haha, now I want them to sing in the live-action movie. It'll be just a big "F U, this is what you paid for" to the audience.
haha, now I want them to sing in the live-action movie. It'll be just a big "F U, this is what you paid for" to the audience.
The Hobbit: Start of production, video from the set. [VIDEO] Good video introduction to filming
The hobbit was the first real novel I ever read, and one of the few I can genuinely say I fell in love with. It's going to take a lot to live up to the expectations I have...and I don't expect them to be met. I'm still debating with myself whether or not I will even watch it, because it's just one of those stories you don't want to spoil. Excited to see how it progresses, but I hope they do it justice.
I like the idea of Frodo narrating. It works and gives a little bit of a tie back to the LOTR for any casual viewers that wouldn't "get it" otherwise perhaps.
And Legolas will likely be a small cameo once they make it through the wood and are held in the caves. ALTHOUGH, now that I say that he'll probably show back up during the battle of the 5 armies. I find that acceptable.
I've always thought the best Break between movies would be after Riddles in the Dark. They escape the cave, Bilbo captures the ring, and then there's a fading shot as they continue off into the woods on the eastern side of the mountains. That would leave the forest, elves, spiders, the dealings of Gandolf with the gathering of the dark in Mirkwood, and the war of the 5 armies for the 2nd film, with the Golum meeting as the climax to the first.
NOTE: I was completely understanding of why they left bambadil out of the LOTR. And I would have too. He reads like a character that he through in after the facts and who has not much real barring, which is exactly what he was. Imagine if I created Frank the Dragon right now, who swooped down and attacked the Fellowship from Weathertop and then was never heard from again. Would be an exciting little part to the story, but in the end doesn't have much to do with the story and the rest would go on as you saw it, because I wrote it in after the fact. That's what Bambadil was, and that's why he was cut. Too much time and energy for a character who utterly does nothing. not that I dislike him, but it's just what he is.
Last edited by Locke4God; 04-16-2011 at 12:16 PM.
THANK YOU for that, man. This is pretty sweet.Originally Posted by OnOneRyder
And yeah, I could see how Tom Bombadil would seem like an afterthought, but I think he was always intended to be there. He is a product of the mystery of old Middle Earth, to give that feeling to the reader. He also actually saves the hobbits on a couple of occasions, and is someone who was strongly considered to keep the ring by the Council of Elrond. I think he works very well in the first book in Fellowship of the Ring; fits in very nicely there. And of course, with a book, you have enough time to tell whatever you want to tell; in a movie, they have to worry about pacing and such. I still would've liked to have seen him, though. Anyhoo...
Wuv, Yer Mom
Yeah my Bro always gives me the "they intended him to be the ring bearer" line when explaining Tom's importance, but that's just as much of an insert to try to make him seem important as the existance of his character in the first place. Ultimately they don't chose him, so the fact that they were "thinking" about it is irrelevant, and other than saving the hobbits, which were also contrived situations designed to give Tom importance, he does nothing to effect to larger outcome of the story. I'm not against Tom, but he has no influence on the story as a whole. He's just not an important character. Certainly not on the level of any of the main characters, and less so than most of the minor ones.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks