News from the set

If he's that desperate, why don't he head over to Red-Light District?..

Seriously, though, it's got to be a joke. *begs*

LOL! it's a joke xD but I bet Bilbo had sex..sometime.. in his youth.. I don't believe anyone was interested in him after his adventure.. too jalous the hobbits.. and though of him being a bit off.. exentric.. which is weird. In all other fantasy stories, when the hero comes home, he's always a lot more populare.. I don't think PJ is that stupid to add a sex scene of Bilbo on TH.. with who? Tauriel? LOOL! xD

Norc wrote: I don't think PJ is that stupid to add a sex scene of Bilbo on TH.. with who? Tauriel? LOOL! xD

I heartily recommend you read The Hobwit, written by our dear Orwell, if you want to explore that possibility

Eldorion wrote:Speaking of Martin Freeman, apparently he told Total Film that

I think he's [Bilbo] had sex. I'm not sure. I'm trying to convince Peter to write that scene in...

(Via NME)

I was a Freeman supporter throughout the casting rumors period and I thought his performance was one of the best parts of the trailer, but I'm feeling my faith shaken now. I can only hope that this is just a joke but if it is it strikes too close to home given PJ's LOTR for me to see the humor.

I see. Well then perhaps I shall just wait about for the next Tin Tin to come out.

Bret McKenzie has given a brief update on his role in forthcoming fantasy saga The Hobbit, and has helpfully cleared up some confusion that had been plaguing some eagle-eyed LOTR fans.

Before soaring to fame with Flight Of The Conchords, McKenzie popped up in The Fellowship Of The Ring in an unnamed cameo as an elf. The cameo was seized upon once he had become a household name, and the character was affectionately dubbed Figwit by his fans.

When the details of McKenzie’s involvement in The Hobbit were revealed, fanboy ears immediately started twitching. “I've got a cameo as an elf. Or another cameo," explains McKenzie. “My character is called Lindir. I hang out with Elrond... I've got a few lines in Elvish.”

So, could it be that Lindir and Figwit are one and the same?

“You'll probably see, I've got slightly different ears," says McKenzie, helpfully. "That's how I differentiate my elf characters. The big difference for this character is that he's in 3D. He's a character that's a lot more three dimensional.”

Anyone seen this



http://www.themarysue.com/gene-deitch-hobbit-short-film/

chris63 wrote:Anyone seen this



http://www.themarysue.com/gene-deitch-hobbit-short-film/

cool.. Is Smaug called Slaug? and is Thorin a Man? well, I like this version (from of course, a non purist perspective I like how it is presented and the wonderful images)

"A week and rejected creature found what Gandalf the Grey still seeks, the one ring of power" HAHA!!.. well... what to say? had to do something to make it only 12 minutes

"magically the one ring of power had found it's true bearer, Bilbo Baggins the hobbit" well.. and where are the 13 dwarves? xD

Golluuuum!

That's probably still closer to source than what PJ will give us!

Not sure about Smaug the Slag though!

Beorn

MovieZine: Are you finished filming the Hobbit?
Michael P.: No, absolutely not. I’m going back there in February.

MovieZine: Do you have a part in both films?
Michael P.: Yes I have. The role is more or less what it is in the book. I’m not going to talk much more about it because they’ll get angry at me, but read the book and you see… and then maybe there is a little more.

MovieZine: How is your character Beorn created? Make-up or some kind of motion-capture?
Michael P.: As I said before I intended to survive the night. Otherwise I guess I’ll get a missile after me. It’s exciting to be a part of it. You’ll see later, its barley a year left until the premier in December.

chris63 wrote:Beorn

The role is more or less what it is in the book. … and then maybe there is a little more.

Nice find Chris. It makes me hopeful. At least they're adding to the character rather than cutting it. That'll give Petty something to edit out. We wouldn't want him getting bored!

Oh I don't think he'll get bored, what with the Necromancer being at the battle of 5 armies But I'm glad Beorn will be done right!

Thorin

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/39the-hobbit39-countdown-character-guide-who-thorin-oakenshield-and-we-don39t-just-mean-richard-armitage/6117

We know from the casting of Conon Stevens as giant orc Azog, that this battle will likely be used in at least flashbacks and it boggles the mind how cool that could be.

Interesting take on the casting announcements. My first thought had been since Azog was cast but Bolg was not (yet), that Azog and Bolg may have been combined or the names switched. But it would make more sense, relatively speaking, for both to appear and Azog to be in a flashback. It would certainly fit with the apparent Thrain flashback.

I know they're making to movies and all, but I'm starting to wonder if Bilbo is even the main character! By the looks of it, I think Gandalf is, since he's going to be the only one who's been in all these flashbacks, and the flashbacks themselves are taking away story time from Bilbo. It'll be like two completely separate movies in one that'll be interesting...

Tinuviel wrote:It'll be like two completely separate movies in one that'll be interesting...

