Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Redstar wrote:http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=67316

Apparently, Peter Jackson is in talks to direct The Hobbit himself. While he'll do it justice, I was hoping for a very Pan's Labryinth-style atmosphere.

Subtitles?

Freakzilla wrote:

Redstar wrote:http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=67316

Apparently, Peter Jackson is in talks to direct The Hobbit himself. While he'll do it justice, I was hoping for a very Pan's Labryinth-style atmosphere.

Subtitles?

Excepting for that.

SandChigger wrote:Yeah, the "2 films" bit has always struck me as just a play for more box office revenues. If Jackson could compress the three books of LotR into three movies, why does The Hobbit require two?

I enjoyed the three LotR films, but The Hobbit isn't a book I've ever thought, "Gee, I'd really like to see that made into a movie!" about, that I can remember.

I dunno, I wouldn't mind hearing Smaug's thundering dragon voice in the theater.

Kojiro wrote:I dunno, I wouldn't mind hearing Smaug's thundering dragon voice in the theater.

I want to see the goblin/orc king.

Production photos:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,2050484 ... l#20980349" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mandy wrote:

I'm really looking forward to this flick.

I have such fond memories of the book, I'm kind of anxious, too.

from that trailer, it looks to be as well-made and faithful as the Ring movies ....

I'd really like to see the primary parts of the Simarilion done the same way ...

SandRider wrote:from that trailer, it looks to be as well-made and faithful as the Ring movies ....

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. They changed a lot in the adaptation both thematically and storywise, but most people accepted those changes as necessary.

I do agree that a Silmarillion adaptation would be amazing. Morgoth would be an exciting figure.

I couldn't make it all the way through Silmarillion, ZZZzzz...

Freakzilla wrote:I couldn't make it all the way through Silmarillion, ZZZzzz...

Me either!

Mandy wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:I couldn't make it all the way through Silmarillion, ZZZzzz...

Me either!

Ditto. Can't wait for the Hobbit though.

I always did misspell that ...
anyway, That One was always my favorite ....
I was one of those that ate up the publication of the first drafts & notes & so forth ....

and no, I wasn't being sarcastic ... I thought the Ring movies were more than adequate adaptations ....
I enjoyed Tom Bombadil & the Battle of Bree as much as the next nerd, but I didn't miss them in the movie ....

and anyway:

Does that video involve the eagles flying Frodo over Mt Doom so he could just drop the ring in?

yes it do ....

That would have made the book a LOT shorter, though.

I think there's a reasonable explanation why that wouldn't've worked,
but I don't remember what it was ...

The GiantEagles were off helping the Brown wizard.

SandRider wrote:I always did misspell that ...
anyway, That One was always my favorite ....
I was one of those that ate up the publication of the first drafts & notes & so forth ....

and no, I wasn't being sarcastic ... I thought the Ring movies were more than adequate adaptations ....
I enjoyed Tom Bombadil & the Battle of Bree as much as the next nerd, but I didn't miss them in the movie ....

and anyway:

My, I fucking HATED the Tom Bombadil scene, all the way from te Barrow Wights until they left those woods. Booooooring!!!!

SandRider wrote:I think there's a reasonable explanation why that wouldn't've worked,
but I don't remember what it was ...

Because if Sauron so much as glanced at them they'd die of terror?

SandRider wrote:from that trailer, it looks to be as well-made and faithful as the Ring movies ....

I'd really like to see the primary parts of the Simarilion done the same way ...

I love the Bombadil stuff in the books, but it was necessary to cut from the movie. The issue with cutting the whole ending though is that this is where Tolkien makes one of the central points of the entire series - it's massively important to the story. I very much undertstand why they cut it, and didn't really miss it myself all that much if I'm honest - but it does seriously weaken the message.

I LOVED the movies though, most of the casting was as near perfect as it could possibly have been.

The only major changes I didn't like were the whole Ents deciding to fight bit, seems like it could have been the same bloody length anyways. Also, the way the Elves showed up at Helms Deep was ok, but that took them and everyone else out of the biggest battle of the whole series at Minas Tirath (spelling?), that whole battle was over with far too quickly in my opinion. When the sword was repaired was ok with me because it added some dramatic flare, not a big deal.

The Hobbit I am very much looking forward to.

Another fairly major change is Aragorn's character. In the movies he wants to avoid taking on his right as king; in the books he can't wait to reclaim his birthright. The change makes him fit a bit more into the modern concept of a reluctant hero - makes him more appealing to the viewer.

That's true, and there was the whole emphasis on his affair with Arwyn, but man do I still love the casting choice for him, he and Gandalf were my favourites (the hobbits were great as well).

Oh yeah, Viggo Mortenson (sp?) was perfect for Aragorn.