Official The Hobbit thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
When the dwarves are taken captive by the Mirkwood Elves. That is the point in the book when Bilbo makes the transition from the tag-along member of the company to the "leader."
 
I am guessing that Part 1 will end right after the eagles save the company from the worgs and goblins, and they rest at Beorn's house. Gandalf leaves. It's right after a large battle... there is a rescue... It's near the middle of the book. Which means in part 2, they would have to complete Milkwood spiders, wood-elfs, lake-town, lonely mountain, smaug, everyone hates the dwarfs, gandalf returning with news of worgs and goblins which he learns on his own adventure, which leads into the final battle, and then the conclusion to tie everything up. I think that is the most logical place to split it. Before that you have introductions, which take time, after setting out you have the three stone-trolls, rivendell, passing over the misty mountains, the goblin king, Gollum, final battle with the goblins/wargs attacking, then the rescue of eagles.
 
I think Boom is right. The first movie must logically end on a sort of cliffhanger to set up the second, and it will probably be some way into the book in order to allow room for all the new story that PJ et al have in mind for the second part.

My prediction is that Bilbo will have some inner struggle about whether to put the ring on to live secretly amongst the elves, and the movie will end as he slips it on.
 
I wonder if they will have any cuts to the "Necromancer" when Bilbo puts on the ring, to show some kind of reaction?
 
I kind of hope not. The fact that it was impossible for Frodo to use the ring in the LOTR movies, without the Eye of Sauron instantly traversing all of the thousands of leagues of Middle Earth in order to burn directly into the hobbit's brain, undermined the idea that people generally found the One Ring tempting to use.
 
I don't think it undermined it at times, I liked when it whispered to Frodo in the film. I felt the film did a decent job of bringing the idea of it being a temptation of man.
 
Yeah, the voice of the ring was fine. But every time Frodo used it, he was hauled before the flaming Eye, and then the enemy were upon him. He couldn't continue to be tempted by the ring when it's dire consequences where so omnipresent. Remember, also, that Bilbo has to keep the ring on for a period of some weeks in order to formulate a plan to rescue the Dwarves. He couldn't do that with the spirit of Sauron singing his pubes off all the while!
 
That's true.

I forgot about that part lol. But I'm just thinking of connecting the unknowing audience to the necromancer. But yea maybe that would not be the way.
 
regwec said:
He is better cast in that movie, I think because he is the kind of actor who is more convincing as a dangerous individual behind an unimpressive exterior. Somebody like Daniel Craig or Gerard Butler wouldn't have been as effective, because they are more physically imposing anyway.

To my mind, Viggo couldn't quite pull off the archetypal hero in a vagrant's guise. Partly I think it was a lack of gravitas. Though much of Viggo's performance was good, his heroic monologues were really underpowered and fell flat. That meant he suffered in comparison with Sean Bean's Boromir, who was much more rousing in his big moments.

Viggo did a good job, and let's face it, it's a difficult role that could have been a lot worse. But I feel his face was a little too youthful and handsome, his stature was a tiny bit too slight, and his performance lacked a bit of weight. All of that is only partly his fault; the role was transformed into a romantic lead for the movie. But again, it's a thing I would have changed.

Edit: I just wanted to say that the moment in the extended version of ROTK when Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron is really stupid. It amounts to cold blooded murder and breach or parley, and it's not something Aragorn should do.
Click to expand...

Come on, man, that's just nitpicking. His stature too slight? All your other criticisms are fine, but his stature is too slight?
 
As with most actors, the 5'11" that he usually claims is a bit of an exaggeration. He looked small, to me. I wouldn't usually be one to care, except that Aragorn has the nickname "longshanks", which is even used in the movie, and generally has tallness identified as one of his distinguishing features.
 
Viggo is 5"11"? I thought he was at least six foot. Maybe it was because of the Hobbit actors being shorter, but he looked around the same size as Mckellen, Bloom, and Bean.
 
It was mentioned a couple of pages back..
 
...yes most movies that are split into two movies do a cliffhanger, but you have to look at what Lord of the Rings did. They really didn't focus on a "cliffhanger" they just focused on a section of the story at a time. There are many small "cliffhangers" but it's not like "Oh no Smaug is attacking Lake-town oh no... end of part 1, come back next year for part 2".

Plus, I may be wrong, but after the company gets to Lake-town... that's most of the way through the story.
 
I do hope Beron will be in the film not end up being MIA like Tom Bombadil. I have not the book in ages and I do not remember how important the character is in story.
 
Bombadil wasn't important to the journey of the ring and would have slowed down the film. I haven't read the Hobbit in years. I don't even remember Beron.
 
Doctor Jones said:
Bombadil wasn't important to the journey of the ring and would have slowed down the film. I haven't read the Hobbit in years. I don't even remember Beron.
Click to expand...

Doesnt Beorn save them from the spiders or something else? I know they chill at his house. AND HE CAN TURN INTO A BEAR.:awesome:
 
They stock up on supplies at Beorn's house, and he comes to their aid in the Battle of the Five Armies.
 
smaug is right before the war of five armies which is... at the end of the book. Beorn has to be in the book, because he's just awesome. His whole shape-shifting thing was one of the most mysterious things about the book.

And I may be wrong, but I thought he showed up at the end and fought... yeah he does, because he kills on of the goblins generals or something.

Also Weta has talked about Beorn's transformation, so he will be in the film.
 
Yeah, I couldn't really see a reason in which they would need to cut Beorn. After all, they've got two (probably 3+ hour) movies to adapt a 276-page book, they have enough room to adapt the book plus the "Quest for Erebor" stuff.
 
As a wee lad, I had the edition of The Hobbit illustrated by Michael Hague. Towards the story's climax, I turned the page to see a huge double-page painting of Beorn, in bear form, tearing about one thousand goblins to pieces.

He has to be in the movie. And he should be played by David Morrissey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
The Hobbit!!!!!!!
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Ultimate Movie-Man
U
Speedball
  • Poll Poll
Peter Jackson blacklisted by New Line!
2
Replies
37
Views
534
enterthemadness
E
S
Peter jackson talks the hobbit !
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
6K
LostSon88
LostSon88
BloodyWolverine
  • Poll Poll
So Who Now Will Direct The Hobbit Movies.
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Dr. Fate
Dr. Fate
Đeadpool
  • Locked
Guillermo del Toro Directing The Hobbit
Replies
9
Views
2K
Shifty
Shifty

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,127 (members: 36, guests: 2,091)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,282
Messages
22,079,098
Members
45,881
Latest member
Uarepar

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"