I think that's exactly where PJ is going. As we've seen in TT and RotK he likes to cut rapidly back and forth between two or three story lines at a time to keep the audience off balance. He's planning on the same thing here. I'm expecting him to film two or three coherent stories and then shuffle the scenes like a deck of cards to give us an action-adventure thrill ride at the expense of the storytelling. That's my guess anyway.

Good that should mean cutting all the crap back out is a bit easier!

I actually find myself hoping that this is two movies in one, because the alternative is that Bilbo's own story is merged with and probably overwhelmed by the White Council and the Necromancer. Unfortunately, it seems more and more like PJ will be blending the stories together into a single narrative. If the Necromancer really is involved with the Battle of the Five Armies, as Benedict Cumberbatch recently suggested, then I doubt the separately storylines will remain separate for long. While I hope that Bilbo will still be the main character, I have my doubts, given how Frodo lost the position of main character in LOTR to Aragorn, despite PJ's assertions to the contrary.

Given how Frodo was treated by Jackson, I don't necessarily think it a bad thing that Aragorn became the main character

you know what I think? in the book, Sam ends up being the main character. why, because many times it is through him we get those earthly, recognisable views upion thing and.. hm.. well.. I feel (mostly in the end) that Sam is the one thinking and reflecting, it is his ideas we are told. well, that's my view, anyone els who have thought the same?

Ringdrotten wrote:Given how Frodo was treated by Jackson, I don't necessarily think it a bad thing that Aragorn became the main character

Touche.

NB I hope the military is treating you well, Ringdrotten.

Norc wrote:you know what I think? in the book, Sam ends up being the main character. why, because many times it is through him we get those earthly, recognisable views upion thing and.. hm.. well.. I feel (mostly in the end) that Sam is the one thinking and reflecting, it is his ideas we are told. well, that's my view, anyone els who have thought the same?

That's a fair point, and if I recall correctly Tolkien did say that he thought of Sam as the "chief hero" of the story. However, I think that Frodo doesn't always get enough credit. His struggle to bring the Ring to Mount Doom practically destroyed him but he kept going until the very end when he cracked under circumstances that Tolkien said no one could have resisted. I think that both Sam and Frodo play a crucial, heroic role. To his credit, Jackson portrays the heroic role of Sam very well, all changes aside. Unfortunately, I think this comes at the expense of turning Frodo into a wimp even in the first film, where he staggers around on Weathertop and is as alert as a drooling bag of potatoes at the Ford of Bruinen.

Of all the many changes to the story, the gutting of Frodo's character is perhaps the most disappointing and, in my opinion, the most significant. However, you're right that Sam plays a major role that shouldn't be forgotten. When I said that I felt Aragorn was turned into the chief hero of the films, though, I based that on the amount of screentime and dramatic emphasis given to Aragorn's journey. I can understand why PJ may have done this: Aragorn is certainly a more traditional and straightforward hero, and PJ's sense of storytelling is nothing if not straightforward and simple. But I think that having the Hobbits, the un-traditional heroes, at the heart of the tale is part of what made LOTR unique (though that style has been copied endlessly since) and is a crucial part of it's "DNA" as a story.

Whilst I agree it is worth noting Aragorn is a bit of a rarity himself in this story type. Traditionally mortals who meddle in elven affairs don't come out well from it- in that sense Frodo fufills more that traditional role, he is destroyed by his interactions with 'faery'. But Aragorn is entirely successful and in a sense tames Faery and makes it a part for evermore of being human.
Sam is definetly given the hero's treatment- he becomes famous, he becomes wealthy and lives in the manor house of Bag End and he is Mayor and heads his society for many years, he gets the girl and raises a happy, loving family.

Fair point about Aragorn. When I said he was more traditional I meant that he's a military commander, great warrior, natural leader and wins glory over the course of the story. He gets the "hero's treatment" as much as Sam does. Frodo, on the other hand, fades into the background, particularly after the return to the Shire, and eventually sails into the West practically unnoticed by all but his closest friends.

Still, you raise a good point about Frodo's and Aragorn's opposite reactions to 'faery'; it's definitely food for thought.

Tolkien wrote about faery a lot and the notion of it being perilous to mortals is quite evident in LotR;s- Bormoir is a good example of this. Yet Aragorn of all the mortals isn't harmed, he is greater with the faery connection not lessened.
Reminds me of the Macleods, their Chieftain supposedly married a faery, they have a magic faery flag torn from her dress. But even in that case she had to return to the land of faery after a set period of time. I am struggling to think of a traditional tale of faery I know where the mortal comes out in control. Often the mortal uses word play, or trickery, or something to defeat creatures of faery but never quite what Aragorn does- wonder if he is unique in the tales of faery!

Speaking with MTV at the Golden Globes the other night, Andy Serkis played typically coy about the appearance of Smaug in the forthcoming films. “I can’t give any secrets away, none of those trade secrets,” Serkis said. “I can’t say that because actually it’s still under wraps.” However, he did seem to imply that they’re still refining how it will look in the films.