elves (as in the Hobbit book) will generally be a somewhat tricky concept, after what they established in the LotR films..... And I definitely don't want to see Legolas sitting in a tree singing silly rhymes.

I'm not even sure I want to see drunk elves..... That's always been one of the things I didn't like about the Hobbit... And Orli singing in a tree???? :lol:

I haven't read The Hobbit, so I don't know, but what about Aragorn's elf friend that died in the battle at Helm's Deep in the second movie? I really liked him.
Is he in the Hobbit book at all?


Haldir? No. He is from Lothlorien (Galadriel's domain), and that doesnn't appear at all in the Hobbit.

It is possible that they'd bring him back. I am assuming that they'll show the White Council and its actions against the 'Necromancer' (Sauron in disguise). We know that Galadriel was involved there, and it is quite possible that they'll have her back, if Blanchett agrees.... and Galadriel's troops might get involved, depending on how they envisage that fight (wheher it's a standard siege/battle or something done by other means). No idea.

Not sure whether I'd want Haldir back, but the actor, AFAIK, is basically making a living on the convention circuit, so he'd probably come back happily.

Haldir? No. He is from Lothlorien (Galadriel's domain), and that doesnn't appear at all in the Hobbit.

It is possible that they'd bring him back. I am assuming that they'll show the White Council and its actions against the 'Necromancer' (Sauron in disguise). We know that Galadriel was involved there, and it is quite possible that they'll have her back, if Blanchett agrees.... and Galadriel's troops might get involved, depending on how they envisage that fight (wheher it's a standard siege/battle or something done by other means). No idea.

Not sure whether I'd want Haldir back, but the actor, AFAIK, is basically making a living on the convention circuit, so he'd probably come back happily.
Ah, okay. Thanks. I wouldn't mind seeing him back. :whistle:
I know that he's been in some tv shows. Recently, he's been in 'Legend of The Seeker'.

Hobbit news.

It's just a short part of an interview by Guillermo del Toro (can we agree on GdT as an abbreviation?), but it has a few bits of crucial news, especially the dates for shooting.

They'll start in March 2010, and filming will go on for 370 days.

More here at TORN (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009/06/24/32564-gdt-talks-landscapes-in-the-hobbit-his-love-for-nz-food/)

Here is the relevant extract:

Guillermo talks Hobbit

GdT: Well we start next year – we are in pre-production, we are writing, designing – designing characters, monsters, designing all the environment – developing the technology to shoot it and it will start in March 2010 and we will shoot for about 370 days or so. And then at the end of that we will post produce for a few months and then the first movie comes out 2011, second movie comes out 2012.
The landscapes in some cases, in some instances, that were not established in the Trilogy – we’re going for a slightly different feel in some of the landscapes, so we’re going to evolve little by little, at the end of the first movie you will see landscapes that you haven’t seen in the trilogy – and in the second movie we go to hopefully a place that is very, very different.

Apparently the casting of Hugo Weaving was news to him, as well.

From Moviehole:

A week or so ago word hit the web – with a thump! – that Hugo Weaving was set to reprise his role as Elrond (from “Lord of the Rings”) for Guillermo Del Toro’s “The Hobbit”. Thing is, it’s news to Weaving, who told me earlier today (at an interview for his new film, “Last Ride”) that he’s yet to have a discussion with anyone concerning the film.

“I knew that if and when it happened I’d get a call and we’d chat about it, but I haven’t spoken to anyone about it. Someone said to me ‘I hear you’re doing the Hobbit?’ I said ‘Well, um, probably’, they said “No, no. you’ve signed on’. I haven’t actually talked to anyone about it. Doesn’t mean I won’t be doing it, [I’m] just not onboard yet.”

Weaving hasn’t met the prequel’s director but says the he’s “really excited that [Del Toro] is directing. He’s a fantastic choice – an absolutely wonderful choice, just brilliant. It’d be good to get back together with Andy Serkis and Ian McKellan, and whoever else comes back – there’s not many other characters that could come back I guess. Bilbo is back, but you’ve got to have a much younger version of the character. Whereas Elves and Wizards it doesn’t matter – you might just have to age me back though”, he laughs.

Read the article here (http://www.moviehole.net/200919542-exclusive-weaving-not-on-hobbit-yet).

They'll start in March 2010, and filming will go on for 370 days.

Holy moly. :err: That is a heck of a long shoot.

I really fear they are taking the humble Hobbit and turning it into some mighty behemoth. :shrug:

It's strange, I was so jazzed for PJ's LotR and I still defend PJ, despite his dreadful heresies :p and enjoy his films for what they are :) but I feel like being Ms Grumpy for this one. :lol: Even though it's Del Toro, etc. etc.

Seriously, I just don't hink they should be extending The Hobbit like this. They could do it just fine as one film. (Where have I heard that complaint before? ;) )

I have not been interested in the following the news on the Hobbit film. And I still am not, but I know I will go to see the film when the times comes. And I think I will enjoy them as they are. Of course there will be artistic freedom taken (read: heresies)... but I think it will be great. Time might prove me wrong though. ;)

They'll start in March 2010

Blast!!!! And I was hoping they'd be filming while I was in NZ.... darn.... I almost saw myself having a small role as a hobbit.. Or a fat elf.. :no:

Well, work has started in Matamata (NZ) to replant the Shire location. TORN (http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/group/1969) has a few pictures.


Fans have suspected for a while that this will be pretty much the first sign of their starting work, because we all know where the set is (and spies have been watching it constantly), and making those gardens look right will take some months at least. :) It's midwinter now (though in a fairly benign climate), so that's a good time to start in order to be ready for an autumn shoot - or a shoot in NZ spring (September - November) 2010. :)

Well it still hangs on the outcome of the lawsuit the Tolkien Trust is taking against New Line for the unpaid profits from the Lord of the Rings films.
Basic gist of the law suit is (for those who haven't been following it) -

Family of Lord of the Rings author claim $220m in compensation for unpaid profits from the trilogy.
Suit also seeks option to terminate further film rights, including for Guillermo del Toro's Hobbit project.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/16/tolkien-family-sues-new-line


If it goes ahead, the lawsuit should reach court in October. Unless New Line decide to settle out of court before then.

Wow. This hasn't been settled?

There was a general assumption among the fandom that it had been, since originally NL (and PJ) had put it about that the Hobbit film couldn't go ahead because of this. When it did go ahead it was natually assumed that things must have been settled behind the scenes!

Wow. This hasn't been settled?

There was a general assumption among the fandom that it had been, since originally NL (and PJ) had put it about that the Hobbit film couldn't go ahead because of this. When it did go ahead it was natually assumed that things must have been settled behind the scenes!

New Line apparently made several offers to the Tolkien Trust, all of which were rejected. I guess New Line want to pay as little to possible to the Tolkien Trust. The basic layout of the film rights to the Lord of the Rings is that the Tolkien estate should get 7.5% of any profits made. Which is probably a huge chunk of cash given that the LOTR films made some $6 billion.
As with anything in life, never assume anything unless all the facts are known. I still think New Line will settle out of court, least it lose it's precioussss LOTR and Hobbit goldmines. The biggest losers in all of this ? Those fans that have been waiting for the Hobbit to be turned into a cinematic masterpiece for the last several years.

Kevin, something about this can't be quite right.

Peter Jackson made it very clear some years ago that he won't go ahead with this unless the disputes are fully settled. Yet, now he is in the middle of producing the film, with a director on board, and good evidence that they have started spending serious money on the production (e.g. construction work at Matmata).

Moreover, New Line has folded, and this is mostly Warner Borther's baby now - whatever that means (I think NL's logo will be on the movie, but as far as I understand his recent Comic Con statement, Jackson has made it quite clear that the script will be finally greenlit by WB).

Some piece of this jigsaw must be missing here - otherwise it doesn't seem to make sense.

Kevin, something about this can't be quite right.

Peter Jackson made it very clear some years ago that he won't go ahead with this unless the disputes are fully settled. Yet, now he is in the middle of producing the film, with a director on board, and good evidence that they have started spending serious money on the production (e.g. construction work at Matmata).

The rights issues for Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit have always been complicated i.e. i believe MGM has the international distrubution rights to the Hobbit. I think as far as Peter Jackson goes, he must be confident that a settlement will be reached with the Tolkien Trust as New Line settled his lawsuit for a share of the profits in the end. Also the development budget probably comes from New Line/WB and so if things do go pearshaped Peter Jackson won't be out of pocket too much.

Moreover, New Line has folded, and this is mostly Warner Borther's baby now - whatever that means (I think NL's logo will be on the movie, but as far as I understand his recent Comic Con statement, Jackson has made it quite clear that the script will be finally greenlit by WB).

Some piece of this jigsaw must be missing here - otherwise it doesn't seem to make sense.

New Line is a fully functioning sub division of WB, which is it's parent company. All of the people who were running New Line and declared that Peter Jackson would never work with them again are now gone. New Line can make certain day to day decisions by itself but WB has the final say.

The missing piece of the puzzle ? I think Christopher Tolkien has something to do with it, as he has always been fiercely protective of his fathers work.
If it's true that New Line haven't paid the proper share of profits to the Tolkien Trust, then i think it's a case of a Hollywood studio being greedy and trying to fob off the artist or the artists estate with creative Hollywood accounting. Which is bound to upset somebody like Christopher Tolkien who has spent most of his adult life promoting and protecting his Fathers legacy.

But then again it could be something else entirely. I'm hoping that if the lawsuit goes ahead that the truth of the matter will become clear and that the Hobbit can go ahead. At the end of the day, it's the fans who will lose out.

Hmmm... I am just saying that some piece of the jigsaw must be missing. I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that there must be parts of the matter we don't know about, because otherwise those bits and pieces don't seem to fit together very logically.


In any case, there is little doubt that New Line's accounting practices have been questioned before - not least by PJ, so it isn't at all unlikely that there is an outstanding issue with the Tolkien Trust.

But it seems clear that down in NZ they are starting to invest significant amounts of money now so, as you say, Peter Jackson must be very confident that things will work out.

Well i guess you are also correct. Though Hollywood is never that logical, especially when it comes to the profits generated by films.

Anyway i think WB will step in to sort the problems out with the Tolkien trust if it really is just about the money and not Christopher Tolkien being upset over Peter Jackson's artistic decisions on the LOTR films as some sad sack fans have been speculating as a reason for the lawsuit.

Apparently Sir Ian McKellan knows who is going to be cast as Bilbo, but he isn't telling :) He was hosing an all-night screening of the extended LotR movies, and confirmed he would reprise Gandalf - but we still have to wait, and guess, who will play the hobbit.

Excellent news!

He also said, apparently, that he expects to see the script next week. Which must mean that it is finished and that they are reasonably confident to have it greenlit.

I am so curious who they cast!

But I am not surprised that they've already got someone. They must have been in negotiations for a while. I have been saying this before, but unless they cast someone completely unknown (which is of course possible, but there are hints that their first choice at least wasn't a complete unknown) they HAVE to give most actors some advance warning before asking them to move to NZ for a year!!!

Personally I would love to see Tom Hollander cast as Bilbo - his name has been mentioned, though I would not put any money on it.

He was recently in a UK TV series about the Pre-Rafaelite movement - playing Ruskin - and in his role he was very quiet, rather overwhelmed by the exuberence of the youth surrounding him, but quite stern, and I kept hearing (in my head) him say Bilbo's lines - slightly stuffy, but up for anything. If you put a pic of him next to Ian Holm as Bilbo from LotR - I reckon it's a brilliant match :)

However we have to wait ...

I wouldn't oppose James Mcavoy as Bilbo, of all the people rumored for the roll hes the only one I'd be ok with

Well, from what Theonering.net is saying, McAvoy is already busy with another film next year, so its likely that it won't be him.

If you could choose completely freely - who would you choose, SiriusBrown? :)

"The Tolkien Trust, New Line Cinema and HarperCollins Settle 'Lord of the Rings' Lawsuit."

From Reuters:

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The Tolkien Trust (a UK registered
charity), New Line Cinema, and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. have resolved the
lawsuit relating to the "Lord of the Rings" films.

The claim was filed in February of last year. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
and the trustees of the JRR Tolkien Estate were co-plaintiffs in the claim,
which concerned plaintiffs' participation interest in the "Lord of the Rings"
films released between 2001 and 2003. The precise terms of the settlement are
confidential.

