This is like... the Reese's Cup of my fannish obsessions, if it is true.
I'm going to speculate that they have either cast him in some sort of cameo as an elf or wizard or something to do with the Necromancer sub-plot (he's too tall and thin for a hobbit or dwarf, I think) or he'll be cast as Smaug (or maybe the Necromancer? no telling really).
Anybody want to speculate with me? (I don't have a problem. I can quit anytime I want. Don't judge me!)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I don't know, they cast Aiden Turner as a dwarf, and he's just as tall and almost as skinny as Benedict Cumberbatch.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Dwarves are all cast at this point, aren't they? Besides, Turner is definitely a mesomorph and Cumberbatch is a textbook ectomorph.
Though really, if they only cast him in a bit part, it won't matter much. These things can be fudged. It will be interesting to hear what the deal is, either way.
ETA: They have not yet announced who is cast as Bard, so that seems to be the frontrunner in speculation right now. I still say he'd make a fabulous Smaug with that voice of his.
posted
I think Leonard Nimoy should be cast as a Hobbit vocalist. He did such a wonderful job the first time he used his musical talents among the hobbits.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny how Nimoy said he was retiring from acting only to show up doing voice work. I guess he meant live acting? Whatever happened, I'm glad he's still around. That guy is amazing.
The hobbit could be really good if they do it right...we'll see!
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nimoy wouldn't work for me. When I hear his voice, I see the Enterprise *swishing* through the vacuum of space. Maybe if Nimoy had taken on a wide variety of acting roles since Star Trek, like William Shatner has, he wouldn't be so typecast.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Jeff I saw Fringe. One of my favorite shows. William Bell was not really that major a character. Important to the plot, somewhat--but he actually appeared in very few episodes. In one of the last ones--after Nimoy had said he was done acting--William Bell sort of appeared as a cartoon. That was one strange episode.
William Shatner has had several TV series where he was a central character. Like T.J. Hooker, where he played a cop. He played attorney Denny Crane in the television series The Practice and its spin-off Boston Legal, where he played an attorney who believed he had Mad Cow Disease. (What a sad comedown for Captain Kirk!) He won two Emmys and a Golden Globe Award for his attorney show roles.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That video of Nimoy singing the Bilbo song is either the best thing ever or the worst, I can not decide which.
I'm thinking of starting a religion just to worship/denounce it, not sure which yet.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Jeff I saw Fringe. One of my favorite shows. William Bell was not really that major a character. Important to the plot, somewhat--but he actually appeared in very few episodes. In one of the last ones--after Nimoy had said he was done acting--William Bell sort of appeared as a cartoon. That was one strange episode.
William Shatner has had several TV series where he was a central character. Like T.J. Hooker, where he played a cop. He played attorney Denny Crane in the television series The Practice and its spin-off Boston Legal, where he played an attorney who believed he had Mad Cow Disease. (What a sad comedown for Captain Kirk!) He won two Emmys and a Golden Globe Award for his attorney show roles.
Shatner actively embraces and in fact took full possession of his "Kirk" persona and turned it into his "Shatner" persona. Shatner is pretty awesome guy.
Nimoy is also awesome, his voice is incredibly compelling and I think the perfect fit for Smaug. Smaug's voice was supposed to be incredibly charismatic and magnetic, you just FIND YOURSELF submitting to the seductive words of the dragon against all better judgement.
Nimoy's voice I think could be perfect for this.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Peter Dinklage as Bilbo!
Bilbo has already been cast, and in my opinion, Martin Freeman is an absolutely perfect choice for young Bilbo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope it's not Nimoy. I'm a huge fan of the man, but his voice is (a) too recognizable and (b) not what it used to be. Nimoy's voice has become seriously frail-sounding in the past ten years. It's still "compelling," but I'm not sure I would describe it as still being "charismatic" or "magnetic."
Nimoy's current voice worked great for his character on "Fringe," who's supposed to be in his twilight years and facing mortality, but I don't think it would work for Smaug, who is supposed to be as powerful and vital a being as we've ever seen in Middle Earth.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm thinking of starting a religion just to worship/denounce it, not sure which yet.
You could alternate. Maybe worship on Mondays, Wednesdays, Saturdays; denounce on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays. Fridays off.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, all that's floating around about The Hobbit is making me a bit apprehensive.
The Hobbit is one of my favorite books of all time, and I'd hate to see the storyline changed so drastically as to lose focus. And this is what looks like might happen. It looks like they're going to go all-out with the battle sequences (many of which, in the book, don't happen "onscreen;" the main focus is and should be on Bilbo and his companions). For some reason they're inserting Legolas into the movie, even though I'm pretty sure he doesn't appear in the book. I can only hope his role in the film is minor. And then there's this business about splitting the movie into two parts. While the longer screentime might allow the filmmakers to produce a more accurate and thorough adaptation, but I am not convinced the move is anything but a cash-in, since the Hobbit is a solidly structured story that isn't easily divided into two separable acts, and really, not enough happens in the story to justify two movies.
It's funny; I easily forgive the Lord of the Rings movies for taking liberties with sequences like Helm's Deep because I hadn't read the books (except for Fellowship, which I enjoyed) when I first saw them and recognized their value as their own products. I must then admit to a bit of hypocrisy in worrying about similar treatment to The Hobbit, which I have read and treasure deeply.
I think my worry is more justified, though, because while The Lord of the Rings was more or less about the fate of the world, where the heroes are in charge of a MacGuffin that is the key to defeating the baddest sorcerer ever (unless you've read The Silmarillion or that posthumously-published "supplementary material" that retcons in an even grander struggle that completely mitigates the events of LOTR), The Hobbit was about a humble adventure by humble people, where the main antagonist is a dragon who, while threatening, isn't out to destroy the world. The story is told through the eyes of Bilbo, who does not witness the big battles it looks like they're padding the movie with, and it makes me worried that in upgrading the stakes to an epic scale, the filmmakers will lose focus on what the story is about. I'll probably still see the movie, or at least sample the first one if they really are splitting it into two parts, but I will do so with cautious expectations, since I'd hate to see The Hobbit torn apart by a lousy adaptation.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think Benedict Cumberbatch would make an awesome Smaug. Here are a couple of YouTube links of Benedict Cumberbatch as himself and impersonating Alan Rickman. And because I am completely shameless, here he is reading from a book about Casanova. That voice could certainly persuade me, is all I'm sayin'. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
C3PO - Wow, lots to cover here! I disagree you with a fair but, though, I do share your underlying concern.
quote:And this is what looks like might happen. It looks like they're going to go all-out with the battle sequences (many of which, in the book, don't happen "onscreen;" the main focus is and should be on Bilbo and his companions)
Actually, a fair bit of the Battle of Five Armies IS described. We know exactly how the armies were situated, we know the goblins flanked them until Thorin rushed out into the middle of the fight and trapped himself, we know that Beorn showed up to rescue Thorin and kill Bolg. (I'd love a brief flashback to the Dwarf/Goblin Wars). Bilbo isn't knocked out until the Eagles arrive. And for that matter, we know that Gandalf and the Council drove the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur. Tolkien is somewhat famous for having battles that never happen. He describes these epic scenes of horrendous carnage and then without actually saying how they went, shifts to "after the battle was over..." or merely describes vague turns of the tide. It clearly wasn't where his interest lay, but it IS a big part of his stories. PJ isn't making a documentary (much as I'd love that), it's a movie, so the actions scenes, appropriately, get more air time than Tolkien gave them in the book. I would add though, that PJ, despite massive battle scenes in the LOTR movies, NEVER lost the fact that it was about Frodo and the Ring, and never lost track of the Fellowship as a Fellowship, even after it was broken. I trust him to do that again.
quote:For some reason they're inserting Legolas into the movie, even though I'm pretty sure he doesn't appear in the book. I can only hope his role in the film is minor.
He wasn't in the book, per se, but there's no reason why he shouldn't be there. His father, Thranduil, is one of the key actors in the book. Why wouldn't his son be there?
quote:And then there's this business about splitting the movie into two parts. While the longer screentime might allow the filmmakers to produce a more accurate and thorough adaptation, but I am not convinced the move is anything but a cash-in, since the Hobbit is a solidly structured story that isn't easily divided into two separable acts, and really, not enough happens in the story to justify two movies.
