wow. That just made my day. All I can say is, I look foreward to next year.
Anyone wants to guess what they are gonna change compared to the books? My money is on how Smaug gets killed (oh and spoilers ... I guess).
December 14, 2012? I be hopin' they make their money back fast. They'll only have a week before world's end. Arr...
Wait....Where was "Break the dishes, smash the plates"? That's what I want to hear the Dwarves singing. ;-)
Anyone wants to guess what they are gonna change compared to the books? My money is on how Smaug gets killed (oh and spoilers ... I guess).
I read that Beorn is getting the full visual treatment. In the book he changes offstage, but I read that his metamorphosis is going to be a major effects sequence in the movie.
Wait....Where was "Break the dishes, smash the plates"? That's what I want to hear the Dwarves singing. ;-)
A couple of the scenes in the trailer showed the dwarves playing with Bilbo's plates, so I am pretty sure the song will be in there with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc
Can't wait.
Can someone fix link please? I can never post links here for some reason.
That's weird. I started another thread because I couldn't find one here. I guess my search fu must suck today. Anyway, I loved the trailer.
Anyone wants to guess what they are gonna change compared to the books? My money is on how Smaug gets killed (oh and spoilers ... I guess).Well since they are splitting it into 2 movies, good chance we won't know how he gets killed until The Hobbit: There and back again opens on Dec. 13, 2013.
If I was going to remake The Hobbit in two movies, I think I'd probably end the film with Smaug's death, then have the second movie be the buildup to the Battle of the Five Armies, ending with the battle and then Bilbo's journey back home. That would require a lot of expansion in terms of taking events that were glossed over in a few sentences and fleshing them out into longer scenes, but I think that would be the necessary way to do it. Having Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies in the same movie seems to me like it would be repeating one of the mistakes of Return of the King - the audience would assume the movie was over, be getting ready to get up and go home, only to find out that the film still has another 30-60 minutes in it.
Ah, good, next December. Time to drag my brother off to the movies next winter then :)
If I was going to remake The Hobbit in two movies, I think I'd probably end the film with Smaug's death, then have the second movie be the buildup to the Battle of the Five Armies, ending with the battle and then Bilbo's journey back home. That would require a lot of expansion in terms of taking events that were glossed over in a few sentences and fleshing them out into longer scenes, but I think that would be the necessary way to do it.
I can't agree. Yes, having the whole second movie take place after Smaug's death would indeed require expansion. Too much of it. The second movie would risk getting boring.
I think the climax of the first movie should be Bilbo fighting the spiders. Then the movie could end with the elves taking the dwarves prisoner, thus providing a cliffhanger for the second movie.
I can't agree. Yes, having the whole second movie take place after Smaug's death would indeed require expansion. Too much of it. The second movie would risk getting boring.
I think it would depend on the pacing. There was a good amount of time between Smaug's death and the eventual battle, and there was a lot of character conflict between Bilbo and the dwarves during that time. It would be tough to get right, but that's why these guys get paid millions.
I think the climax of the first movie should be Bilbo fighting the spiders. Then the movie could end with the elves taking the dwarves prisoner, thus providing a cliffhanger for the second movie.
When it comes to feature films, I generally dislike cliffhangers. I don't like paying for a movie ticket and then not having an ending. I don't mind a sequel, but I'd rather have the movie I'm watching end satisfactorily enough that I don't walk away feeling like I paid for a steak dinner and was only given an appetizer.
I have actually heard from a couple of different sources that the second movie will actually be an "in-between" story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. Nothing official, but a lot of the movie mags are reporting this.
I've heard this, and I hope it's not true. I just don't see why a fill-in story is needed. I guess maybe if somebody got hold of Tolkien's notes regarding his original plans for a Hobbit sequel (I think it was something along the lines of Bilbo going broke and needing to go adventuring again), it might be interesting, but otherwise I'd rather just keep it to The Hobbit plus The Lord of the Rings.
I think it would depend on the pacing. There was a good amount of time between Smaug's death and the eventual battle, and there was a lot of character conflict between Bilbo and the dwarves during that time. It would be tough to get right, but that's why these guys get paid millions.There are plenty of big-budget, professionally made movies that stink. Some movies get too ambitious.
When it comes to feature films, I generally dislike cliffhangers. I don't like paying for a movie ticket and then not having an ending. I don't mind a sequel, but I'd rather have the movie I'm watching end satisfactorily enough that I don't walk away feeling like I paid for a steak dinner and was only given an appetizer.
Well, okay, I guess the first movie could end with Bilbo driving off the spiders, and setting out to find the dwarves. The revelation that the dwarves were captured could wait until the second movie.