Commenting on the settlement, Christopher Tolkien said: "The Trustees regret
that legal action was necessary, but are glad that this dispute has been
settled on satisfactory terms that will allow the Tolkien Trust properly to
pursue its charitable objectives. The Trustees acknowledge that New Line may
now proceed with its proposed films of 'The Hobbit.'"

Warner Bros.' President & Chief Operating Officer Alan Horn said: "We deeply
value the contributions of the Tolkien novels to the success of our films and
are pleased to have put this litigation behind us. We all look forward to a
mutually productive and beneficial relationship in the future."

The "Lord of the Rings" films produced by New Line are among the most
successful films ever created and were released in 2001, 2002 and 2003
respectively.

JRR Tolkien is the world-renowned author of works including "The Lord of the
Rings" and "The Hobbit." The Tolkien Trust is a UK registered charity that
has made grants to charitable causes all over the world totaling over $8
million in the last five years alone.

Throughout its history, New Line has created a number of enduring film
franchises, including the Lord of the Rings trilogy, "The Mask," the Austin
Powers titles, "Blade," "Rush Hour," "Elf," "Sex and the City" and "Wedding
Crashers." New Line became a unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment in March
2008.

The original article may be read here (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS180663+08-Sep-2009+PRN20090908).

I must say, it's about time. :clap:

If I remember correctly, The Tolkien Trust was originally seeking to eliminate New Line's rights to make more films. As it turns out, I don't think they could do that. What a relief!

I heard about this today. Excellent news :clap:

When do they start filming?

Excellent news indeed.

I heard about this today. Excellent news :clap:

When do they start filming?
The script still isn't finished.

Various recent articles have reported that filming is expected to begin in early 2010 and last throughout the year, and that the script is very close to being finished, if it isn't already. Jackson said at the San Diego Comic-con in July that they are "Three or four weeks away from delivering our first draft of the script of the first movie to Warner Brothers."

He also said "We haven't really even got to the point that we're greenlit yet, so if any of you want to see The Hobbit, you know, you can drop Warner Bros. a line and encourage them to be kind to us." :lol:

Watch the clip here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JI9ThQasos).

I expect now that the lawsuit is out of the way, things may pick up speed. Guillermo del Toro has said that they are well into the design process, and that Smaug's initial design is almost finished. Not to mention they are already rebuilding Hobbiton. :cool:

Though he won't be cast in the Hobbit movie(s) I'm sure everyone will join me in wishing Ian Holm a very Happy Birthday today. He is 78! Happy Birthday Bilbo. :)

2011 does seem a way off :D but here is an excellent new interview with Del Toro in Total Film:

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/guillermo-del-toro-on-making-the-hobbit

I do really, really like the way this guy thinks. ;)

All 3 of the LotR films are amongst my top favs, so I'm really excited to see what they can do with The Hobbit. Plus the book was actually an interesting read unlike the LotR trilogy...so it's got that going for it too. :tu: I'm actually a bit worried my expectations are gonna be way too high based on the quality of the aforemented films. And I dunno about this new director. It's a shame Peter Jackson isn't also directing this.

Ok, I have a question for those in the know-

Who has been cast so far?

I don't remember many characters in this, but is Ian McKellan reprising his role as Gandalf? And what about Bilbo? Hmm, who else? :hmm:

Ok, I have a question for those in the know-

Who has been cast so far?

I don't remember many characters in this, but is Ian McKellan reprising his role as Gandalf? And what about Bilbo? Hmm, who else? :hmm:

Not much has changed since previous posts in this thread. I'll try to sum up a few things, but reading back in this thread would help you out as well. :)

Nothing is (publicly) official yet. But people are beginning to suspect that things are farther along than what they seem, especially considering that principal photography is currently rumored to begin in March of next year. At the least, the first draft of the script is complete, and initial designs are well under way. I believe del Toro specifically mentioned creature designs, including Smaug the dragon. The set of Hobbiton is being rebuilt on a farm in New Zealand so it will have time to flourish and grow before filming.

They have said that official casting will not take place until there is a budget. However, Jackson and del Toro have both said that they will try to get all previous actors to return if their characters are involved in the story.

Yes, Ian McKellen will return as Gandalf if all goes well. He has recently said in interviews that he has read the first draft of the script, and he likes it very much. He is very eager to become Gandalf the Grey again, his favorite version of the character.

It has been decided that the role of Bilbo in The Hobbit is too physically demanding for Ian Holm to return, yet he may make a brief appearance as an older Bilbo, perhaps as narrator. Ian McKellen has said that they have already picked a new Bilbo, but nothing has been revealed.

Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving (Gollum and Elrond) are the only other required appearances, and they have both expressed interest in reprising their roles. If they include scenes involving Gandalf's business with the White Council as planned, then that should mean appearances by Galadriel and Saruman. A while back, Cate Blanchett expressed interest in returning if asked. Christopher Lee wants to return as Saruman, but doesn't want to journey to New Zealand again...(too long and too far, he said).

Howard Shore is already working on the score. Alan Lee and John Howe are back for artistic work and designs. Weta will again be doing the special and practical effects.

I'm not too worried about Guillermo del Toro as the director, since he was pretty much hand-picked by Peter Jackson. Also, I believe that Jackson will be fairly hands-on as executive producer. And he co-wrote the script with his previous team of Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh, along with del Toro. Who knows, PJ may get behind the camera on secondary units and such. I've heard that Fran Walsh directed a couple of scenes for LotR while PJ was working on others.

Plus the book was actually an interesting read unlike the LotR trilogy...so it's got that going for it too. :tu:

The Hobbit is lightweight compared to LotR, of course, but it's a great children's classic and also a necessary prelude to LotR. As a kid, the story entranced me, and it's a wonderful introduction to Tolkien's world.

I've not read it for about 20 years though. ;)

I'm actually a bit worried my expectations are gonna be way too high based on the quality of the aforemented films.

The Hobbit is a lesser story, with darker elements at the end. But that's OK. It should still make a really good film. :)

Or films, rather. :rolleyes: Of course they are splitting it in half, which is completely unnecessary, IMO. ;)

And I dunno about this new director. It's a shame Peter Jackson isn't also directing this.

I'm relieved that Peter isn't directing this time round! Although I will always be grateful for what he gave us, and there are many moments in his LotR that are wonderful, there's some really stupid stuff as well. He has a tendency to be self-indulgent. (The middle part of his King Kong bored me.)

Del Toro won me over with Pan's Labyrinth. I am confident he can do a good job on The Hobbit. I suspect that in some ways he may understand the Tolkien mythos rather better than Peter does, actually. I could be proved wrong ;) but I am expecting something very fresh and visionary from Del Toro.

Ok, I have a question for those in the know-

Who has been cast so far?

I don't remember many characters in this, but is Ian McKellan reprising his role as Gandalf? And what about Bilbo? Hmm, who else? :hmm:

As Aiwendil said, they've not announced Bilbo yet.

I am interested in it all, of course, but I can't pretend I am anything like as excited as I was when I first heard about LotR. :D

Thanks Airwendil for a brilliant summary of where things currently are with this interesting, and frustrating, waiting time. This has all been hanging around for ages it seems, and we are left in a kind of limbo. Yes Del Toro will do a good job, yes, Jackson will have his imput together with the writers - but the movie will succeed, or fail, on their choice of Bilbo. A demanding role. Frodo had his companions in the fellowship to enhance and back up his character. Bilbo really stands alone - Gandalf is absent for so much of the story. Bilbo has to be good.

Out of interest, who do you think would be the right actor to play this pivotal role?

Thanks for the summary Aiwendil. :) You see, I didn't want to take the time to read back through 15 pages... :p

It's good to hear McKellen will return. I actually was thinking he'd passed away a few years back as with Richard Harris, but I guess I was mistaken and thinking of some other old actor. And I figured the actor who played Bilbo wouldn't be returning. I mean unless they plan to change the timeline it's obvious given how much younger his character is in this. Hmm, well I'm interested to find out who they'll cast. :hmm:

I should read the book again as it's been so long, but from what I remember Pearl, I wouldn't call it a "lesser story" :no: Was better actually.

I agree though splitting this story into 2 films makes absolutely no sense. :err: Unlike Deathly Hallows I don't think The Hobbit warrants such.


I'm curious to know what the motive is behind this move...I suspect they are trying to compete with the Potter films or something. :relax:


As for Del Toro. I hope he's right for the job. I haven't watched Pan's Labyrinth...it's look really wierd, too weird for my tastes. There isn't much fantasy I like besides HP and LotR. I just think they should stick with what worked last time and have Peter Jackson direct again :shrug:

I should read the book again as it's been so long, but from what I remember Pearl, I wouldn't call it a "lesser story" :no: Was better actually.

Well, as you know, I am a hardcore Tolkien fan and I know few fellow geeks who would describe TH as 'better'. ;) It's a children's story, albeit a very sophisticated one, whereas LotR is much more adult. LotR is where the real substance begins.

I agree though splitting this story into 2 films makes absolutely no sense. :err: Unlike Deathly Hallows I don't think The Hobbit warrants such.

I see nothing in either TH or DH that warrants stretching out the material to that degree. Both stories to me are perfect one-film material. As 99.9% of film narratives are. :yuhup:

I'm curious to know what the motive is behind this move...I suspect they are trying to compete with the Potter films or something. :relax:

Actually, a two-film deal was being talked about before we heard about the DH split. ;) Although the original idea was for a standalone Hobbit movie and then another film which would cover all the events between the end of The Hobbit and the start of LotR ... which, frankly, sounded just awful, because they would be MAKING STUFF UP, nooooooo precious. :grumble: At least I prefer the two-part Hobbit to that!

And this franchise doesn't need to compete with Potter. :cool: I think that the Hobbit movie will rake in the dosh regardless. :cool: But it is, of course, a blatant attempt to milk the Tolkien Cash Cow! :rolleyes: (Just as splitting DH is milking the Potter cash cow.)

And if people don't like Part One, they won't return for Part Two ... this is the risk for both TH and DH!

I just think they should stick with what worked last time and have Peter Jackson direct again :shrug:

Some of us welcome the break from PJ. :cool: Despite the astounding box office and excellent reviews, not everything worked for me artistically in his LotR. And thirteen wise-cracking dwarves, a la Film Gimli, would not have been a prospect I would have welcomed. :rolleyes:

I have a lot of confidence in Del Toro. I'm a bit burned out on Movie Middle-earth, and Del Toro will probably breathe fresh life into it all.

That isn't a guarantee that I will actually like his Hobbit. But there's no guarantee I would have liked Peter Jackson's either, had he chosen to direct rather than produce.

but the movie will succeed, or fail, on their choice of Bilbo. A demanding role. Frodo had his companions in the fellowship to enhance and back up his character. Bilbo really stands alone - Gandalf is absent for so much of the story. Bilbo has to be good.Well, one thing to keep in mind is that The Hobbit and Rings are fundamentally different tales. The Hobbit is actually a novel, whereas Rings is an epic. Moreover, Bilbo is the sole protagonist of The Hobbit whereas Frodo is not the protagonist of Rings.

(It is, of course, very telling that Tolkien wrote a novel for a children's story and an epic for an adult story!)


I can see a few other challenges to the critical/popular success of the film. Thorin is critical: he actually is a pretty unlikable character in the book. The stick up his (you know the reference!) is longer and stouter than the one that Book-Aragorn had. So, Thorin has to somehow be sympathetic rather than autocratic.

Sleepy, Doc, Dopey, etc., are a huge problem. How can the film make the 11 tag-alongs seem worth any effort? As much as Pearl might object, at least one Gimli-type wisecracker (who can keep Thorin in his place) is needed. Bombur will be good for "stupid fat guy" jokes, although one has to question whether those are needed. Balin can be a good "buddy" for Bilbo: the book never really does develop the relationship that is elsewhere implied.


As for financial success, well, TH1 will almost certainly sell at least 50M tickets. Sequels perform based on the popularity x success of the prior film. Here, it will have been 8 years, so I don't think that it will get back all of King's audience, but TH1 has a real good shot at getting Fellowship's audience. It will certainly be the #1 film of 2011.

As for the 2nd film, well, the big question is, which Unnecessary 2 is going to look more like Matrix III: DH2 or TH2? There is no reason for either story to be divided into two, and audiences will have a strong negative reaction to both, I think. The best-case scenario probably is Pirates 3. Right now, I'd guess that TH2 will get a slightly bigger return audience, but that both will close out with a fizzle rather than with a bang.

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that The Hobbit and Rings are fundamentally different tales. The Hobbit is actually a novel, whereas Rings is an epic. Moreover, Bilbo is the sole protagonist of The Hobbit whereas Frodo is not the protagonist of Rings.

Yes to your first point. As to Frodo not being the main protagonist ... :whistle: Well, yes, OK, I grant you that is true in a way. I do tend to read LotR through a Frodo-centric lens :yuhup:, despite Tollers splitting the action and the narrative perspectives. Of course Sam's perspective dominates at the end of the book. But certainly Frodo doesn't play quite the same role as Bilbo does in TH.

(It is, of course, very telling that Tolkien wrote a novel for a children's story and an epic for an adult story!)

:love:

So, Thorin has to somehow be sympathetic rather than autocratic.

:agree: Thorin's casting is absolutely crucial. As much as Bilbo's, IMO.

Sleepy, Doc, Dopey, etc., are a huge problem.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

How can the film make the 11 tag-alongs seem worth any effort? As much as Pearl might object, at least one Gimli-type wisecracker (who can keep Thorin in his place) is needed.

Wimsey, I don't object to this in principle at all. It was some of Film Gimli's unbelievably stupid lines, and the puerile slapstick humour, that I objected to. :grumble: They were so out of place, in a film of that type. :no: Sometimes PJ got the tone so incredibly wrong. :yuhup:

Not in every case, mind you. Gimli and Legolas do banter in the book, and I did laugh at Legolas's line to Gimli, 'Would you like me to fetch you a box?' at Helm's Deep. :D

Bombur will be good for "stupid fat guy" jokes, although one has to question whether those are needed.

Bombur is comic material, all right.

Balin can be a good "buddy" for Bilbo: the book never really does develop the relationship that is elsewhere implied.

:tu:

oh, true, many of Gimli's lines were a bit much for me, too. However, my understanding is that the "buddy flick" crowd loved Gimli. I think that one of the reasons why Towers and King got such huge return audiences is that the films appealed not just to the Tolkien fans, but (to use exaggerated terms) the kind of guys who beat up Tolkien fans in high/secondary school!

Now, TH1 will get a big audience of these people simply because they'll remember that they liked Rings. (The ones who remember Rings, anyway: knuckle walking isn't always good for the memory... :cool:) However, how well TH2 does will depend in part on whether TH1 appeals to the "Gimli" demographic.

On a related note, I am not sure how TH1 will appeal to the "Legolas" demographic. Rings actually was in good shape for this: Leggy, Aragorn and Boromir all had potential for this, and Orlie really worked as a good old-fashioned teen matinee idol. I'm not sure how you make a dwarf into a teen matinee idol, however: Ori the Stud just does not seem feasible to me....

(Hey, this strategy worked for Shakespeare, too....)

I think that one of the reasons why Towers and King got such huge return audiences is that the films appealed not just to the Tolkien fans, but (to use exaggerated terms) the kind of guys who beat up Tolkien fans in high/secondary school!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :tu:

PJ was pretty clever in how he pitched his LotR. ;)

On a related note, I am not sure how TH1 will appeal to the "Legolas" demographic.

I wonder that too. Hmmm. Well, there is Bard. :cool:

Rings actually was in good shape for this: Leggy, Aragorn and Boromir all had potential for this,

Did they ever! :drool:

That was the funny thing. The film makers expanded Arwen's part because they thought that would appeal to women. (And, obviously, men. :p ) But they hadn't realised how many female Tolkien fans there are, and of course we all went, 'who cares about Arwen?' :lol: We're into hot Elves and hunky Numenoreans ... and dishy hobbits.' :eyebrows:

Although I did support expanding Arwen's role, because otherwise she just ends up looking like a trophy wife, to be blunt.

Eowyn supplies the feminism in LotR. :cool:

I'm not sure how you make a dwarf into a teen matinee idol, however: Ori the Stud just does not seem feasible to me....

Uh ... yeah. :err:

(Hey, this strategy worked for Shakespeare, too....)

:hmm: You've lost me. :blush:

I think that one of the reasons why Towers and King got such huge return audiences is that the films appealed not just to the Tolkien fans, but (to use exaggerated terms) the kind of guys who beat up Tolkien fans in high/secondary school!

:lol:

MWAHAHAHAHA

*swings replica of Anduril*


The geeks will inherit the earth!!!!


*looks round*

What?

Oh OK. Sorry. ;)






On a related note, I am not sure how TH1 will appeal to the "Legolas" demographic. Rings actually was in good shape for this: Leggy, Aragorn and Boromir all had potential for this, and Orlie really worked as a good old-fashioned teen matinee idol. I'm not sure how you make a dwarf into a teen matinee idol, however: Ori the Stud just does not seem feasible to me....

I can't think of another film which had such a wide spread of hunks for different tastes. It was amazing.

I remember we developed, on the basis of the LotR actors and fans' swoon preferences on the boards, a sort of age profile most womens' tastes go through.... :D

THe categories, IIRC, were 'My little Pony' (courtesy of an Orlando Bloom interview), 'Mammoth hunter' and 'cherub' - in that order. ;) :D Of course, women who liked the 'mammoth hunter' category were spoiled for choice. :drool:


And the box office pundits kept wondering why all the women (not just teenage girls!) kept coming back..... :lol:




The Hobbit will have NO chance to live up to that.

A few hints are around at the moment that Brian Cox (Troy, Bourne) will play "A dwarf in the Hobbit movie". So do you think we finally have Thorin, or possibly Balin? He could certainly do the grumpiness of Thorin very well.

Surely we have to have some positive casting news soon, though (agreeing wholeheartedly with Klio) the lack of sympathetic characters for us femails to get all involved with will change the audience drastically from Rings ...

I remember we developed, on the basis of the LotR actors and fans' swoon preferences on the boards, a sort of age profile most womens' tastes go through.... :D

THe categories, IIRC, were 'My little Pony' (courtesy of an Orlando Bloom interview), 'Mammoth hunter' and 'cherub' - in that order. ;) :D Of course, women who liked the 'mammoth hunter' category were spoiled for choice. :drool:

Where? What? I can't believe I missed that! :wow: :lol: 'Mammoth hunter' ,hubba hubba! :eyebrows: I also went through a big 'cherub' phase. :angel: (As you know. :p )

A few hints are around at the moment that Brian Cox (Troy, Bourne) will play "A dwarf in the Hobbit movie". So do you think we finally have Thorin, or possibly Balin? He could certainly do the grumpiness of Thorin very well.

He'd make a very interesting Thorin. :cool:

Surely we have to have some positive casting news soon, though (agreeing wholeheartedly with Klio) the lack of sympathetic characters for us femails to get all involved with will change the audience drastically from Rings ...

Alas, not so many 'mammoth hunters' or 'cherubs' this time round. ;)

:hmm: You've lost me. :blush:I was referring to Willy S's supposed talent of including both jokes for the commoners and jokes for the nobility got his plays, with the two groups not getting why the other was laughing! I'm not sure what examples of these jokes are, as I suspect that they would mean next to nothing to most of us today!

Hmmm: it seems that semi-comic allusions, like jokes, lose something in the explanation.... :p
:lol:

MWAHAHAHAHA

*swings replica of Anduril*


The geeks will inherit the earth!!!!:lol: But, admit it: you were ignoring the geeks like me and pining for some Cedric Diggory type yourself as a teen, weren't you!

(*ducks and runs*)

And the box office pundits kept wondering why all the women (not just teenage girls!) kept coming back..... :lol:Well, the truly remarkable thing was how many the films converted. New Line was quite proud of the fact that the young female audience increased so much over the series: women were actually a majority of King's audience, whereas Fellowship's female numbers were in the low 40%'s.


Now, given what New Line shared, these women were in the 16-25 demographic (at least in N. America). My question is (and I doubt that we can answer it), what do these women think of Rings now? They probably are long over Orlie! However, if many of them still associate Hobbits with movies that they enjoy, then TH1 will get a big return audience from that demographic. Given that Rings seems to be very highly regarded years later (as indicated by the Empire poll of movie-goers and a few other "end-of-decade" surveys), it seems that Rings must remain a good memory for those (now not so) young women.
The Hobbit will have NO chance to live up to that.No, but I think that TH1 will come close to Fellowship's ticket sales. Given inflation, that will be over $400M in N. America, anyway. I'd expect similar inflation-adjusted performances in the UK and (other) EU countries, too. (Unless some "nonfranchise" film we have not anticipated blows people away, I think that TH1 will easily be the #1 film of 2011: the other sequels on tap probably will struggle to do 75% of the ticket sales.)

It is kind of a shame that TH will not be out next year: Rings will get a bit of publicity over the next few months as the "film franchise of the decade" and copious appearances in "Top 10 films of the Decade" lists. Having trailers for The Hobbit hit theaters around the same time would have stroked the appropriate neurons....


Oh, and Brian Cox would be a great Thorin except for one thing: at 5'7", he would not tower over Bilbo appropriately for a dwarf! THAT WOULD RUIN THE STORY!!!!! :p

I was referring to Willy S's supposed talent of including both jokes for the commoners and jokes for the nobility got his plays, with the two groups not getting why the other was laughing! I'm not sure what examples of these jokes are, as I suspect that they would mean next to nothing to most of us today!

Ah, I understand you perfectly. :tu: :)

The 'jokes for the commoners', Rings-style, would be stuff like Legolas shield-surfing, or his comic banter with Gimli. Stuff that made a veteran geek like me groan, but I could live with it, because of the feast of riches PJ generally served up. :D :)

The 'jokes for the commoners', Rings-style, would be stuff like Legolas shield-surfing, or his comic banter with Gimli. Stuff that made a veteran geek like me groan, but I could live with it, because of the feast of riches PJ generally served up. Although I loved the movies instantly I think these jokes annoyed me more than some of the actual plot changes I liked to have unseen. I'm all for some funny moments (even those which never appeared in the books), but some of them are a lot of, yay, like for the commoners.

Under this light I've just realized how much I actually got used to them in the meantime. Gimli chatting with Legolas while awaiting the Battle of Helm made me cring by watching it first time, but by now I enjoy it. Still it could be nice to see The Hobbit with less of them, but I don't see that to happen.

Now, given what New Line shared, these women were in the 16-25 demographic (at least in N. America). My question is (and I doubt that we can answer it), what do these women think of Rings now? They probably are long over Orlie! However, if many of them still associate Hobbits with movies that they enjoy, then TH1 will get a big return audience from that demographic. Given that Rings seems to be very highly regarded years later (as indicated by the Empire poll of movie-goers and a few other "end-of-decade" surveys), it seems that Rings must remain a good memory for those (now not so) young women.

Well, one thing I am certain about: a significant part of that 16-25 female group would have enjoyued looking at Aragorn (mainly), Eomer or Faramir a lot more than ogling and fangirling Orli's Legolas. As far as I can tell from fan boards, the switch between 'My Little Pony' and 'Mammoth Hunter' occurs at various ages, but mostly during the earlier years of that age range. There were plenty of 15 year olds who'd prefer Aragorn to Legolas - but the Legolas fanciers were a lot louder (as were, wonderfully, the Frodo fanciers, who were mostly in their 40s at the time...) :D

Anyway, they'll have to cater to that middle group somehow, but I can't see how (in DH1 at least) they'll serve up some serious hunk this time. Bilbo's casting will be crucial, but he almost certainly won't be very *manly* eye candy, so will either please the teenagers or women who like to look at angelic child-like types.....



It is kind of a shame that TH will not be out next year: Rings will get a bit of publicity over the next few months as the "film franchise of the decade" and copious appearances in "Top 10 films of the Decade" lists. Having trailers for The Hobbit hit theaters around the same time would have stroked the appropriate neurons....

I suspect that Peter Jackson might return to his super-crazy 10 year anniversary DVD/blu ray edition which he kept fantasizing about when RotK came out. if they play that 'ten years since the Trilogy started' thing well, they can give TH 1 all the oompf it will need.



Although I loved the movies instantly I think these jokes annoyed me more than some of the actual plot changes I liked to have unseen. I'm all for some funny moments (even those which never appeared in the books), but some of them are a lot of, yay, like for the commoners.

Under this light I've just realized how much I actually got used to them in the meantime. Gimli chatting with Legolas while awaiting the Battle of Helm made me cring by watching it first time, but by now I enjoy it. Still it could be nice to see The Hobbit with less of them, but I don't see that to happen.