Fair enough, it's a valid concern. Yes, I'm a bit leery, as are others, about adding in all the stuff with the White Council, Radagast, etc. It's stuff that DOES happen, it's not like it's being made up, but it wasn't directly in the narrative. Frankly I think the book breaks into two movies just as easily without it. A LOT of stuff happens in that fairly short book, and remember just how long and harrowing the journey is. And maybe it is just cashing in, but, unlike some things, isn't this one of those times where you're okay with paying for more? Personally, I was thrilled when I heard it was two (with reservations), just like I was thrilled for two Deathly Hallows movies.
quote:I think my worry is more justified, though, because while The Lord of the Rings was more or less about the fate of the world, where the heroes are in charge of a MacGuffin that is the key to defeating the baddest sorcerer ever (unless you've read The Silmarillion or that posthumously-published "supplementary material" that retcons in an even grander struggle that completely mitigates the events of LOTR)
Not sure if I count The One Ring as a Macguffin. That's usually a derogatory term used for things that don't really matter, they just move the plot along. The LOTR never loses focus on TOR, in fact, unlike some movies where the Macguffin is usually forgotten after the first third of the movie, the climax of 9 hours of movie is TOR's destruction. It remained the driving force all the way through.
Furthermore, the Sil is in no way a Retcon. Tolkien was writing the Sil way before he wrote LOTR. He just finished LOTR before he ever finished the Sil, though really, since Chris didn't write a word of it, but only edited and organized, Tolkien really had a fully fleshed out history for it before his death. Morgoth is even mentioned a time or two, as are events of the distant past, in LOTR, that come up in the Sil. For that matter, the Sil covers events like where Glamdring came from. And I don't at all see how it "mitigates" the events of LOTR. What happens in LOTR is a natural extension of an unfinished story from 4,000 years before, or really, 10,000. Sauron feigned good behavior, destroyed a couple of civilizations through deception, forged TOR in the Second Age, and was defeated at the end of the Second, but Isildur was an idiot, and that set up the Third Age, culminating in the events of LOTR. It's a grand, epic story, and rather than one mitigating the other, I think they complement each other rather well.
quote:The Hobbit was about a humble adventure by humble people, where the main antagonist is a dragon who, while threatening, isn't out to destroy the world.
Certainly the dwarves aren't humble. I see your point though, and this is what I was alluding to earlier. Have some faith! LOTR had a lot going on it it, and I think you could narrow the main story down to three or four different things. For a lot of people it was all about Frodo and the Ring. Despite everything else happening at the time, PJ never lost sight of Frodo. I think we can trust PJ to not lose focus on Bilbo either. On the other hand, you have to remember that this is also the story of a Hobbit caught up in events that are often far beyond him. To ignore those events, I think, does the larger story a disservice. Why did Gandalf want him there? What was Bilbo's larger purpose in the grander scheme of things? The effects of The Hobbit are felt in many, many ways in LOTR, not just the finding of TOR. I hope Bilbo stays the main focus, but it's not just about him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's really possible to be true to the feel and experience of The Hobbit while simultaneously showing its significance in the larger story. To me, a key aspect of The Hobbit is that our protagonist is a tiny player in large events, and he (and the audience) never understands more than a minuscule fraction of what's really happening. To get answers to those larger questions, you have to leave the small and comforting world of The Hobbit and enter the larger world of LotR, then its appendices, then The Silmarillion, etc..
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't think it's really possible to be true to the feel and experience of The Hobbit while simultaneously showing its significance in the larger story. To me, a key aspect of The Hobbit is that our protagonist is a tiny player in large events, and he (and the audience) never understands more than a minuscule fraction of what's really happening. To get answers to those larger questions, you have to leave the small and comforting world of The Hobbit and enter the larger world of LotR, then its appendices, then The Silmarillion, etc..
I think PJ will manage to find a balance. Most of the fight scenes in the book will still be shown fairly, as they ARE described in the book. Some of the bonus stuff that might be thinking of throwing in will distract somewhat from the simplicity you lean towards, but I'm fine with that. I think he did a good job of it in LOTR, and it should be even easier here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes sense that those who are pleased with what PJ did in LoTR would have more faith in what he'll do in The Hobbit than I do.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It makes sense that those who are pleased with what PJ did in LoTR would have more faith in what he'll do in The Hobbit than I do.
There were a lot of things I didn't like about LOTR. I thought Fellowship was excellent. Two Towers was good. I think Return of the King was the worst of the three, and a lot of it I just didn't like at all. Taking the good with the bad, I think as a whole it was a great adaptation, and part of why I'm less worried about The Hobbit is that there's just less going on for him to mess with. I suppose that's why he feels the need to add things in, but, so long as what he's adding is canon, I'm not bothered.
