New Pic From The Hobbit

[Elfdart]

I always preferred The Hobbit to Snored through Lord of the Rings, and I was worried this was going to be like the movie version of LOTR -in other words, more of the same. But this photo of Dori, Ori and Nori from Grognardia has me thinking differently:



I like the way each one has a different look and a different demeanor. I also like the fact that Jackson didn't hire a bunch of middle-aged fat guys to play the dwarves. Am I alone in thinking this way?

[Imperial Overlord]

They do look good. And The Hobbit was pretty fast paced and crammed to the gills with action and adventure, which makes it a much funner read.

[U-95]

Agreed. They look good, and can't wait to see how looks Smaug.

I also like the fact that Jackson didn't hire a bunch of middle-aged fat guys to play the dwarves

Worse was in Eragon. Much worse...

[Vympel]

LotR's flaws (which found their ultimate expression in the third film) weren't its art direction / casting so much as Peter Jackson's self-indulgent, turgid directing and questionable story-telling. It looks good though.

[JME2]

Looking good.

[Guardsman Bass]

There are also pictures out of the Dwarves together, Gandalf, and Bilbo here.

I'll admit that I was slightly worried about Bilbo looking too young (Ian Holm was a great Bilbo in the LOTR movies), but he looks great in that picture.

[Bright]

Oin and Gloin: Distant cousins of Thorin Oakenshield, these two doughty Northern Dwarves join the Company out of a sense of loyalty to their kin, and also because they have a substantial sum of money invested in the venture. Along with Bombur, Gloin is the only other married Dwarf in the Company (there being a shortage of female dwarves in general). His wife is an acclaimed beauty with a particularly fine beard. Gloin is the proud father of a young son, Gimli, who will go on to become part of the famous Fellowship of the Ring.

They look great. I love the different beard styles. It looks like they're going to release a picture a day for now.

[JME2]

There are also pictures out of the Dwarves together, Gandalf, and Bilbo here.

I'll admit that I was slightly worried about Bilbo looking too young (Ian Holm was a great Bilbo in the LOTR movies), but he looks great in that picture.

Freeman's challenge is going to be to have his Bilbo match up with Holms' portrayal. I think he can do it, though.

[Sinewmire]

Agreed on Peter Jackson - the films, in my opinion, got worse as they went on rather than better, as Peter Jackson got free rein. The guy cannot bear to allow surprise or sudden change, everything is foreshadowed dozens of times.

I'm deeply worried about Martin Freeman as young(er) Bilbo. I grew up on the Hobbit, so the poor guy has a lot to live up to. He's already failed dismally in The Hitch Hiker's Guide.

THe pictures are pretty good. Not how I imagined themm, but still good! They beat Games Workshop's tolkien dwarves into a bloody heap! I like how Gloin's costume is reminiscent of Gimli's.

[Bright]

Agreed on Peter Jackson - the films, in my opinion, got worse as they went on rather than better, as Peter Jackson got free rein.

What does that even mean? What circumstances were different with the later films? All three were scripted and filmed together.

[Sinewmire]

What does that even mean? What circumstances were different with the later films? All three were scripted and filmed together.

I'm sorry, didn't realise I'd been unclear. Basically, I felt as the films progressed they moved further from the source material. The Fellowship was extremely true to the original book with a few small differences, The Two Towers had a number of changes (Elves at Helm's Deep for example) whilst the Return of the King had more changes (Gollum vs Sam, "Arwen is dying" etc.) and more tonal differences (skull landslides, Army of the Dead, Komedy moments like Gandalf laying out Denethor).

Whilst I have NO problems with changes - for example, I liked Merry not being fooled by Arwen's disguise in Return of the King as he was in the book, or the warg attack in TTT - I feel that most of the changes do not improve the finished product. Furthermore, a lot of the invented scenes would have been better spent on stuff from the books. For example; I could quite happily have done without Gollum conniving to separate Sam and Frodo utterly pointlessly, or the aforementioned Arwen dying of terminal lack of screen time in exchange for say The Scouring of the Shire, or Denethor's Palantír.

tldr; TTT and especially ROTK had lots of added stuff by the production writers that was of significantly lower quality than the rest of the movie. Whilst I don't mind changes, the stuff they did change generally sucked. In my opinion. And it was more noticable in each film.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I think the main thing people began to dislike was that the movies would just Drag On and ON. Especially in the extended cuts, the 'ending' for instance is a good 30min long of wrap up. Over all there where a great deal of small bits added that really did not need to be there. Some bits helped, like adding in exlanations of the gifts given in fellowships, but other changes do not add much.