Hmmmm.... luckily, we don't need to give up all hope just yet. I think Del Toro is his own man, and won't be inclined to drop in such jokes during the process, I'd guess. Question is, of course, how much of the stuff got slipped into the script already, but it's also a matter of how it is filmed.

I think that Del Toro's 'weakness' might be partcularly nasty slimy insect-type things and similar creepy-crawlies. I am not looking forward to his take on the Goblins' mines and the place where Bilbo meets Gollum.

And the box office pundits kept wondering why all the women (not just teenage girls!) kept coming back..... :lol:

The films were great, but that doesn't say much if the reason for so much repeat business was cause women thought the actors were hot :whistle:

But I suppose this sort of thing is true of many films...and I'm pretty sure not just a spell that females fall under. As they say, "sex sells" ;)

But I would hope The Hobbit has more merit than simply attractive acting. And that should probably be the lowest concern when casting. :lol:

Well, one thing I am certain about: a significant part of that 16-25 female group would have enjoyued looking at Aragorn (mainly), Eomer or Faramir a lot more than ogling and fangirling Orli's Legolas. As far as I can tell from fan boards, the switch between 'My Little Pony' and 'Mammoth Hunter' occurs at various ages, but mostly during the earlier years of that age range. There were plenty of 15 year olds who'd prefer Aragorn to Legolas - but the Legolas fanciers were a lot louder (as were, wonderfully, the Frodo fanciers, who were mostly in their 40s at the time...) :D

:rockon:

I suspect that Peter Jackson might return to his super-crazy 10 year anniversary DVD/blu ray edition which he kept fantasizing about when RotK came out. if they play that 'ten years since the Trilogy started' thing well, they can give TH 1 all the oompf it will need.

They better had! :relax:

I think that Del Toro's 'weakness' might be partcularly nasty slimy insect-type things and similar creepy-crawlies. I am not looking forward to his take on the Goblins' mines and the place where Bilbo meets Gollum.

I share exactly the same apprehension, Klio. :tu:

Jackson's monsters were pretty much acceptable. His Ringwraiths were uber-cool (although a tad too noisy!) He did a great job with the Orcs, IMO, and I could live with his hyena-type Wargs. I loved the Fell Beasts :love: and the cave trolls! (Even though Jackson over-used the trolls in RotK.)

Mouth of Sauron = FAIL. :td: MoS was supposed to be an evil, sneering bloke, not a monster. :rolleyes:

And the Army of the Dead ... :err: Green scrubbing bubbles. :rolleyes: :D

The films were great, but that doesn't say much if the reason for so much repeat business was cause women thought the actors were hot :whistle:

Repeat business is repeat business. :cool: Also, this particular fanbase included many women who had loved these characters for years and were thrilled to see them incarnated in such ... memorable ... ways. :)

But I would hope The Hobbit has more merit than simply attractive acting. And that should probably be the lowest concern when casting. :lol:

A blockbuster film NEEDS attractive leads, that is the name of the game. Actually, any kind of film needs good leads. You need both a strong story AND actors who are charismatic enough to help the audience connect with the story. Where would Titanic be without Kate Winslet, an incredibly attractive and charismatic lead? She makes the film. Of course the leads have to be able to act. :)

I totally agree, Pearl. Not only do the leads (and, if we want to avoid cringe moments - all the others as well) need to be able to act, and act really well, but we need to care about what happens to them. Jackson (IMO) got it right - he took a bunch of unconnected people, put them together, and made the story work - exactly as Tolkien had written it. (Sorry lousy English grammar there ...)

Jackson sat the cast down and said "we are telling the story of something that happened - Middle Earth is real, it is here, and we are telling Tolkien's story".

My problem with Del Toro is that his vision might be a little too outlandish. Pan's Labyrinth, though a stunning film, was visually set in a dream world. The world of a young girl trying to escape the horrors of reality and war. The Hobbit is set in our world - well almost. Middle Earth was believable, totaly real in LotR, and it MUST be so in the Hobbit, or the whole point of the story will be lost.

As for the fact that there will be no Aragorn, no Legolas, no Farimir, no Eomer etc etc for the ladies to smile at, and certainly nothing even remotely resembling Eowyn, Galadriel and Arwen ... well that's the problem isn't it? This is a story told to three children at bedtime. A simple tale of bears and wizards. A short, intriguing children's story.

Not the epic of Lord of the Rings. I'm still worried.

My problem with Del Toro is that his vision might be a little too outlandish. Pan's Labyrinth, though a stunning film, was visually set in a dream world. The world of a young girl trying to escape the horrors of reality and war. The Hobbit is set in our world - well almost. Middle Earth was believable, totaly real in LotR, and it MUST be so in the Hobbit, or the whole point of the story will be lost.

I see what you mean :) but Del Toro does talk very intelligently about Tolkien's world in his interviews. And that is an encouraging thought. :) To quote Movie Gandalf. ;)

Not the epic of Lord of the Rings. I'm still worried.

If I'm worried, it's because I worry that they will try to make it another LotR. They can't. The Hobbit is, inevitably, LotR-lite. That's exactly what it is. You can't make it something it's not. :whistle: That's why I'm so 'meh' about them doing TH in two parts.

However: it does have at least one terrifically dark set-piece, the Battle of the Five Armies. :cool: And it has one hell of a villain -- Smaug the Magnificent. :tu:

And lots of foreshadowing for LotR.

I think there are ingredients for success there ... let's hope Del Toro and the team can put them into a satisfying mix!

A blockbuster film NEEDS attractive leads, that is the name of the game. Actually, any kind of film needs good leads. You need both a strong story AND actors who are charismatic enough to help the audience connect with the story. Where would Titanic be without Kate Winslet, an incredibly attractive and charismatic lead? She makes the film. Of course the leads have to be able to act. :)

Sure :) But for example, in Transformers I wouldn't have minded sacrificing Megan Fox for an unattractive yet more talented actress. :p

Surely I'm not the only one...are we all really that superficial? :whistle: Again, doesn't say much for society if that's why some movies make more.

I mean, yeah she's hot and I enjoy looking at her but there are many films with unattractive women or no women at all I enjoy just as much.
For example, favorite film is likely The Shawshank Redemption and I don't recall any women in that. Saving Private Ryan would be another.

Recently I've been watching a number of old films and it's proven to me that storyline and quality acting are the backbone of movies. I was also quite surprised to find myself enjoying films so much that had little to no special effects. Eye candy, CGI, etc...it's all just bonus. :shrug:

Sure :) But for example, in Transformers I wouldn't have minded sacrificing Megan Fox for an unattractive yet more talented actress. :p

:lol::lol: :tu: I totally agree with you. :whistle:

On the attractiveness of the LotR cast ... that was wholly appropriate, since female Tolkien fans had been (quietly) swooning for these characters for years. Elves are meant to be beautiful, of course, although personally I prefer rugged Rangers and Rohirrim. :eyebrows: And I had no objection to certain hobbits being dishy. :rockon:

Recently I've been watching a number of old films and it's proven to me that storyline and quality acting are the backbone of movies. I was also quite surprised to find myself enjoying films so much that had little to no special effects. Eye candy, CGI, etc...it's all just bonus.

Absolutely. :agree: In a modern film, SFX must serve the story, not the other way round.

The point I was trying to get across is finding good looking actors for The Hobbit is not necessary. But I can't tell if I accomplished this :hmm:

The point I was trying to get across is finding good looking actors for The Hobbit is not necessary. But I can't tell if I accomplished this :hmm:

Actually, you did.

Personally, I don't find it necessary either ... I think TH has to appeal to a slightly different demographic this time round -- and not try to be another LotR.

Tricky, perhaps, when Bilbo is patently not another Aragorn or even another Frodo (also, Bilbo is much more of a central protagonist in the narrative than either Aragorn or Frodo, he has to carry the story more), but not impossible.

Why in the world would one waste acting talent on a Michael Bay film? (Or a script, for that matter....)

Seriously, most successful actors and actresses have strong charisma that appeals to members of the interested sex. Moreover, there is no one "taste": I had girlfriends who could not see what women saw in some of my friends, who in turn dated women who could not see what any woman saw in me! Thus, I'm sure that we would have made a great "Fellowship"..... :cool:


The other factor that we are omitting (at least in recent pages) is that the Frodo-Sam relationship apparently appealed strongly to women. Yes, I know that Tolkien would have been mortified at the homosexual overtones that people see in it (and, trust me, the film toned it down relative to the books!), but regardless, it was a very well developed and powerful relationship.

So, in a sense, PJ provided a buddy flick for guys (Gimli-Legolas-Aragorn) and a buddy flick for women (Frodo-Sam). However, there just is nothing really like that in The Hobbit. Yes, I think that beefing up the Bilbo-Balin friendship would behove the film: but it really would work more like a Merry-Pippin relationship, I think.


As for the demographic to which TH must appeal, well, I think that the answer is: E: All of the above. Consider Fellowship of the Ring: I think that New Line reported something like 42% of the sales were to women. So, FotR performed poorly with women, right? Hardly: that meant that Fellowship sold around 22M tickets to women. In other words, Fellowship did a great job of selling tickets to women: Fellowship simply did a much better job of selling tickets to men! TH1 must do well in all of the important demographics if it is to sell 50+M tickets in N. America. (As the female audience increased in both proportion AND absolute numbers, Fellowship obviously appealed more to women than to men, although it appealed strongly to both: if there was a 3% decrease in men seeing the film, then this is a spectacular retention.)


However, I am not worried about TH1 selling well to all demographics. The history of franchises has been that the popularity x success of the prior film has by far the strongest effect on performance. Again, look at this summer: Sequel A got horrible audience reaction and even worse reviews, whereas the Sequel B got good reviews and very good audience reaction. However, A still sold 33% more tickets than B simply because it's predecessor was much more popular than was B's predecessor. Still, this offers the lesson: selling to a demographic and pleasing a demographic are two different things.


So, I think that the real concern will not be getting women to TH1: it will be bringing them (and men, for that matter) back for TH2! Of course, I still maintain that the biggest problem here is the Matrix II/III problem: people will leave the theater thinking that TH1 wasted a lot of time on "Ministry of Magic" analogs and that it could have completed the tale in one showing with better direction/production. Sexy men in tights will not solve that problem.


EDIT: I also agree that del Toro is a great director for this sort of film. The fact that he can mix fantasy with reality so well is perfect for the Hobbit: you need the gritty nastiness of (say) post-Civil War France or dystopian Hellboy Land augmented with the unreal if you want The Hobbit to work. Still, you really need only ONE film.... :grumble:

I really hope those rumours are not true.
The rumours about a "strong female character" in The Hobbit.

Jesus, no...
Pliz no...

I honestly prefer movies like Fellowship of the Ring, ah Okay, there we have the warrior princess Arwen, one of the many mistakes in Peter Jackson´s movies, than having "strong female characters" that mean:: annoyingly beautiful young chicks forced to be "strong" as we can see in soooo many movies.

Those are not strong female characters. But Hollywood seems to not realize what a strong female character is.
Megan Fox, oh... how interesting and what a strong female figure she is...

I prefer not to have any.

Anywayz
I trust Guillermo del Toro, I really like his movies and I am happy he is the director of The Hobbit (Though, Peter Jackson is also in charge...)

And, Look, a STRONG female character, Mercedes in El Laberinto del Fauno.

The other factor that we are omitting (at least in recent pages) is that the Frodo-Sam relationship apparently appealed strongly to women. Yes, I know that Tolkien would have been mortified at the homosexual overtones that people see in it (and, trust me, the film toned it down relative to the books!), but regardless, it was a very well developed and powerful relationship.

So, in a sense, PJ provided a buddy flick for guys (Gimli-Legolas-Aragorn) and a buddy flick for women (Frodo-Sam). However, there just is nothing really like that in The Hobbit. Yes, I think that beefing up the Bilbo-Balin friendship would behove the film: but it really would work more like a Merry-Pippin relationship, I think.

:agree:

So, I think that the real concern will not be getting women to TH1: it will be bringing them (and men, for that matter) back for TH2! Of course, I still maintain that the biggest problem here is the Matrix II/III problem: people will leave the theater thinking that TH1 wasted a lot of time on "Ministry of Magic" analogs and that it could have completed the tale in one showing with better direction/production. Sexy men in tights will not solve that problem.

Totally agree.

EDIT: I also agree that del Toro is a great director for this sort of film. The fact that he can mix fantasy with reality so well is perfect for the Hobbit: you need the gritty nastiness of (say) post-Civil War France or dystopian Hellboy Land augmented with the unreal if you want The Hobbit to work. Still, you really need only ONE film.... :grumble:

Word!

