Looks great. Looks like they've added a ton of embellishments here and there to make things more exciting, and it looks like Bard is Legolas in his Will Turner outfit, but all in all I have positive feelings.
Also, it looks like they advance the plot really, really far into the book. All that might be left is the Battle of Five Armies and the return home for the next movie. That'll be a hell of a finish, though it might get tedious at that point.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Now we just wait 6 more months.
It's weird seeing Legolas in there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Weird, but of all the changes he's making, it's probably the most reasonable.
When the studio asked Viggo if he wanted to come back as Aragorn, his response was something like "You realize these events are separated by several decades and Aragorn had nothing to do with them right?" And they never approached him again.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Apparently those articles were working with incorrect information Lyrhawn.
Well, that sort of fits in with the articles I've read before. I didn't realize there were further conversations with him about it though. But I also thought they'd totally turned away from the idea of a bridge film years ago in favor of a trilogy, so that's a big change if that's in the third movie.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Ooooh.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
That looks pretty good. I wonder who's doing the voice of Smaug? That's one of the two biggest casting decisions to me.
Smaug will talk, right? He does in the book.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Benedict Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Benedict Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug.
Well that should go well, hopefully. Certainly Cumby has the acting chops for it.
That's one of my favorite moments in all literature, the conversation between Smaug and Bilbo.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Cumberbatch was a good choice.
Ron Perlman would have been a GREAT choice.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
This looks amazing. No slowmotion this time.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: his response was something like "You realize these events are separated by several decades and Aragorn had nothing to do with them right?" And they never approached him again.
If I recall correctly, Aragorn was actually probably in Rivendell when Bilbo and company showed up.
He would have been all of ten at the time, but he had moved there by that point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: This looks amazing. No slowmotion this time.
Please, this is Peter Jackson. Copious slow motion is practically contractual.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:If I recall correctly, Aragorn was actually probably in Rivendell when Bilbo and company showed up.
He would have been all of ten at the time, but he had moved there by that point.
Really? I always thought he was older than that. Didn't he stand on that hill outside Lothlorien with the Grey Company, and the narrative implied that he had stood there something like 80 years earlier?
Edit: No, you're right, according to several websites. Huh. I need to study the stories more.
[ June 12, 2013, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: This looks amazing. No slowmotion this time.
Please, this is Peter Jackson. Copious slow motion is practically contractual.
It's so dumb in the Hobbit part 1 though. It completely neutered the final showdown to me, and the last part with the eagle was terrible. He does it in the Moria flashback too.
It has its place. One of my favorite parts of Lord of the Rings is just as Aragorn is leaving Moria. I liked it in Boromir's last stand as well.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I need to study the stories more.
The fact that you have to do that at all is one of the reasons I could never get into those books. I love the films (the Rings trilogy, anyway), but it would seriously bug me to death if I had to sit there and try to remember all those names, dates, and so on.
Still, it's cool that some people can get into it, I suppose.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I need to study the stories more.
The fact that you have to do that at all is one of the reasons I could never get into those books. I love the films (the Rings trilogy, anyway), but it would seriously bug me to death if I had to sit there and try to remember all those names, dates, and so on.
Still, it's cool that some people can get into it, I suppose.
Well, I say that, but I've never been a big fact wonk with LOTR, and I still love the books immensely. You don't really have to know all the backstory to enjoy LOTR. It helps enrich the experience some to know the background behind all the characters and the history of the land, but the books provide enough information themselves to enjoy the story and the world just fine.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
What I absolutely loved when I read the Lord of the Rings for the first time were the tantalising glimpses into a history (Gondolin, the Silmarils, etc) that was clearly fully formed but which the reader was only allowed the corner pulled back on for a quick look. They were like holes in the pages that allowed a partial view of thousands of years of rich history behind the pages we could read in detail. To me, it's one of the strengths of the book and that initial experience is one that I wish I could have over again when I reread. You don't have to remember dates and names to have that experience. Just be open to enjoying the richness of a world that should have existed.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think Cumberbatch was a good choice.
Ron Perlman would have been a GREAT choice.
Agreed. I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Perlman from his time on the original "Beauty and the Beast" TV series. The first season of that was absolutely excellent television.