For instance in the book, the Ents of TTT made up their mind to goto war In the movie they decied not to and its another 10min of exposition by Merry and Pippen before they are convinced to attack.

It felt like at times that Jackson didn't have anyone left to say 'Do we really need this?"
I mean the man did FANTASTIC Work, but there comes a point where enough is enough.

That said I am very much looking forward to The Hobbit, but I worry how long it may be. There is enough for 3hours I think, but it is supposed to be two movies. If each is 90min thats ok, but two 2 hour movies? Or 2.5? Does anyone think there is 5hours of material in The Hobbit?

[JME2]

That said I am very much looking forward to The Hobbit, but I worry how long it may be. There is enough for 3hours I think, but it is supposed to be two movies. If each is 90min thats ok, but two 2 hour movies? Or 2.5? Does anyone think there is 5hours of material in The Hobbit?

I'll put it this way:

We know that Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett are reprising their roles as Saruman and Galadriel. That means we'll see the White Council.

Even money says Jackson and company will be using "The Quest of Erebor" from Unfinished Tales as part of the adaption. That should give them plenty of extra material.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ah that makes sense.

Since the Hobbit was intially a stand along piece, and done as a childerns bed time story early on, it is indeed quite short and almost fully from Bilbo's viewpoint. I remember hearing more then once that, after finishing the whole LOTR series, Tolkien had mentioned he wanted to go back and redo the Hobbit to better fit into the overall series and be less a childerns story.

If jackson is taking all this into account it may end up being a far different story then some of us are expecting, yet far more in keeping the serious tone of LOTR.

[JME2]

And it'll help it segue better into the film trilogy.

[Ahriman238]

I'm happy that things are going well, but the Hobbit is still a long way into the future. Also, how much does it matter if the dwarves are distinctive from each other? Their role in the story (besides providing a reason to go the Lonely Mountain in the first place) is to stumble into trouble that Gandalf and later Bilbo will have to get them out of. Aside from Thorin being stubborn and prideful beyond all reason and Bombur being a lazy whiner, how much of their personalities are demonstrated?

There are thirteen dwarves and only so much screentime, as there was only so much space for individuality in the book. Thorin matters. The other dwarves are window dressing.

That said, I was very impressed by the costumes and props in the Lord of the Rings, which stood up to several repeat viewings. I am glad to see they are maintaining quality here.

[Bright]

I think the main thing people began to dislike was that the movies would just Drag On and ON. Especially in the extended cuts, the 'ending' for instance is a good 30min long of wrap up.

The way I hear it, Jackson specifically didn't add anything to the ending in the Extended version because it was already as long as it was.

[JME2]

I think the main thing people began to dislike was that the movies would just Drag On and ON. Especially in the extended cuts, the 'ending' for instance is a good 30min long of wrap up.

The way I hear it, Jackson specifically didn't add anything to the ending in the Extended version because it was already as long as it was.

Yeah, according to the commentary, there were vintages focusing on Gimli and Legolas that Jackson didn't add for that very reason.

[FaxModem1]

Out of curiosity, how were the dwarves in Eragon so much worse? Keep in mind I only saw the movie once and was so bored and disgusted I've blocked most of it out of my mind and will never read the book. Heck, I don't even remember there being dwarves in Eragon.

[Bright]

Well, there technically weren't dwarves in the Eragon movie. The dwarf characters were never identified as such, and only appeared so briefly that it didn't really matter anyway. Nothing of value was lost.

[Elfdart]

Here's a new one, with Thorin's nephews Kili and Fili:



Apparently, the one on the right is played by an actor who plays a vampire on a TV show. I know this this because my SO's reaction to this photo was:

Oh... my god!

It's Aiden Turner! When does this come out? Next Christmas?

And here are three more: Bifur, Bofur and Bombur.

[JME2]

Glad they got Bombur's appearance right. Hope Stephen Hunter does a good job.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Anyone else think its funny that the 2 married dwarves are Gloin and BOMBUR? Like... those are the two 'hearthrob' dwarves.

[LadyTevar]

Anyone else think its funny that the 2 married dwarves are Gloin and BOMBUR? Like... those are the two 'hearthrob' dwarves.

It has to be the beard

[JME2]

Heh.