I really hope those rumours are not true.
The rumours about a "strong female character" in The Hobbit.

Huh? What rumours? :hmm: Link? :)

And, Look, a STRONG female character, Mercedes in El Laberinto del Fauno.

Mercedes was fantastic. :cool:

Of course, I still maintain that the biggest problem here is the Matrix II/III problem: people will leave the theater thinking that TH1 wasted a lot of time on "Ministry of Magic" analogs and that it could have completed the tale in one showing with better direction/production. Sexy men in tights will not solve that problem.

Hmm, seems you've got your stories mixed up there Wimsey. :lol: :p

Are you referring to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Hobbit? Cause I don't recall a Ministry of Magic in Tolkien's universe... :hmm:

But if you meant The Hobbit I agree. As said before, I do not think Bilbo's story requires 2 movies, whereas Harry's most definitely does. ;)

Are you referring to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Hobbit? Cause I don't recall a Ministry of Magic in Tolkien's universe... :hmm:

I think Wimsey was referring to both. ;) The 'Ministry of Magic' reference was metaphorical.

As said before, I do not think Bilbo's story requires 2 movies, whereas Harry's most definitely does. ;)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. ;) And both The Hobbit and Deathly Hallows face the same problem: if audiences don't like Part One (for both films), then they won't return for Part Two.

Which is what happened with me, with The Matrix II. I was bored and utterly baffled by it, and decided not to see Part III, for that very reason. I wasn't going to pay good money to be bored and baffled yet again. :lol:

The Hobbit and DH have this advantage over The Matrix sequels -- I am far more interested in Tolkien and Potter than I am in the Matrix (although I really liked the first Matrix film). So I will definitely be seeing Parts 1 and 2 for both ... curiosity alone could not keep me away! :lol:

But I do have equal misgivings about both TH Part 1 and DH Part 1. Del Toro notwithstanding. I shall be very interested to learn what the running time for TH 1 is ... :whistle:

Sure :) But for example, in Transformers I wouldn't have minded sacrificing Megan Fox for an unattractive yet more talented actress. :p

Surely I'm not the only one...are we all really that superficial? :whistle: Again, doesn't say much for society if that's why some movies make more.

Oh come on, lc!

Do you think this had really worked if those actors hadn't also been good?

OK, Orlando Bloom isn't a good actor. But they pulled him out of obscurity because he was perfect for Legolas, and there wasn't much he needed to do or could ruin - part from looking pretty, which he could do perfectly at the time.

The others, however, are also good actors, at least all the main actors were.




But I don't think it's shallow to ecognise that actors' appeal is part of pulling people into cinemas. The phenomenon is usually more widely taken for granted when it comes to the all-important mae 18-25 demographic, but people sometimes underestimate that it works for women, too (just that women are a little less easy to focus on ONE obvious type).


I find Wimsey's notion of the buddy movie interesting.... I wonder, can they develop the relationships between people in the hobbit so well that this will prove an attractive pull? That's a very tricky thing to pull off.... but it might just work....

Oh come on, lc!

Do you think this had really worked if those actors hadn't also been good?

OK, Orlando Bloom isn't a good actor. But they pulled him out of obscurity because he was perfect for Legolas, and there wasn't much he needed to do or could ruin - part from looking pretty, which he could do perfectly at the time.

The others, however, are also good actors, at least all the main actors were.

I never said they weren't, but the way you all were talking sounded like the only reason (or the main reason) for LotR box office success and popularity (with women at least) was good looking men. And obviously this wasn't the case with the males, unless they are also into men...

Anyways, I agree that the acting was good all around...even Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood. :p And personally I thought either Viggo Mortenson or Ian McKellan was deserving of recognition but the Lord of the Rings films were unfairly snubbed in acting categories. :relax:


Again, my point was that I think there are much more important things to worry about then whether the new acting choices are good looking. As long as they are quality actors, who cares? :shrug: Who got us going on this topic to begin with? :lol: Oh yeah, it was Wimsey...

I really hope those rumours are not true.
The rumours about a "strong female character" in The Hobbit.There also were rumors that Sam would be redone as Samantha, Arwen would supplant Legolas, etc. The source of these rumors? Fans!

Again, Arwen was not there to create a strong female character. Arwen was a "use it or lose it" character. Book Arwen was a non-entity: the film had to either greatly bulk her up or discard her completely. Once Jackson & Co. decided to keep her, then they had to decide how to make her part of the plot and how to make her contribution to the story recognizable without reading Tolkien's letters.

Glorfindel was a completely expendable character who offered nothing to the story: he was simply a plot device that was good for giving a bit of a "teaser trailer" for The Silmarillion. So, subbing Arwen for Glorfindel was not "Girl Power": it was intelligent storytelling. Arwen needed a presence if she was to serve her twofold purpose of developing Aragorn's character and telling the story about sacrificing all to preserve/restore natural order.

(The same is true for Éowyn: she has all of one or two lines in The Two Towers book, but PJ & Co. basically had her supplant Éomer in the film; again, this was a good call not simply for "Girl Power" but because Éowyn appearing out of the blue and throwing herself at Aragorn in King would have looked as bad as Arwen appearing out of the blue and marrying Aragorn in King!)


This being written, I do worry greatly that TH2 will perform poorly with women if there is NOT a strong female character in TH1. There are other ways to make the film appeal to modern women: but that would be the easiest.
OK, Orlando Bloom isn't a good actor. But they pulled him out of obscurity because he was perfect for Legolas, and there wasn't much he needed to do or could ruin - part from looking pretty, which he could do perfectly at the time.Actually, Bloom probably is a pretty good actor: he is just constantly cast as the straight man relative to other much more "wet" characters (Gimli, Captain Jack, etc.). Supposedly he did a pretty competent job in his one "chick flick" film (not that I saw it!), and he did well playing Paris in Troy (although he was criticized by ignorant critics for making Paris seem "spineless": however, I think that some guy named Homer had something to do with that!)

What Bloom has not done well is choose a diverse enough set of roles: but that is another issue!
But I don't think it's shallow to ecognise that actors' appeal is part of pulling people into cinemas. The phenomenon is usually more widely taken for granted when it comes to the all-important mae 18-25 demographic, but people sometimes underestimate that it works for women, too (just that women are a little less easy to focus on ONE obvious type).Indeed, until very recently, actor/actress name was considered to be one of the BIGGEST factors in drawing audiences. In recent years, this has abated. Why is a matter of some debate: some say that we just do not have any more "Cary Grants" whereas others think that filmmaking is less focused on show-casing particular actors than it used to be. I would bet that it is a combination of factors.


Oh, and, yes, "Ministry of Magic" was a metaphor.... :cool:


Oh, and it was post-Civil War SPAIN: I couldn't decided whether to write "Franco's Spain" or "post Civil War Spain" and wound up with an amusing mental typo! :p

Indeed, until very recently, actor/actress name was considered to be one of the BIGGEST factors in drawing audiences. In recent years, this has abated. Why is a matter of some debate: some say that we just do not have any more "Cary Grants" whereas others think that filmmaking is less focused on show-casing particular actors than it used to be. I would bet that it is a combination of factors.

Hmm, well I obviously wasn't alive back then but it seems the other way around. It appears there is more importance placed on who's in the picture and how good looking they are. For proof, look no further than all the girls who rushed to see Twilight just cause of Rob Pattison ;)

And is Cary Grant really a good example? Probably not. I mean, in the case of Cary Grant we are talking about arguably one of the greatest actors of all time. Although clearly women found him attractive as well judging by his 5 spouses and the other women he was linked to... :lol:

Anyways, I won't be surprised if they choose some big name actors for roles in The Hobbit. But who might they be? :hmm:

Bilbo is a critical choice naturally. How old was he in The Hobbit? About Frodo's age wasn't he? Need another young (and short :lol:) actor.


Oh, and, yes, "Ministry of Magic" was a metaphor.... :cool:


Oh, well it didn't make much sense... :shrug: But then I am yet to understand the unfounded dislike of the Ministry of Magic sequence in DH.


EDIT:

While searching something quite unrelated I came across this and I thought it was interesting, especially since all 3 LotR films are on the female list :wow: :hmm: I found this intriguing cause I also thought the LotR STORY was geared towards males as this poster seemed to imply...

for all this babbling about chick vs. prick it turns out that women and men actually agree on what a really good film is. below are IMDB's top 10 films as rated by male and female raters. lots of overlap. and it defies simple categorization: shawshank, for example, is an all male cast, but it's about friendships, "female" sorta stuff. women rated Lord of the Rings highly, but it's all swords and sorcery, isn't that "prick" stuff?

Females top 10
1.The Shawshank Redemption/#2 for males
2.The Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King/#12 males
3. Schindler's List/#11 males
4. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring/#21
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers/#29 males
6. The Godfather (1972)/#1 males
7. Rear Window (1954)/#17 males
8. Casablanca (1942)/#9 males
9. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)/#7 males
10. Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Le (2001)/#41 males


Males top 10
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. Pulp Fiction (1994)
5. Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966)
6. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
7. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
8. Shichinin no samurai (1954)
9. Casablanca (1942)
10. Star Wars (1977)

Judging by that, maybe there really is something to LotR FILMS being more popular with women due to the attractiveness of it's actors.


This makes we wonder what the male/female split will be with The Hobbit. And maybe they really will only ring in the girls if they find attractive actors again...else it will be one-sided? :hmm: Or maybe they should just make it a horror film :wow: :lol:- Chicks Dig Scary Movies (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20293304,00.html)

Bilbo is a critical choice naturally. How old was he in The Hobbit? About Frodo's age wasn't he? Need another young (and short :lol:) actor.

They were both exactly the same age when they went off on their adventures, but Film Frodo is actually younger than Canon Frodo: Film Frodo is supposedly about 33 (about 21 in human terms) in the film, whereas Canon Frodo was 50 (about 33 in human terms.) The films don't adhere to the book's timeline, you see.

Film Bilbo should not be portrayed as dishy as Film Frodo was. :whistle:

While searching something quite unrelated I came across this and I thought it was interesting, especially since all 3 LotR films are on the female list :wow: :hmm: I found this intriguing cause I also thought the LotR STORY was geared towards males as this poster seemed to imply...

It was a common misperception about the Tolkien fandom, that more geeky blokes were into LotR than women were. :cool:

But women like male buddy stuff. Women also like war movies. I certainly do. One of my favourite TV series is Band of Brothers. And one of my favourite films is The Shawshank Redemption, which has no female characters.

But I also like strong roles for women, obviously, and LotR had a couple of memorable female characters, at least.

This being written, I do worry greatly that TH2 will perform poorly with women if there is NOT a strong female character in TH1. There are other ways to make the film appeal to modern women: but that would be the easiest.


Adding to what Pearl said above, I'd say that this is a bit of a misconception. I dont think that Arwen or Galadriel in FotR were particulsrly important in growing the female demographic.


lc - don't cling on to the *one* aspect of these films I discussed above. Essentially, the men can be as hunkish as they like, the film won't attract women if it isn't the right kind of story.

Shawshank redemption is a great example. All male cast (pretty much), and at least IMHO no-one among the cast could be described as exceptionally good-looking in that sort of simplistic teenage way.

All in all, I'd say you probably know exactly what I am on about. It's not as if you can't go on about the 'qualities' of certain actresses in various films, and have done so around the place - and that's perfectly OK, of course. Moreover, that doesn't mean that this is the only thing that gets you into the cinema, but it doesn't hurt, surely? Women are multui-taskers, so they can swoon over one, or even three characters and still enjoy the film for its structure, characterisation and a number of other things. Many will be bored if all they are served with is hunk.



I think what increased the female audience from FotR to TTT is perhaps not much different from what brought the men back, and increased their numbers: it's got a gripping story (although it took immense work to actually tranfer this to the screen, IMHO) and a wonderfully mixed set of characters - there are different characters to appeal to different senses of humour, a number of different personalities to identify with for different people, and yes, different people to swoon over as well. And don't underestimate women's ability to identify with male heroes - I think many women do that quite matter-of-factly, and probably have done so for times immemorial.

I think the reason why the number of women specifically rose between TTT and FotR is that FotR (and its DVDs) busted a few prejudices among those who didn't know the books and assumed that they were for nerdish boys only....