(And there's a reason Tolkien changed the sequel so that Bilbo was no longer the star: it wasn't a satisfactory story!)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I have actually heard from a couple of different sources that the second movie will actually be an "in-between" story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. Nothing official, but a lot of the movie mags are reporting this.I've heard this, and I hope it's not true. I just don't see why a fill-in story is needed. I guess maybe if somebody got hold of Tolkien's notes regarding his original plans for a Hobbit sequel (I think it was something along the lines of Bilbo going broke and needing to go adventuring again), it might be interesting, but otherwise I'd rather just keep it to The Hobbit plus The Lord of the Rings.
As I understand it, the fill-in story is mostly about what Gandalf was doing during the Hobbit; i.e., him, Galadriel, and that crew of high-level NPCs invading Dol Guldur to take on "The Necromancer." I'm not sure how much, if any, of it is devoted to the 50 years or so between the end of the Hobbit and the beginning of Fellowship.
I think the right cut point between the two movies would be when Bilbo and the barrels full of dwarves arrive at Laketown, ending as Thorin stumbles out of his barrel, announcing that the King Under the Mountain has returned.
As for the fill-in story on what Gandalf was doing while not with Bilbo and the dwarves, I think it is supposed to be mixed in with the main story and not shown on it's own.
I would think the end of the first movie should be right after Beorn, when Gandalf leaves the company and they just enter Mirkwood. Or as others have suggested right after the spider battle and the dwarves being dragged into the dungeons of the elves.
I would hazard a guess that the references to toy shops and policemen have ended up on the cutting floor. If you doubt it's there, read the book. :-)
Well, I liked Tolkien better before he became so commercialized. :-)
The Hobbit was the first big book that i read , i was only 9 year old(1989) so for me and many other this movie will mean a lot .
the Trailer is epic in every sense.
|
I have actually heard from a couple of different sources that the second movie will actually be an "in-between" story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. Nothing official, but a lot of the movie mags are reporting this.
That was the idea way back when DelToro was going to direct. The idea was abandoned quite some time ago - the two movies now will be telling the story of the Hobbit (along with elements that were only mentioned in passing in the book, like the White council and Gandalf investigating the Necromancer)
|
I have actually heard from a couple of different sources that the second movie will actually be an "in-between" story that bridges the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. Nothing official, but a lot of the movie mags are reporting this.That was the idea way back when DelToro was going to direct. The idea was abandoned quite some time ago - the two movies now will be telling the story of the Hobbit (along with elements that were only mentioned in passing in the book, like the White council and Gandalf investigating the Necromancer)
*shudder*
Thank goodness Jackson ended up doing this and not GDT...
I would hazard a guess that the references to toy shops and policemen have ended up on the cutting floor. If you doubt it's there, read the book. :-)
And don't forget the origin of the game of golf!
I just want the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" song in there. And I hope they manage to keep my favorite Tolkien line of all time: "Also, eagles aren't forks!"
I have but any version of the hobbit from the second printing on has such references removed.
Probably banished from the text along with the original ending of the riddle contest, which had Gollum being a real sport about the riddle contest and intending to peacefully give Bilbo his precious on the way out.
I'd have thought the first movie would end with them captured by the Orcs in the mountains but that would mean Bilbo meeting Gollum would happen in the 2nd movie so perhaps we have Bilbo meeting Gollum in the first movie and leaving it as they flee the mountains with the indications they're being chased so that he scond movieleads to them taking shelter in the trees when Gandalf catches up with them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised that there are so many different ideas of where the first movie should end!
Maybe it's just me, but I thought that Bilbo fighting off the spiders was a major battle, and a major turning point in the book. That was how Bilbo first showed the dwarves - and more importantly, showed HIMSELF - that he was a worthy adventurer, and not just dead weight.
(I mean, Bilbo escaped from Gollum and the goblins in that cave, but he didn't help the PARTY by doing so, only himself. And at the time, it looked as if Bilbo had to lie and keep his ring a secret to impress the dwarves. The battle against the spiders proved otherwise.)
|
The first two movies in the LotR trilogy ended with a large, exciting battle. My guess is Jackson will end the first movie with either Smaug's death or the White Council's assault on Dol Guldur.
That would indeed be a climactic battle. But ... Dol Guldur's hold over Mirkwood and the surrounding lands was not broken until after the defeat of Sauron, only then did Celeborn march on Dol Guldur to overthrew the Dark Lord's stronghold.
Galadriel then destroyed the fortress so that the forest was finally free from the shadow of the tower.
In the time period set in The Hobbit, Sauron was driven from Mirkwood but Dol Guldur did not fall. Pushing that conflict from after the end of Return of the King to The Hobbit will raise eyebrows among some fans.
|
|
Here is a link with a very brief summary of what transpires from the Encyclopedia of Arda, one of my favourite Tolkien sites.
Sauron was indeed defeated by the White Council for he had not yet grown to full strength after the loss of The One Ring, and he used Dol Guldur as a base to search for his lost creation.
Ten years after the events of The Hobbit, Sauron sends Khamûl*, The Shadow of the East and two other Ringwraiths to take command of Dol Guldur.
It is interesting to note that Khamûl is the only named Ringwraith, even the Witch King is not given that distinction.