http://the-hobbit-movie.com/
We need an "semi-official" thread about The Hobbit, I think. And here it is.
The two sites I've linked are pretty informative and feature the production videos released so far.
Of course I added the picture of the 13 dwarves (now always counting from left to right).
The first topic I want to talk about is how they look and how they are equipped.
1. I actually love the look, as they are travelling most of the time and heavy iron armour (you might expect from your "dwarf socialization") would be cumbersome. The "padded armour" looks diverse enough to reflect the different personalities as well as the age of the dwarves (Fili & Kili - #2 & #13 - being the youngest, though having almost no beards).
2. Weapon choice - few axes. Gloin (#5), being Gimli's father, has an axe, which looks like the one his son will wield in LotR, but the rest has a pretty diverse choice of weapons, which is a great move. You can spot a lot of maces, clubs, broad bladed swords and even dual wielding and a spear.
I am very excited about the movie(s) and I hope you are too.
|||Looks pretty good.I wonder if Turbine will turn it into a game like Lotr|||I think I just got wood...|||I'm really looking forward to this. I loved the LOTR trilogy. But then everything became very silent surrounding the Hobbit, and there were many rumours floating around suggesting a troubled production. I couldn't have been more relieved to see the behind the scenes stuff, which showed everything was proceeding as planned. Its weird seeing a clearly aged Peter Jackson, but still with the same spirit as when he was working on the LOTR trilogy. I never read any of the books, not LOTR and certainly not the Hobbit, but I love the movies.So if I'm not mistaken they decided to make this two movies instead of just one, much like with the last movie of the Potter franchise? Probably a very good decission. While I'm told the Hobbit isn't really such a long story that it might span well over 2 movies, it probably means they can stretch the action a bit. And it also means they won't have to leave much stuff out.|||Did anyone else mistake Thorin for a Klingon at first glance?
|||I'm not crazy about the character design. Some of them look like straight up Dwarves, but a lot of them look like Gnomes or just plain little people to me.Peter Jackson also annoys me a little bit. Some of the changes he made in the LotR trilogy (mostly with Faramir) kind of bugged me, though I did think they were, overall, good.|||Quote:
While I'm told the Hobbit isn't really such a long story that it might span well over 2 movies, it probably means they can stretch the action a bit. And it also means they won't have to leave much stuff out.
The Hobbit has about 330 pages in the paperback version I own, which is as much pages as are covered until the fellowship leaves Elrond & Rivendel in the first LotR book. So yes, it is significantly shorter, but I expect P. Jackson to e.g. use footage from the Silmarillion for flashbacks to explain lore. Otherwise some people cast can't make their cameos in The Hobbit (like Galadriel).
The Hobbit itself has a lot more songs in it, than e.g. LotR and a lot more fun characters (perhaps Tom Bombadil with his wellingtons might make an appearance this time, after he did not appear in LotR)
Quote:
Did anyone else mistake Thorin for a Klingon at first glance?
That was kind of what I was thinking...but only for a very short while.
Quote:
I'm not crazy about the character design. Some of them look like straight up Dwarves, but a lot of them look like Gnomes or just plain little people to me.
Do not forget that your everything you know about how an Elf, Dwarf or Gnome is supposed to look like comes from the fantasy worlds created after Tolkien and the dawn of Pen & Paper RPGs in the 70s.|||Also keep in mind that they have a ton of characters. It's a pretty big cast of dwarves, thus making it even more important to make them stand out from each other. I think it's a pretty good choice to have them all wield different weaponry, have different beards (or no beards at all), and different clothing. If they didn't make them all so radically different, it would be hard for the audience to keep track of all the characters. Frankly I thought that was hard enough with the Fellowship the first time I saw it.|||I think I'll have to see it before I can properly render an opinion, but the decision to cut The Hobbit into two films strikes me as one that was very likely at least influenced by money.
You could also claim that they don't want to cut anything out, but the point here is that The Hobbit is only about 3/4 the length of The Fellowship of the Rings, and they managed Fellowship in one movie.
And yea, the problem of having 13 distinct dwarves isn't going to be an easy one to overcome.|||Quote:
I think I'll have to see it before I can properly render an opinion, but the decision to cut The Hobbit into two films strikes me as one that was very likely at least influenced by money.
You could also claim that they don't want to cut anything out, but the point here is that The Hobbit is only about 3/4 the length of The Fellowship of the Rings, and they managed Fellowship in one movie.
And yea, the problem of having 13 distinct dwarves isn't going to be an easy one to overcome.
Quite a bit was cut out of the Fellowship though. Some of it semi-important plot points even, like Merry finding a Dagger that belonged to the Kingdom of Arnor forged to fight Nazgul. Instead, he stabs him with a random Rohan sword and it hurts him for some reason. Tom Bombadil and such were cut out as well, and some scenes were altered.
Aside from that, The Hobbit has some action scenes they can extend upon, and will probably have some more Dwarves scenes to ensure the audience doesn't keep getting confused, since that already seemed to be a problem with the hobbits in LotR.
No comments:
Post a Comment