Actually, Bloom probably is a pretty good actor: he is just constantly cast as the straight man relative to other much more "wet" characters (Gimli, Captain Jack, etc.). Supposedly he did a pretty competent job in his one "chick flick" film (not that I saw it!), and he did well playing Paris in Troy (although he was criticized by ignorant critics for making Paris seem "spineless": however, I think that some guy named Homer had something to do with that!)

You may be right.... I am not sure. He was OK in that chick flick with Kirten Dunst (and I can't recall its name right now). He was somewhat overwhelmed in Kingdom of heaven (which had him in the lead, no less).

Paris was total type casting. The Homeric requirement is basically 'look pretty and shoot a bow'. Who would you have hired back in ca. 2003? There was only one obvious choice in the right age group! Like almost all casting in that film it was a very good choice, and the characterisation was perfectly appropriate. Shame about the script and the direction, though, which made the whole film so mediocre - and that was obviously not Bloom's fault. I think he is OK but not great. ANd I am guessing his career is over, pretty much.

They were both exactly the same age when they went off on their adventures, but Film Frodo is actually younger than Canon Frodo: Film Frodo is supposedly about 33 (about 21 in human terms) in the film, whereas Canon Frodo was 50 (about 33 in human terms.) The films don't adhere to the book's timeline, you see.Yes and no. Remember, Frodo got the Ring at 33 and thus was frozen at 33, just as Bilbo was frozen at 50. Thus, Frodo should have been played by someone who looked around 21. (He also should have been "fair of face" given Gandalf's description, or at least fairer than the other hobbits!)

To that end, Bilbo should have been still 50 (~33) at the outset of the film, and not too much older in the middle of the first film. (He should have been geriatric at the end, however.)

So, Wood was the right age: but Ian Holmes really was much too old. In some ways, it is a shame that they did not get a younger actor: then they could have used him again in TH. However, Holmes did give a great performance, and I am not so fanboy as to wish for a more "age appropriate" actor.
It was a common misperception about the Tolkien fandom, that more geeky blokes were into LotR than women were. :cool:I do not think that it was a misperception. The few Tolkien sites that kept track of sex show that males are by far the majority. What is interesting, however, is that it seems that 30-40 year old women dominate the posts. It is like an ecosystem where species from one group are the majority of the taxa present, but that species from the other group represent the majority of the individuals: women account for a greater "diversity" of posts than do men on Tolkien groups, but men account for a greater "richness" of posts than do women.

So, what really is the case is that the "first principal component" of Tolkien fandom is young men. However, there is a prominent "second principal component" of somewhat older female fans. (Yup, ecology lingo and stats lingo all in one post: I'm on fire today!)


The other thing that I think that people are forgetting is that, just as for the HP films, the "hardcore fanbase" is a tiny segment of the market. Rings really demonstrated that in a few ways: The (then) record setting 1.8 million hits on the first teaser trailer sounded great: until you remember that this was worldwide and that many of these hits likely were by the same people. As one skeptic noted at the time, everyone who would want to see the movie watched that trailer. However, over 50M people saw Fellowship in N. America alone, and likely around another 100M worldwide. And, of course, many people saw Towers and King after only renting Fellowship.
The great "fan treat" extended trailer for The Two Towers (a week after the Oscars) was a huge event for Tolkien fans: but it had no effect on ticket sales; A Beautiful Mind (the Oscar winner) sold nearly an identical amount of tickets without the huge fanbase, and Fellowship showed a slight drop relative to the prior weekend.
King had outstanding repeat ticket sales at an estimated 8% (according to New Line in early 2004). That means that 56+M people bought tickets, with another 5M tickets being sold to prior viewers. Take away those 5M, and you still have a huge hit (over $400M today).The upshot? If TH1 is going to bring people back for TH2, then TH1 must appeal to Joe and Jane Public the way that Fellowship did. Unlike Fellowship, it probably will have close to a 50:50 split in males:females simply because so many women watched and liked Return of the King. The issue is, what proportion of those women will come back for TH2? And will the reasons why those that do not return stay away match the reasons why men skip TH2 after seeing TH1?

Dividing a story that could be told in one film into two films is going to lose enough viewers as it is: New Line would be foolish to risk alienating the other half of the sky. But that begs the question: how can they do that?

And don't underestimate women's ability to identify with male heroes - I think many women do that quite matter-of-factly, and probably have done so for times immemorial.

:tu: Absolutely. :cool:

I also like strong heroines too, of course. :relax:

Yes and no. Remember, Frodo got the Ring at 33 and thus was frozen at 33, just as Bilbo was frozen at 50. Thus, Frodo should have been played by someone who looked around 21.

Fair point. Psychologically, though, Frodo comes across in the book as quite an experienced and mature thirtysomething, rather than an untried youth.

(He also should have been "fair of face" given Gandalf's description, or at least fairer than the other hobbits!)

You are preaching to the converted here. ;) I was always of the opinion that Frodo Baggins should be portrayed as a relatively attractive individual. :angel: Even if I never quite envisaged the angelic Renaissance-style beauty of Frolijah. :yuhup:

(Sean Astin mirrored my mental image of Sam to a quite uncanny degree too.)

The other thing that I think that people are forgetting is that, just as for the HP films, the "hardcore fanbase" is a tiny segment of the market.

Oh, absolutely. I never forget that fact for a moment. :cool: Well ... usually not, anyway. :p

Dividing a story that could be told in one film into two films is going to lose enough viewers as it is: New Line would be foolish to risk alienating the other half of the sky. But that begs the question: how can they do that?

Indeed. :shrug:

This is both serious yet tongue-in-cheek (http://www.mania.com/7-rules-for-making-hobbit-movie_article_119021.html): and sarcasm aside, I generally agree with it!

This is both serious yet tongue-in-cheek (http://www.mania.com/7-rules-for-making-hobbit-movie_article_119021.html): and sarcasm aside, I generally agree with it!

Hahahaha.... I love that article and I also agree with most of it. Especially the The Hobbit-should-be-one-movie rule.

Besides I'm still hoping someone will someday make a Silmarillion film. Not the entire book, but just a small part of it. In particular the part of the Last Alliance... Love it allready!!!! :love:

That's a great link, Wimsey! :)

And yes, much of it is pretty much spot-on.

Besides I'm still hoping someone will someday make a Silmarillion film. Not the entire book, but just a small part of it. In particular the part of the Last Alliance... Love it allready!!!! :love:The rights never have been sold, and Christopher Tolkien will not sell them.

If those rights were to be sold, however, then I think that films would be made of the individual stories within the Silm., which itself is not really a story, but a collection of tales with the unifying theme of long defeat. In particular, Beren & Luthien and The Children of Hurin are self-contained stories that could work very well. Indeed, many of the problems that we've noted for The Hobbit (too many bit characters, no females, no romance) are not issues at all for those stories. OK, there is the incest thing with The Children of Hurin, but B&L would be the ultimate geek chick flick. (I mean, seriously, what else could follow that?)


The rights issue was pertinent to the LotR script. Being Tolkien geeks, Jackson, Boyens & Walsh accidentally included things from the Silm. and Unfinished Tales. Ironically, they would have been guilty of plagiarizing Tolkien had they included them. So, those things had to be cut.

The rights never have been sold, and Christopher Tolkien will not sell them.

Damn you Christopher.... :grumble:

The bit in your link, Wimsey, about the elves, was really true. Beautiful they may have been in LoTR, but they certainly knew how to fight. In the Hobbit they sing silly songs and tease Bilbo and the dwarves. Ok for the children's story - not so good for those who want a seamless prequel.

Yes, the Elves in The Hobbit were like an RNC depiction of a gay rights rally. Obviously Tolkien did not intend it as such (if nothing else, then the stereotypes were different then!), but, then the word "gay" did not mean the same thing in 1938, either!


There is rumor (as reported by The One Ring) that December 8th is Der Tag! (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009/11/20/34316-something-is-coming/) Why they would use the 29th anniversary of John Lennon's death is a bit beyond me, but, there you have it. Hopefully we'll know who Bilbo, Thorin, etc., will be then.

(I'm still hoping that they got my audition tape.... :p)

Auditioning for which part, Wimsey? :)

Well December 8th is Dominic Monaghan's birthday, but I guess he would be out of the running for Bilbo.

There is, however, another actor with the same birthday - Matthew Rhys - not sure if he is any more than a 100 to 1 outsider, but he almost looks the part. OK I'm just grasping at straws here ...

Well, now we have a new rumour, that Stephen Fry might be a dwarf. They are going to have to get their illusion of height trickery well sorted - as he is - er - very tall :)

That sounds more like a joke than a rumor.

That is a fascinating rumour :D and I wouldn't be too perturbed if it turns out to be true. :lol:

Fry can do serious acting. He played Oscar Wilde. :cool:

Did this perhaps occur by the tweet (http://twitter.com/theoneringnet/statuses/6019761746) of the fansite TheOneRing?

Yes, I bet this is where it comes from. I am not sure that the tweet can be taken as any kind of evidence. SInce Fry was doing something at the premiere for PJ's last film, there could be various reasons why he would have met PJ and Fran Walsh....

I wouldn't rule anything out at that stage, either - but this really isn't more than a rumour.

Fry talked about the meet-up and its background on his twitter, too, but there's no hint on any roles as dwarf. That's why I assume the rumour might have developed through the retweet TOR posted. Could have another reason, though. All in all it's probably just, as assumed by all here, a rumour or joke.

All in all it's probably just, as assumed by all here, a rumour or joke.Well, even if this proves to be true in a couple of weeks, then it still is also a rumor at this point! Obviously not all of the rumors will be true, but we'll probably find that most of the truths are currently rumors: interest in this film is sufficiently high that people are paying close attention to actors interacting with Jackson & Co right now. (But this also is the way of Hollywood: every truth is leaked in advance, but packaged with 10 untruths!)

Fry is a very accomplished actor, and he actually would work well as a dwarf because he's a very tall individual, and thus would scale appropriately next to a Hobbit. However, Fry's height also means that they would need some big guys for Sleepy, Doc, etc. I could see making Thorin taller and more imposing than the rest, but Fry might be a bit much.

Now, what would be fun is if Hugh Laurie also played a dwarf: he's tall enough to not look too short next to Fry (as we've all seen!), and fans of Fry & Laurie would appreciate the jest. Of course, Laurie is too busy pretending to be a sociopathic yank these days to have time for The Hobbit....

Rumor has it that we'll know more definitive castings on the 8th. That should be fun: I remember with amusement all of the outrage ("Legolas is supposed to be blonde!" "They went for all big name actors!" "They were too cheap to cast big name actors!" "I haven't left my parents' basement in 3 years!"), but also some insightful comments back in 1999.

Rumor has it that we'll know more definitive castings on the 8th. That should be fun: I remember with amusement all of the outrage ("Legolas is supposed to be blonde!" "They went for all big name actors!" "They were too cheap to cast big name actors!" "I haven't left my parents' basement in 3 years!"), but also some insightful comments back in 1999.


Actually - the only thing we know is that something interesting will allegedly be announced on December 8th. The link is to lordoftherings.net - which could mean all sorts of things, e.g. the announcement of a bluray version of the LotR SEEs, for example... or PJ's superduper 10 year anniversdary DVD cut or whatever.

I *hope* its casting news (as do most of the fans, I'd guess) - but we really can't know at this stage....

I *hope* its casting news (as do most of the fans, I'd guess) - but we really can't know at this stage....Well, the casting announcements do need to come soon, if they are to have a film out in 24 months! McKellan did say at one point that a Bilbo had been chosen, but he later was quoted as saying that although The Hobbit script was written for him as Gandalf, they had to write it for Joe Actor where Bilbo was concerned, and that they'd obviously have to rewrite a bit once they actually cast somebody.

Still, we will know for certain in a week and a half.

Wimsey, I am pretty certain that they must have cast at least Bilbo - probably also the lead dwarves - Thorin and Balin at least. They'll start shooting sometime early in 2010 (I can't remember, but this has been mentioned somewhere). The main actors will be occupied for months. They must have cleared their diaries already.

Also, PJ has said that Script 1 is now finished and approved. Which, combined with your bit of McKellen quote, may suggest that they have adapted that to whoever they have cast.

Wimsey, I am pretty certain that they must have cast at least Bilbo - probably also the lead dwarves - Thorin and Balin at least. They'll start shooting sometime early in 2010 (I can't remember, but this has been mentioned somewhere). The main actors will be occupied for months. They must have cleared their diaries already.