However, Cumby has MASSIVE acting chops, and they can do all kinds of amazing things, digitally, with the voice quality/timbre. Perlman's raw voice is certainly better for Smaug, but I want to see the final product before I say that I'd rather have Perlman. It would definitely be possible to Smaugify Cumby's voice without obscuring his vocal inflections too much, IMO.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've seen Star Trek and Sherlock. I think he has great chops, although Star Trek didn't test them much. But Sherlock as a character did not have emotional range really. So I'm actually worried as to how much life his Smaug will have. Perlman has a personality gravitas that BC sells with his voice alone
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Cumberbatch does incredible vocal work. He played Islington for BBC's radio production of "Neverwhere" and the director had to clear up matters on twitter when people thought they had tweaked his voice with special effects.
He's also got amazing range. One of my favorite projects after his role on Sherlock, is the radio comedy "Cabin Pressure" in which he plays an anxious, hapless airline captain.
And links, because I cannot promote this show enough:
He has the emotional and vocal range, I just think it'll be a matter of direction and the kind of sound that Peter Jackson is looking for. And since he's also voicing the Necromancer, I would hope that Jackson would want different vocal sounds for each to keep them distinct.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: The fact that you have to do that at all is one of the reasons I could never get into those books. I love the films (the Rings trilogy, anyway), but it would seriously bug me to death if I had to sit there and try to remember all those names, dates, and so on.
Most of the things you need to "study" are interesting bits of trivia and background. Overall, it doesn't really matter that Aragorn was 10 and living in Rivendell during the Hobbit. He doesn't show up, it doesn't impact the story. It's just a fun little chunk of background flavor.
Same thing with most of the other details, especially those in the appendices (not to mention the Silmarillion). They're very enjoyable for anyone into it enough to care, but it's not like you need them to like the story on its own.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I love that they are showing the real grown-up version of what happened behind the scenes of The Hobbit book form. That should definitely make it more LotRlike. So I'm looking forward to that.
Legolas would definitely have been present in his father's kingdom during the dwarves' imprisonment. No idea what they've done with his character, but it makes plenty of sense that he would have had a part in their treatment by the elves.
I haven't even seen the first movie yet, but this trailer set my hair on end.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ak: I love that they are showing the real grown-up version of what happened behind the scenes of The Hobbit book form. That should definitely make it more LotRlike. So I'm looking forward to that.
Legolas would definitely have been present in his father's kingdom during the dwarves' imprisonment. No idea what they've done with his character, but it makes plenty of sense that he would have had a part in their treatment by the elves.
I haven't even seen the first movie yet, but this trailer set my hair on end.
Adding Legolas doesn't bother me at all, and I'm about as much of a purist as you can get.
But it's looking a little bit like they might try to make the Elves like the ones in Helm's Deep, where Legolas and Tauriel are having a chat about it being "their fight" it makes it sound like they're deciding to go in and help. That's not even close to how it happens in the book, and I think it's be awful to change it to try to make the elves more altruistic than they are.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I wouldn't mind seeing, when he does his long--long--end of the trilogy, as they stop at Rivendel on their way home, Aragorn is introduced--and he's played by the same kid playing Ender.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure I like Asa for young Aragorn.
I'm not sure how he looks today, but having Sadwyn Brophy play young Aragorn would be a nice touch.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Evangelin Lily looks badass in this movie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She looks good.
I hope they don't just make her a Liv Tyler recreation though. Because there's an incredibly strong resemblance.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Hope she gets her own movie!!!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Surely you don't mean her own LOTR movie...?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
That's exactly what I mean.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll forgive you your heresy.
Actually strike that, I won't.
Hiss.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
In the SR thread I said I wanted a radagast movie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A Radagast movie, based on what we've seen thus far of him, would have to involve Gandalf in some sort of buddy wizard movie.
Radagast will be recast so Will Ferrell can play him.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A Radagast movie, based on what we've seen thus far of him, would have to involve Gandalf in some sort of buddy wizard movie.
Radagast will be recast so Will Ferrell can play him.
I would quit. Just quit everything.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure I like Asa for young Aragorn.
I'm not sure how he looks today, but having Sadwyn Brophy play young Aragorn would be a nice touch.
Aragon would have been 27 years old at the time of the Hobbit, definitely not a child.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aragorn was born in 2931.
Smaug was killed in 2941.
Unless I have my dates wrong.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
1. Bilbo doesn't seem to be using the Ring nearly as much as he should be. I don't like that in a way because they're making him out to be much more fearless and brave than he really was. It goes back to some of the silly stuff they did in the first movie to make him into a hero.
2. They're overplaying the importance of the Arkenstone.
3. Man, they cast Thranduil absolutely perfectly. I never noticed how regal Lee Pace could be. It's really quite striking.
4. Sounds like they've edited Cumberbatch's voice almost to the point where he sounds like Orson Welles as Unicron from the animated Transformers movie.