I think I was one of the few who thought Arwen being in the movies was just fine. I heard a lot of "but she was never in the books!" except she was, at least in the appendix. Tolkien said flat out that she was meant to be there, that she was in the story, he just didn't have a way to shoehorn her into the narrative, so he put her at the end. Close enough for me. Same with the other added material that's going in. So long as he finds a way to do it without making it look like a non-sequitor, I'm down.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated some of the changes thoug. The whole "Let the Nazgul see Frodo with the ring near Mordor" stuff, making Farimir another man under the sway of the Ring, and having Gandalf on his back, staff broken, only the have the King of the Nazgul WALK AWAY BECAUSE OF SOME HORNS......
Yeah, ROTK was my least favorite.....lol....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not like Gandalf was in the battle at that point, and never did anything important since that scene. And Sauron's army is more important. Besides, the withc king whooped him. He could just do it again.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A friend sent me this link to a couple of bizarre if not outright berserk videos involving Leonard Nimoy. The first one is a recent one with Leonard Nimoy as the central character in a brief but really strange mood piece depicting him as a sort of grumpy old man who goes about his daily routine--including going to the store--in his pajamas and bathrobe. The second, on the same page, is a much earlier music video with a young Nimoy singing the Bilbo Baggins song.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: It's funny how Nimoy said he was retiring from acting only to show up doing voice work. I guess he meant live acting? Whatever happened, I'm glad he's still around. That guy is amazing.
The hobbit could be really good if they do it right...we'll see!
He was also on Fringe after he retired... Then he lent his voice to Fringe. He has also said in interviews he would come back to Fringe if they found a way to bring him back.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I liked Orson Wells better as Unicron.
Its said that Orson Welles put little effort into it... And yet surprisingly... it works so well he truly sounds like a powerful god.
IP: Logged |
Ian McKellan, in a fairly name-droppy Hobbit Blog post, mentioned seeing a snippet of Cumberbatch's screen test, which he said was "electrifying, vocally and facially." That seems a fairly strong hint, to me. He said it was shot in super close up, too, so I'm still guessing Smaug.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone tell me if there are any books that take place after the Lord of the Rings, or are the rest just prequels?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Can someone tell me if there are any books that take place after the Lord of the Rings, or are the rest just prequels?
There is a bit in the Appendices of RotK set after the events of LotR, but there isn't anything (to my knowledge) in any of Tolkien's other writings.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. It talks a little bit about Aragorn's death and Arwen's wasting away in grief, but there's not much there.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah, Hollywood just needs to go ahead and make a sequel, Appendices be damned!
Hey, they did it with Jarassic Park And they are basically doing that with the Hobbit by splitting it up into two films (which makes zero sense). I wonder if they'll keep milking the franchise. Maybe they'll make a trilogy about the Simarillion (sp?).
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Can someone tell me if there are any books that take place after the Lord of the Rings, or are the rest just prequels?
Tolkien started writing a sequel at one point, but only got a few chapters in before deciding against it.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Crichton wrote at least one-perhaps two, I don't remember for sure-sequels to Jurassic Park.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the sequels to the movie had much in common with the sequels to the book, though.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Can someone tell me if there are any books that take place after the Lord of the Rings, or are the rest just prequels?
Tolkien started writing a sequel at one point, but only got a few chapters in before deciding against it.
The sequel is about Aragorn and Arwen's son in the Fourth Age. It's very, very short, and doesn't really tell you all that much. You can find it in one of the Histories of Middle Earth volumes. I can't remember which one, I think it's one of the last couple, called something like "The Coming Shadow" or some such.
You can also find out about what happens afterwards in the appendices and in the Histories, like what happens with all of the main cast members, who marries who, has what kids, dies, goes across the sea, all of that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I see your point though, and this is what I was alluding to earlier. Have some faith! LOTR had a lot going on it it, and I think you could narrow the main story down to three or four different things. For a lot of people it was all about Frodo and the Ring. Despite everything else happening at the time, PJ never lost sight of Frodo. I think we can trust PJ to not lose focus on Bilbo either. On the other hand, you have to remember that this is also the story of a Hobbit caught up in events that are often far beyond him. To ignore those events, I think, does the larger story a disservice. Why did Gandalf want him there? What was Bilbo's larger purpose in the grander scheme of things? The effects of The Hobbit are felt in many, many ways in LOTR, not just the finding of TOR. I hope Bilbo stays the main focus, but it's not just about him.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And they are basically doing that with the Hobbit by splitting it up into two films (which makes zero sense). I wonder if they'll keep milking the franchise. Maybe they'll make a trilogy about the Simarillion (sp?).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