Also, PJ has said that Script 1 is now finished and approved. Which, combined with your bit of McKellen quote, may suggest that they have adapted that to whoever they have cast.

It seems like it is taking forever for this movie to come. My brother just asked me about it yesterday. Wasn't it originally supposed to come out dec 2010? I am surprised we haven't had cast announcements yet, but since it's delayed to dec 2011 I guess that makes sense.

Are we going to get any aragorn or legolas this time around- if not in the hobbit then in the bridge movie? It would be so great to see them again although I know the book doesn't have those characters in it.

It seems like it is taking forever for this movie to come. My brother just asked me about it yesterday. Wasn't it originally supposed to come out dec 2010? I am surprised we haven't had cast announcements yet, but since it's delayed to dec 2011 I guess that makes sense.

Are we going to get any aragorn or legolas this time around- if not in the hobbit then in the bridge movie? It would be so great to see them again although I know the book doesn't have those characters in it.


Well, there was a whole series of legal issues on the way - about who owned the rights (with owners of part of the rights being sold at some stage) and a very long drawn out disagreement between Peter Jackson and New Line, as well as a lawsuit between the Tolkien Estate and New Line (decided only weeks ago).

If this weren't such a lucrative franchise, no-one would have bothered, I'd guess.




There won't be a bridge film - they changed their mind and split the Hobbit into two films :grumble:

So, I actually hope we won't get Aragorn (we might otherwise get the icky image with Arwen looking like Arwen in LotR with a small child Aragorn).


I think there is a very good chance that Legolas will be involved. The book doesn't mention him, but it seems quite plausible that legolas would be there when his father Thranduil goes to war....

Oh dear, here's a gloomy piece of news. Peter Jackson has been quoted as saying filming will be delayed to "the middle of next year" - and - "we've received no green light from the studio yet".

Groan.

Indeed.... this is gloomy. Though I can't see how on earth they could possibly not greenlight a goldmine like this - this is as safe a bet as anything in the film business can ever get. Not 100% but pretty close....

The worry will have to be that if shooting is delayed, the films might be pushed by a whole year back. I would assume that they will really want to go for the Christmas slot again - that's where this kind of film surely does best....

Oh dear, here's a gloomy piece of news. Peter Jackson has been quoted as saying filming will be delayed to "the middle of next year" - and - "we've received no green light from the studio yet".

Groan.

Really? Do you have the link? That's awful. I feel like it is already taking forever as it is. I thought we were going to at least get some casting news already.

phoenix - all the latest news can be found at theonering.net

they usually get things before the imdb site as they have many wordwide fans gleaning information - this particular one from Germany.

I just saw this link on ew. Apparently casting is moving forward!!!

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/11/30/the-hobbit-production-could-begin-by-mid-2010-and-casting-is-moving-forward/

Ohhhh... nice link, Phoenix. Catching news before TORN (theonering.net) does is quite a feat, and you have managed it! :)

And this looks quite a bit better... :)

So, I actually hope we won't get Aragorn (we might otherwise get the icky image with Arwen looking like Arwen in LotR with a small child Aragorn).

Hahahaha.....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew.

I kind of wish they were still doing the "bridge" movie, but instead of a bridge movie it should have just been a romantic comedy about young Aragorn and (not young) Arwen. For some reason I feel like that would be hilarious. And I can just imagine all the other elves spreading rumors about how Arwen likes younger guys (WAY younger).

Anyway, The Hobbit. Yeah, this is taking too long. I want it NOW. But not in two parts.

So the second movie is not going to be a bridge movie anymore? Aw, I think I would have preferred that actually to just splitting up the hobbit. It would have been interesting to see some of the appendices.

So the second movie is not going to be a bridge movie anymore? Aw, I think I would have preferred that actually to just splitting up the hobbit. It would have been interesting to see some of the appendices.

I agree, to an extent. I have to admit that I expected the bridge movie (as was planned originally) with some suspicion. They would have had to invent a lot, well, almost everything except a very bare outline.

Nevertheless, I would have enjoyed it particularly if we had been given a good deal of Aragron's backstory.

I agree, to an extent. I have to admit that I expected the bridge movie (as was planned originally) with some suspicion. They would have had to invent a lot, well, almost everything except a very bare outline.

Nevertheless, I would have enjoyed it particularly if we had been given a good deal of Aragron's backstory.

Yes, that was what I was hoping for- more on aragorn and how he ended up being a ranger, etc.

Yes, that was what I was hoping for- more on aragorn and how he ended up being a ranger, etc."Wanted: Males of Arnorian descent, highly educated in ancient lore but without more than three pennies to their name, willing to go extremely long times without bathing. Retirement benefits starting at age 180."

So now our speculation about what will be announced on December 8th will have to wait another week. On December 15, apparently, we will learn something ... What a patient lot we are.

They are doing casting this week, it is being reported. Interestingly, Jackson said that only Gandalf is cast: people now are worried that Weaving and Serkis will not be returning.

One female is going to be cast. There is speculation that one of the dwarves will be female. Of course, given what Tolkien writes, Bilbo probably would not have known if one of them was a woman! Of course, Tolkien thought that you could ride hundreds of miles on a horse with a woman and think she was a man. Even the snails do not delve this deeply into their shells! :cool:


It will be interesting to see what this does to the female audience for pt. 2. Nothing good, I am betting.

EDIT: Oh, and the big announcement(s) has (have) been postponed to the 15th.

Hmmm. I wonder what they're going to announce?! It's exciting they've started casting now! I'm pretty excited for this movie although I've never read the book. I have the LOTR books and 'The Silmarillion' but I don't have 'The Hobbit'.

I hope Weaving comes back!

Of course, given what Tolkien writes, Bilbo probably would not have known if one of them was a woman! Of course, Tolkien thought that you could ride hundreds of miles on a horse with a woman and think she was a man. Even the snails deeply into shells! :cool:


Huh? :huh: Definitely don't remember this from the books... :whistle:


And what's meant by "even the snails deeply into shells"...British phrase? :hmm:

Huh? :huh: Definitely don't remember this from the books... :whistle:
In the book Merry rides behind Eowyn to Minas Tirith -he believed her when she said she was a man called Dernhelm (it was changed in the film)

In the book Merry rides behind Eowyn to Minas Tirith -he believed her when she said she was a man called Dernhelm (it was changed in the film)Just to show how goofy the idea is, it is obvious that a lot of the Riders are women in the films: fake beards and chainmail just do not hide the dimorphic shoulders or all of the curves!

However, the old myths love this sort of thing: women disguising themselves as men to do heroic deeds. Feminists hate this, as the "moral" to the stories were that women could not do great deeds as women. Miranda Otto complained about this herself: they did film scenes (some of which made trailers for The Two Towers) in which Éowyn leads the women of Rohan against the Uruks that Théoden rode past. Otto was upset because that was the only time Éowyn (or anybody for that matter) was shown fighting as a woman.

Personally, I would like to see that scene some day: but perhaps that is just because I am "pro" anything that means more Miranda Otto! (Second hottest chick in the films, right after Legolas.... :p)


I, too, now am curious about what the big announcements will be next week. "It's been 8 years since Fellowship" just does not sound like much of an announcement.

Saw THIS (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=61519) on comingsoon.net!
PJ says that two LOTR stars in addition to Ian McKellan will most likely be returning! Weaving as Elrond and Cate Blanchette as Galadriel!

I hope it's true! Weaving is one of my favorites from the LOTR movies!

Huh, why is Galadriel going to be in the film?

I would have expected Serkis to be the other returning actor, not Blanchett.

Huh, why is Galadriel going to be in the film?

I would have expected Serkis to be the other returning actor, not Blanchett.

What about orlando bloom? I am sure there are lot of people out there, women probably like myself, who would love to see him back!

The paragraph on Comingsoon.net is only a fraction of the interview.

Click here to read the full interview (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1627796/story.jhtml), now with a short video clip.

Peter Jackson Reveals Which 'LOTR' Stars Will Return For 'The Hobbit'
Dec 8 2009 6:37 PM EST
BEVERLY HILLS, California — Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" movies thrilled millions of moviegoers, endeared themselves to us, and touched fans so deeply that many feel like Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the Grey, Aragorn, and the rest are members of the family. It's no surprise, then, that they've spent the six years since "Return of the King" wondering if we'll ever see those characters onscreen again. Now, Jackson is hard at work prepping a return to Middle-earth with "The Hobbit" and has revealed to us that three — and only three — of the "Rings" actors will be returning for the family reunion.

"Gandalf, being a 2,000-year-old wizard, is still around and plays a major role in 'The Hobbit,' and we're having Ian McKellen reprise," explained the filmmaker, who is executive-producing the flick and writing the screenplay. "There's a couple of other characters: Elrond, who was played by Hugo Weaving [in the original films], and there's a possibility of Galadriel, who was played by Cate Blanchett."

With that, the fiercely loyal-to-J.R.R. Tolkien filmmaker shot down any talk of folks like Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, Viggo Mortensen or John Rhys-Davies being shoehorned into the prequel via flashback, flash-forward, dream sequence or any other Hollywood trickery — as much as some fans might like to see them again.

"In some respects, it's a prequel," Jackson said of the flick, which he plans to begin filming in mid-2010. "In book terms, the world of 'The Hobbit' takes place 60 years before 'The Lord of the Rings,' as it was written by Tolkien. So, not a lot of the characters actually feature, because they weren't around yet."

As for the film itself — the first of two planned "Hobbit" flicks — Jackson gave us an update. "Guillermo Del Toro is the director of 'The Hobbit' — we're producing it for him — and I'm involved in the scriptwriting, which I love," he explained. "Screenwriting is my favorite part of the whole process. I'm very happy being one of the writing team on 'The Hobbit,' and we've written the first script. It's two movies, and we've written the first script, which the studio responded well to. And we're now halfway through the second script."

"At this rate," he said, "we're on target to begin shooting the first half of next year."

As for his returning stars, the filmmaker, whose "The Lovely Bones" hits theaters later this month, said McKellen is onboard, and he has no fear that Weaving and Blanchett would be willing to return as well.

"They are elves, so once again, in the realm of Middle-earth, they're immortal, they don't age," he said of Galadriel and Elrond, the only returning "LOTR" main roles besides Gandalf in his script. "We have a process that would start with showing them the script. We're not [beginning] any official process until we have the 'official' script that they can read."

I was also expecting the three returning actors would be McKellen, Weaving and Andy Serkis. But Serkis has been mentioned and spoken to before, so I'm not too worried.

Unless more was said off-record, I think this interviewer is putting too much of his own spin on what little Jackson actually said.

Huh, why is Galadriel going to be in the film?

I would have expected Serkis to be the other returning actor, not Blanchett.

The activities of the White Council wil be shown. But if they are asking Blanchett to come back, I think we can be pretty confident that this won't be too long: AFAIK she is running a theatre and doing a lot of theatre work in Australia (at leasgt last I heard this is what she was doing). ANyway - as last time, I'd expect that she won't be there for long....

I was also expecting the three returning actors would be McKellen, Weaving and Andy Serkis. But Serkis has been mentioned and spoken to before, so I'm not too worried.

Unless more was said off-record, I think this interviewer is putting too much of his own spin on what little Jackson actually said.We saw the same thing with the Harry Potter films, when it was not immediately announced that Gary Oldman would be reprising Sirius Black for Order.

As for Orli, my guess is that he might want to avoid these sorts of roles for a while. He got typecast as the action/adventuring teen-hearthrob, and although he's done well from it (the summed box offices of his films must surpass that of any other actor this decade), he seems to have higher aspirations.

I'm really giving up hope of being cast as Bilbo by now.... :(

Wimsey - the IMDB reports that casting in New Zealand for The Hobbit starts this week - and gives addresses to send your pic and resume - it's not too late :)

What about orlando bloom? I am sure there are lot of people out there, women probably like myself, who would love to see him back!

I doubt so. Legolas wasn't in the Hobbit, was he?



I'm really giving up hope of being cast as Bilbo by now.... :(

Oh, are you an actor? That's cool.

Oh, are you an actor? That's cool.:lol:

No. I am, however, a bit of a clown.... :cool:

By the way, in a TimesOnline article from last week (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6942759.ece), Andy Serkis states that he's getting ready to play Gollum again. So, at least he thinks that he is on board!

Fingers crossed that Serkis returns.

By the way, in a TimesOnline article from last week (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6942759.ece), Andy Serkis states that he's getting ready to play Gollum again. So, at least he thinks that he is on board!


