The Hobbit most certainly does not need to be three movies. That’s just stupid and an obvious cash grab.
You could read the book in much less time than the three movies will end up being.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Fishdog70 wrote:
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me. [/quote]
Peter Jackson had already expanded on the book with the addition of a brand new character, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and scenes involving Frodo. That was before they decided to make a third:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/evangeline-lilly-talks-the-hobbit-1
That said, I’m not a fan of making a trilogy for the sake of it. It’s almost as if they think “trilogy” makes a franchise more respectable. [/quote]
I have faith he will do it right, as a guy who loved all of the books and thought they did an outstanding job sticking to the story line for the movies. [/quote]
Yeah. Jackson and his wife are basically Tolkien experts now and there is a lot of Tolkien-penned material to draw from (Forgotten Tales had a lot that could be included). The main thing I’m worried about is over-prequelizing the new movies.
Lucas tried to foreshadow every thing that happened in the OT, and instead of giving the sense of a vast, epic saga, it became this tiny place where everybody knew everyone else. That’s the main pitfall of every prequel, I feel, but he is the prime example of overdoing it.
I’d personally like to see more of the Istari, especially Saruman’s relationship with Gandalf before Saruman was corrupted by the ring, and Radagast, who never appeared in the previous movies.[/quote]
Well it does worry with the Frodo comment. When I read the Hobbit that was one of my nit picking complaints not enough back story, which I had thought would have been introduced in LOTR. So if they can do that in the movies I will be very happy[/quote]
I’ve heard talk of a possible appearance by a young Aragorn as well.
[quote]Nards wrote:
The Hobbit most certainly does not need to be three movies. That’s just stupid and an obvious cash grab.
You could read the book in much less time than the three movies will end up being.[/quote]
Nards have you been reading what Roy and I have been talking about?
Catch up brother
No, I’m not going back and reading all that.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Fishdog70 wrote:
“The Hobbit” is now a trilogy:
Not sure what to think about this one. The story says they will spend more time explaining what Gandalf was doing when he wasn’t with Bilbo (working with the White Council, fighting the Necromancer, ect.) which could be really cool. However, splitting the story into 3 parts sounds like a cash grab to me. [/quote]
Peter Jackson had already expanded on the book with the addition of a brand new character, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, and scenes involving Frodo. That was before they decided to make a third:
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/evangeline-lilly-talks-the-hobbit-1
That said, I’m not a fan of making a trilogy for the sake of it. It’s almost as if they think “trilogy” makes a franchise more respectable. [/quote]
I have faith he will do it right, as a guy who loved all of the books and thought they did an outstanding job sticking to the story line for the movies. [/quote]
Yeah. Jackson and his wife are basically Tolkien experts now and there is a lot of Tolkien-penned material to draw from (Forgotten Tales had a lot that could be included). The main thing I’m worried about is over-prequelizing the new movies.
Lucas tried to foreshadow every thing that happened in the OT, and instead of giving the sense of a vast, epic saga, it became this tiny place where everybody knew everyone else. That’s the main pitfall of every prequel, I feel, but he is the prime example of overdoing it.
I’d personally like to see more of the Istari, especially Saruman’s relationship with Gandalf before Saruman was corrupted by the ring, and Radagast, who never appeared in the previous movies.[/quote]
Well it does worry with the Frodo comment. When I read the Hobbit that was one of my nit picking complaints not enough back story, which I had thought would have been introduced in LOTR. So if they can do that in the movies I will be very happy[/quote]
I’ve heard talk of a possible appearance by a young Aragorn as well. [/quote]
Damnit Roy you know as well as I do to work well they need to make this stand alone. You need to talk to someone to get them straight.
If you do not know The Hobbit and LOTR then you have been in a coma.
I thought The Hobbit was still required reading in HS.
[quote]Nards wrote:
No, I’m not going back and reading all that.
[/quote]
If it was about Star Trek you would wouldnt you?
No, because I could gain nothing that I didn’t already know from it.
I am the Trek.
[quote]Nards wrote:
No, because I could gain nothing that I didn’t already know from it.
I am the Trek.[/quote]
Well you would still read to make sure you would not have to smite someone for being wrong.
[quote]Nards wrote:
No, because I could gain nothing that I didn’t already know from it.
I am the Trek.[/quote]
William Shatner has a mole shaped like Betty Rubble on his left ass cheek.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
No, because I could gain nothing that I didn’t already know from it.
I am the Trek.[/quote]
William Shatner has a mole shaped like Betty Rubble on his left ass cheek.[/quote]
This is true.
Joesph Barbera met William Shatner at one time (Vegas, 1958) and reports are sketchy but Barbera noticed that mole and said it looked like the island of Saipan where he was stationed in WWII.
Shatner said his mother said it looked like Eudora Welty, and that he should have it removed, but at age 16 he refused and ran away from his home in Montreal and ended up in Hollywood.
Barbera got Shatner a role in The Brothers Karamazov by telling him he could only get the role if he could take a picture of that mole.
One day Barbera left the picture in his desk and his partner, William Hanna, saw it and asked who the dame in silhouette was.
Barbera didn’t know what to say so said it was Bertrand Russell, famous philosopher.
They argued for days about what it looked like till they turned it upside down and they thought it looked like a hot cavewoman. So they based The Flintstones on that, and it;s a little known fact that since William Shatner is Jewish that all the characters on the show are Jewish.
Damn it…the first post by Nards that made me giggle.
Time to start talking about his stalker vid collection to even things out.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Has anyone read the AvX Event in Marvel?[/quote]
Yes and it has been mostly badass, a few complaknts here and there as they boost powers to people as well as a few huh moments. For instance phsylocke was able beat daredevil even though using her powers on him messed her up. Granted she’s a hand assassin but Murdock eats had assassins for breakfast
[/quote]
Dude, Thor is getting smashed in this series and you enjoy it. He hurt the Phoenix in its true form, but he can’t take on the lame ass hosts.[/quote]
I have my friend reading it and he loves the fact that the Phoenix five(well four now) are whopping everyone’s asses I just want the real Jean Grey to come back(and maybe have the beast go back to his simian form and not that lame cat disney version)
I hate “Disney Beast”. I would rather he looked human again with big feet.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Yeah. Jackson and his wife are basically Tolkien experts now and there is a lot of Tolkien-penned material to draw from (Forgotten Tales had a lot that could be included). The main thing I’m worried about is over-prequelizing the new movies.
Lucas tried to foreshadow every thing that happened in the OT, and instead of giving the sense of a vast, epic saga, it became this tiny place where everybody knew everyone else. That’s the main pitfall of every prequel, I feel, but he is the prime example of overdoing it.
I’d personally like to see more of the Istari, especially Saruman’s relationship with Gandalf before Saruman was corrupted by the ring, and Radagast, who never appeared in the previous movies.[/quote]
Nice post, agreed.
Plenty of relevant backstory in LOTR’s appendices as well, and also agreed that PJ’s team has certainly earned our trust.
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/jon-chu-may-direct-new-live-action-masters-of-the-universe-movie
Ghey
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
Yeah. Jackson and his wife are basically Tolkien experts now and there is a lot of Tolkien-penned material to draw from (Forgotten Tales had a lot that could be included). The main thing I’m worried about is over-prequelizing the new movies.
Lucas tried to foreshadow every thing that happened in the OT, and instead of giving the sense of a vast, epic saga, it became this tiny place where everybody knew everyone else. That’s the main pitfall of every prequel, I feel, but he is the prime example of overdoing it.
I’d personally like to see more of the Istari, especially Saruman’s relationship with Gandalf before Saruman was corrupted by the ring, and Radagast, who never appeared in the previous movies.[/quote]
Nice post, agreed.
Plenty of relevant backstory in LOTR’s appendices as well, and also agreed that PJ’s team has certainly earned our trust.
[/quote]
While 3 movies is very lengthy I’m confident there will be plenty to watch without getting too much fluff. Middle earth has so much lore it’s not even funny.
Now I’d love to see an HBO style show about the Ainur, it could be a replacement for soprano’s. But really, a properly done TV show would be awesome to fill out the Similarion.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/jon-chu-may-direct-new-live-action-masters-of-the-universe-movie
Ghey[/quote]
probably. There’s also a short circuit reboot… sigh.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hate “Disney Beast”. I would rather he looked human again with big feet.[/quote]
That would be fine with me like hoe Marvel did it in x-factor he was demutated from the blue gorilla beast back to the cro mag beast of the 60’s the disney beast is just lame and unnecessary he lost some of his dexterity and got all emo just a bad idea all around
[quote]Nards wrote:
This is true.
Joesph Barbera met William Shatner at one time (Vegas, 1958) and reports are sketchy but Barbera noticed that mole and said it looked like the island of Saipan where he was stationed in WWII.
Shatner said his mother said it looked like Eudora Welty, and that he should have it removed, but at age 16 he refused and ran away from his home in Montreal and ended up in Hollywood.
Barbera got Shatner a role in The Brothers Karamazov by telling him he could only get the role if he could take a picture of that mole.
One day Barbera left the picture in his desk and his partner, William Hanna, saw it and asked who the dame in silhouette was.
Barbera didn’t know what to say so said it was Bertrand Russell, famous philosopher.
They argued for days about what it looked like till they turned it upside down and they thought it looked like a hot cavewoman. So they based The Flintstones on that, and it;s a little known fact that since William Shatner is Jewish that all the characters on the show are Jewish.
[/quote]
Hahaha!
Fucking awesome!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Damn it…the first post by Nards that made me giggle.
[/quote]
Ghey.