It's a quick read...I recently re-read it out of boredom and not feeling any of the other books I have piled up. Think I burnt through it in a
weekend.
It will be interesting to see where they split the movies up. They're adding quite a bit of material from the appendices of LotR to fill in the blanks
of what was happening every time Gandalf left all of them to fend for themselves throughout the story. Most notably the White Council casting the
Necromancer from Dol Guldur, which in non geek speak means we should get to see a crazy wizard fight involving Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel (among
others) vs Sauron.
I'd imagine the first one will end shortly before they enter Mirkwood saving any reveal of Smaug until sometime in early '13. I know that Guillermo
Del Toro was largely responsible for his design (way back when he was still directing) giving a nod to Vermithrax from Dragonslayer and saying Smaug
HAD to be the movie dragon to end all movie dragons.
While 2 movies is obviously at least in part a cash grab I can't imagine better source material to grab "fluff" from.
Yep, First one The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is Dec '12 and The Hobbit: there and Back Again is Dec '13.
After those two I can't see them making any more movies, especially Jackson as these have basically taken 15 years of his life (and made him assloads
of cash).
It's possible Children of Hurin could be adapted at some point but the only other "complete" book the Silmarillion is way to epic to even attempt.
I am super stoker for this movie. It makes sense to do it in two films for no other reason than to make it ever more so a prequel to LOTR. If they
didn't include the White Council stuff all that would connect it is Bilbo getting the One Ring in what is on the face of it just a small part of the
tale that doesn't carry the weight that it actually has as a plot point fir LOTR.
The whole movie is shot in 3d, so that should be cool. I watched a video diary from Jackson today and he said he would have shot LOTR in 3d had it
been manageable.
Yeah its not only 3D but some crazy hi def film that is beyond human comprehension...mine anyway lol. So this isn;t going to be some Piranha 3D, but
completely genre defining bar setting 3D ala Avatar.
The more I think about it...I really can't figure out where they'd split these two movies to give the 1st a climax...
You figure in the 2nd one...not only do they have all the shit with Smaug...but you also have the Battle of Five Armies, which you know PJ is going to
completely blow his wad on if Helms Deep and Pelennor both set their respective benchmarks.
Maybe after they escape Mirkwood? But that would be a lot to pack in the first movie. I can't see the escape from Goblin Town or the wargs shortly
after as a dramatic climax, but maybe they get beefed up.
The escape from Goblin Town and the wargs makes sense. The rescue by the eagles would work. Plus, Bilbo has the ring at that point. That is going to
be made a muchlarger story point than Tolkien originally made it.
Funny thing is how the tone is going to be pretty different from the book, which is after all a children's story. I think the movies will be more in
line with LOTR.
Yeah, plus after the eagles, Beorns place would be a nice start to pt 2.
There definitely will be a different tone, but I think it will also steer towards the Hobbit lighter fare too since it seems they're adding the songs
in.
Yeah, plus after the eagles, Beorns place would be a nice start to pt 2.
There definitely will be a different tone, but I think it will also steer towards the Hobbit lighter fare too since it seems they're adding the songs
in.
So stoked.
Man, I always loved the songs. I wish Tom Bombadil would have been in LOTR.
I'm actually less concerned about this than the 2. Two movies was stretching the Hobbit storyline out by interweaving portions of the appendices. But,
three means (since they cant really stretch the Hobbit itself out any further), means we're going to get a crap ton of the appendices on
screen...which could mean anything from the rise of the Witch King to the War of Dwarves and Orcs. Geek squeel.
Yeah, this is going to be crazy. I'm not familiar enough with the appendices but there has to be more with Bilbo than is in the book. I don t think
they'll leave him aside for the third film. The question is how do they make it all flow together seamlessly.
Yeah, this is going to be crazy. I'm not familiar enough with the appendices but there has to be more with Bilbo than is in the book. I don t think
they'll leave him aside for the third film. The question is how do they make it all flow together seamlessly.
They're saying that 1 is Dec 2012, 2 is Dec 2013 and 3 is Summer 2014....that kind of makes me think that 2 and 3 are going to be more of a split,
with not a lot of changes to 1 as it currently stands.
After all...they're not going to be able to get too much filmed in the next 6 months and prepared for part 1 unless there's zero FX involved.
Can someone put in chronological order of this story. I've never seen any of these or read the books. This movie looks really rad, much better than
the LOTR series. Since I am a reading champ these days, I think I'd like to read up on them before this movie comes out next winter.
Each aspect of the soul has it's own part to play, but the ideal is harmonious agreement with reason and control.
There's 4 "complete" stories by Tolkien: The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion. Then there is billions of pages of
incomplete legends and smaller stories.
The Hobbit is essentially The Hobbit which is pretty short so they interwove the story with elements from the appendices of Lord of the Rings, one
because it would give them filler for more movies and two...because Tolkiens "filler" is better than everyone elses non filler. Events in The Hobbit
and the LOTR appendices lead up to Lord of the Rings, so essentially in the end you're going to have a 6 movie series telling one complete story
between all 3 Hobbit movies and all three LotR.
Children of Hurin and the Silmarillion are essentially the "greek mythology" of Tolkiens universe...to all the obscure references to ages past in TH
and LOTR are basically fleshed out in there. So those would chronologically be prior to TH and LOTR...but I wouldn't recommend them unless you're
really in love with the other books. Children is the easier read of the two.
nice. i'm a fan of Martin Freeman from love actually and sherlock. he's kinda quirky, which could be funny. as in the trailer when he has that
exchange w/ gollum.
clevo, read the hobbit. it's only one book. if you like it, move on to the three books that make up the lord of the rings.
i never red children or silmarillion. i tried once as a kid and was wholly confused.
If I fail math, there goes my chance at a good job and a happy life full of hard work.
nice. i'm a fan of Martin Freeman from love actually and sherlock. he's kinda quirky, which could be funny. as in the trailer when he has that
exchange w/ gollum.
clevo, read the hobbit. it's only one book. if you like it, move on to the three books that make up the lord of the rings.
i never red children or silmarillion. i tried once as a kid and was wholly confused.
Silmarillion is a very difficult read.
Children is one of the stories fleshed out from the Silmarillion. Christopher Tolkien essentially had enough extra material and notes to expand on the
story enough to make it a novel, its between the Hobbit and LOTR as far as reading difficulty...it's short and very dark, probably Tolkiens darkest
work.
![[*]](images/thorp/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