As long as he thinks he's in it I believe him... I don't think he would say that without a good reason....

What about orlando bloom? I am sure there are lot of people out there, women probably like myself, who would love to see him back!

I doubt so. Legolas wasn't in the Hobbit, was he?


Well.....

Legolas' father features in his palace, and then stages a big campaign. Including legolas would be neither unlikely nor too far-fetched, I'd say. I don't thibk any but the most fervent purists could complain about that.....

Given that the Hobbit is Bilbo's tale we can even excuse his absence from the book, since Bilbo simply never heard what Thranduil's son was called, at least not before he finished his book....



As for Orli, my guess is that he might want to avoid these sorts of roles for a while. He got typecast as the action/adventuring teen-hearthrob, and although he's done well from it (the summed box offices of his films must surpass that of any other actor this decade), he seems to have higher aspirations.

Well, I wouldn't mind not seeing Legolas again - but I would guess that PJ and GDT might at least play with the idea, because he certainly contributed to the box office.....

Orli might be off to do other things, but he also owes PJ big time. Would be hard to turn that down, I'd guess....

Given that the Hobbit is Bilbo's tale we can even excuse his absence from the book, since Bilbo simply never heard what Thranduil's son was called, at least not before he finished his book....Indeed, Thranduil himself is never named! I once remember reading some crazy idea that the Elven King was not Thranduil, and that Bilbo stumbled upon a different elf-kingdom. It was all centered around, of course, hair-color. The Elven King has golden hair, but all Tolkien fans (including the Professor, of course) know that Thranduil was a Sindarin elf and thus had black hair, like his son Legolas surely did. Thus, the movies were wrong for making Legolas a blonde and could not use The Hobbit as a justification because any good Tolkien fan immediately realized that we were not reading about Legolas' father there.

Of course, the fact that Gloín seemed to think that it was Legolas' people who had imprisoned him was not included in the argument..... :sigh:
Well, I wouldn't mind not seeing Legolas again - but I would guess that PJ and GDT might at least play with the idea, because he certainly contributed to the box office.....True! It actually would not be the dumbest idea in the world to replace Thranduil with Legolas: Leggy could be deputizing for his father. I usually warn against "sequels" asking audiences to remember characters: for example, it was pretty obvious that a lot people had no idea who Lupin or Tonks were in Half-Blood Prince. However, Legolas certainly made a bigger impression than any tertiary Harry Potter character did, and it would be just one fewer "new" face for the audience to have to absorb.

There will be enough of those as it is!


EDIT: It's slightly a side topic, but [url=http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-issue-of-the-decade#content]Entertainment Weekly dubbed Lord of the Rings the #1 Film "Epic" (at least they know what the word "Epic" means! :lol:) of the decade. Actually, it was just listed as #1: #2 went to Dark Knight, #3 to the James Bond Reboot, etc. Harry Potter placed #8 as "Franchise," although one could make the argument that Pirates and Shrek topped it as Franchises on a per-movie basis. (Spidey did, too, but it was #4 as "The Super Hero": Dark Knight was "Blockbuster.")

Stuff like this should help bring attention back to Middle-earth and renew audience interest in The Hobbit.

So was that the big announcement today? :/ LOTR is the biggest "EPIC" film of the decade? :lol:
Did we get the big announcement/surprise that they said was coming today?

I see on onering.net that the latest rumor (which I see has also been squashed) that Tobey Maguire was in talks to play Bilbo in 'The Hobbit'.
I like Toby....but I have to say I'm happy that this one is not true! :sigh:

Of course, the fact that Gloín seemed to think that it was Legolas' people who had imprisoned him was not included in the argument..... :sigh:


Yeah, Gloin was like, "You were not as tender toward me." during the "Many Meetings" chapter of the Lord of the Rings-when Legolas reported the Mirkwood elves had lost Gollum. It was explicitly mentioned that Gloin was imprisoned under Thranduil.

So was that the big announcement today? :/ LOTR is the biggest "EPIC" film of the decade? :lol:
Did we get the big announcement/surprise that they said was coming today?



The big announcement was the release of the first ever BluRay edition of LotR on 6th April. ANd it isn't even the extended versions! I don't have BluRay and am not bothered about it anyways - but even people who do seemed to be rather 'meh' about it....


Blood Prince. However, Legolas certainly made a bigger impression than any tertiary Harry Potter character did, and it would be just one fewer "new" face for the audience to have to absorb.


I think you are understating the case. It's not just about remembering a secondary character - for quite a few people Legolas was the most important character in LotR. The character for whom they came back to see the films again, and to see the sequels.

Even if some of the women have now grown beyond Legolas swooning age, they'd sure remember him, and may well be convinced to see the Hobbit mainly to see Legolas again, even if it is just for a short while.

Moreover, unlike most characters teenage girls get excited about, Legolas didn't evoke too much rage among teenage boys - I assume that his stunts made him cool enough to be remembered among that group, too.

Of course, all the teenagers of those days are now in their 20s, but if Star Wars is anything to go by, big successful franchises do evoke a certain kind of nostalgia (and no, I am not suggsting that nostalgia in this case will be in any way as big as with SW).

Anyway - I am always amazed how many Legolas avatars one still sees around even on sites that aren't LotR related, so I assume that he really still has a fairly faithful fanbase.... :)



Not so sure about Legolas completely substituting his father - but if one wanted to give him a more high profile role there should be an easy way of sending him off with the troops, which would give him a pretty significant (and potantially stunt-filled) role for TH2.

I have to declare myself completely indifferent on this point - I don't really mind what they are doing, except that including Legolas would indeed be commercial common sense in a film where the cast isn't going to satisfy a range of demographics in quite the same way as LotR so easily did.

But I am generaly not very fond of or interested in elves (book or movie), so I really don't care much personally, I have to admit....

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b164103_hobbit_pulls_spider-man.html?utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=imdb_tv-movies

Pulls a Spider-Man? :huh: Don't they mean a Half-Blood Prince? :lol:

Well, this is good news for DH...but it would have been kinda fun to see 'em battle it out at the B.O. again, as with SS/PS and FotR :shrug:

I was clicking around on the Internet Movie Data Base this evening, and nearly fell off my chair - as they have (admittedly with a "Rumoured" tag) the name Erryn Arkin next to Bilbo on the Hobbit Movie Part 1. cast list.

Has anyone else heard this? The IMDB doesn't often get it completely wrong - but it hasn't turned up on The One Ring site.

He's a young Australian, with a few episodes of Home and Away to his name - more than that I have no idea.

Thoughts?

He looks very hobbity! I'm sick of the usual suspects. I want a new face!

Woah - I had not come across this yet. Will have to check this ... can't the imdb be edited by users? It's difficult to do something with anything imdb-related without any other confirmation.....

Thanks for reporting this! I am in charge of news reporting on a LotR site, so will have to run off and snoop around a bit ASAP!

Pulls a Spider-Man? Don't they mean a Half-Blood Prince?

You could call it "pulling an HBP," but it is "pulling a Spidey" too; Spider-Man 4 was planned for the summer of next year, but it's been pushed back to 2012 (and it's no longer Spider-Man 4, but a reboot of the franchise).

Woah - I had not come across this yet. Will have to check this ... can't the imdb be edited by users? It's difficult to do something with anything imdb-related without any other confirmation.....

Yeah, the IMDb can be edited by members, and they also often seem to be the last to update things like cast lists. (I remember Fiona Shaw and RIchard Griffiths were on the Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince cast list until just before the film opened.) The news of Bilbo's casting will eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverywhere once it's official.

Woah - I had not come across this yet. Will have to check this ... can't the imdb be edited by users? It's difficult to do something with anything imdb-related without any other confirmation.....
IMDb can be edited by users but the edits do not go through right away. This is from many of the emails i have received after updating some things:

Thank you for contributing to the IMDb. A detailed receipt for your update is included below. The information you supplied has been passed to the IMDb data managers for verification.

You could call it "pulling an HBP," but it is "pulling a Spidey" too; Spider-Man 4 was planned for the summer of next year, but it's been pushed back to 2012 (and it's no longer Spider-Man 4, but a reboot of the franchise).

Well, whatever the reasons for those other films - with the Hobbit it's clear that they were simply too slow. Looks as if PJ and del Toro arent in a hurry at all. They started very late on the script, took ages over it (the first one was delivered sometime in autumn, AFAIK, the second is still due).

Although they've started building things (Hobbiton!!) they obviously don't have a full cast yet, and if one adapts the schedule for LotR to two films, they are basically already getting late now. They'd have to start shooting about now, or very soon, to be done by December, just in order to get post-production for film 1 done. Yet, the scripts aren't yet confirmed by the studios, there isn't an official budget (although I am sure they can expoect a generous allowance), and there is no sense that shooting could possibly be imminent. Thus, Christmas 2012 it almost has to be for TH1....



Yeah, the IMDb can be edited by members, and they also often seem to be the last to update things like cast lists. (I remember Fiona Shaw and RIchard Griffiths were on the Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince cast list until just before the film opened.) The news of Bilbo's casting will eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverywhere once it's official.

Oh yes, it will be!

:)

IMDb can be edited by users but the edits do not go through right away. This is from many of the emails i have received after updating some things:

Thanks for that information! :)
Thing is, even if they vet the information, how are they going to verify it? There is a reason that this hasn't yet hit any news sites (as IEAP points out). They are discussing it at the TORN boards, I saw when I googled round a bit. Which means TORN knows it but isn;t posting, because of lack of confirmation. And they are in a position to phone up insiders about rumours of that kind (that's how they have refuted a few that have been circulating lately).




Of course, all the abov doesn't mean that this rumour has to be inaccurate....

He looks very hobbity! I'm sick of the usual suspects. I want a new face!

Me too! :agree:

And a lot of really great Aussie actors cut their teeth on Home and Away and Neighbours. :lol: I'll never forget my shock in recognising Guy Pearce in L.A. Confidential! :D. ("Wait, he looks just like that bloke from Neighbours ... oh, he is". :yuhup: )

Here's Erryn. Handsome dude. I can see hobbity potential in those features:

http://www.errynarkin.com/Erryn%20Arkin%20Nov%2009.jpg

If, of course, he is Bilbo. ;)

But, yes, a relative unknown would be a good thing. :tu:

He certainly looks as if he could grow old to look like Ian Holm in his 70s.
But then, someone might have seen the resemblance and created the rumour.....

That would not surprise me in the slightest. :D

Well, perhaps it was all rumour after all, as Erryn's name has now disappeared from the cast list at IMDB. Oh well, back to waiting ...

I don't know if anyone saw it, but Entertainment Weekly reported that Sir Ian McKellen posted on his website that the Hobbit will finally start filming in New Zealand (obvs) this July.

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/03/18/ian-mckellan-hobbit-july/

Well, over at TORN there seems to be an "official" press release. As it is the 1st April today, I'm taking everything I read with a pinch of salt - :) - but they say principal photography will begin in Wellington in October, and "The Lord of the Rings franchise stars (in alphabetical order) Cate Blanchett, Marton Csokas, Martin Freeman, Mark Ferguson, Sir Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving with other cast members to be announced before production begins."

Martin Freeman?????

Well, over at TORN there seems to be an "official" press release. As it is the 1st April today, I'm taking everything I read with a pinch of salt - :) - but they say principal photography will begin in Wellington in October, and "The Lord of the Rings franchise stars (in alphabetical order) Cate Blanchett, Marton Csokas, Martin Freeman, Mark Ferguson, Sir Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving with other cast members to be announced before production begins."

Martin Freeman?????

The pinch of salt isn't big enough for me... I'm eying every news article with suspicion today. It's awfull... :shrug: Anyway.. I didn't even know who Martin Freeman was, I had to look it up. I can imagine him playing a younger Bilbo. I just wish they would let us know who all the other cast members are. It's taking them forever...:sad:

Terrible news. Guillermo del Toro has dropped as director of the films.

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/05/30/guillermo-del-toro-drops-hobbit/

del Toro was the next best thing to Jackson as director, in my opinion. This is really bad news and I'm starting to think the movie is cursed.

On the other hand, I think this is a sign that Pete is meant for the job. New Line needs to get over themselves and throw as much money at him as they possibly can so he can direct.

Wow, this is really disappointing. A great deal of my anticipation for this movie was due to Guillermo Del Toro directing. This project has seemed almost doomed for a while, but hopefully it won't be so.

Indeed this is a sad news. I think this might be a sign that Jackson was meant to direct it from the beninning.