@xXForgivexForgetXx: Maybe they only read "The Hobbit" and not LOTR. He's not actually mentioned in the book version of "The Hobbit" ... you only would know he was involved in the story if you read LOTR, which explains who Legolas is, where he comes from, and a little bit of how he was involved in Bilbo's adventure.
Im excited! This is gonna be awesome, I havent read the books so I dont know whats its going to be about, but I wonder if Strider is going to be in this movie too?
@Tammy8525: Strider/Aragorn won't be in it .. at least not the adult version people know from the LOTR films ... as Aragorn was only 10 years old at the time of "The Hobbit." Also, Viggo M. has said in interviews that he won't be appearing. There still might be a brief bit of Aragorn as a boy, since he was living at Rivendell with his widowed mother at the time ... Elrond was his foster-father ... and Bilbo&Co. spend a good two weeks there near the start, mostly just resting up.
@stockinettestitch: Not quite that bad, since Allen married his (for all intents and purposes) step-daughter ... somebody he'd been a father-figure to. In Aragorn's case it's more like he married a foster-sister ... one who he didn't actually meet until he was 20, and she was 2700. (Actually, Aragorn was descended from Elrond's brother, Elros, so he and Arwen were actually also first cousins 60-some times removed.) Things get complicated when humans fall for elves.
@LostBoyzGurl: Though, not to raise your hopes too much, he may not be in the first movie all that much; probably more in the second. And it's not clear exactly how much screen time he'll get. He's not really part of the main story line .. it's just that his people take the dwarves prisoners, probably near the end of the first film, and then participate in the big battle in the second film. So he'll probably be limited to those two episodes.
In my opinion its Gimli+Legolas tied for 1st, then Aragon as 2nd best, and Frodo+Sam as 3rd. Those are my fav characters in the 3 LOTR series, in the Hobbit, Its obviously Thorin, Gloin, Gandalf
@Puppetdragon44 Ooooh, tough call. Tolkien did write The Hobbit first ... but Jackson’s film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings set an incredibly high standard. I cannot wait to see how it measures up.
0:04 I can take you down fool. 0:05 Sh*t you're bigger than me. 0:06 pulls up pants 0:20 smiles for camera 0:21 thinks about the dream he had last night 0:22 I love you 0:23 trying not to laugh 0:25 what is he talking about? 0:28 oh yah interview- gross. 0:30 stretches face 0:31 mission impossible pose 0:32 puppy dog look 0:34 what the hell is that on the floor 0:35 aw it's a PUPPY! 0:37 girl oh ik.. 0:40 puppy peed on the floor? gross continuously looking at spot on floor 0:49 ya im dun here
the original Hobbit movie was animated and it really sucked. There is no other director alive today that can bring the Hobbit to life and do the right way than Peter Jackson. After The Return of the King I said that now they need to make The Hobbit and Peter Jackson must direct it.
@owden18 : If you read LOTR, you'll find out that Legolas was the son of Thranduil, king of the Mirkwood elves that play such a key role in the latter half of "The Hobbit." You'll also find out that Tolkien specifically identifies him as having been involved with the imprisonment of the dwarves in "Hobbit." Between his royal status, his warrior skills, and Tolkien's placement of him in the story in other writings ... it would actually be very odd for him not to be in these films.
@drdaveoldguy i know the books well. as do u it would seem :) and i know that the mirkwood r in the hobit but like i said "legoas isnt in the hobbit. the only reson the r bringing him into this new movie is cose he was in LoTR. its just sad that tey feel like they need to do that. its a grate story by itself it dosnt need all these call backs
@owden18 : Well, I basically disagree. He's not in "The Hobbit" simply because he was in LOTR, but because the LOTR books specifically say he was involved in the story told in "The Hobbit." Sure, you could film "The Hobbit" as if none of the other Tolkien works exist, and end up with inconsistencies between the film and those other works. But I don't know why anybody would want to do that. Part of the beauty of Tolkien is that he's created an entire history told through many books.
I do agree that the movie decided to include Legolas due to how popular the character was with the cinema audience, but, again, I don't feel like they're crowbarring him in. It is actually a very logical addition, seeing that he was alive back then and his father plays such a big role. It just ties in well with the original trilogy.
As a fan, I am rather interested to see what his role will be. Legolas was always one of the least explored characters in the books.
@EnigmaDrath Good point. Also, while Legolas was one of the least explored characters, he was one of Tolkien's favourite creations. Had Tolkien created Legolas when he wrote The Hobbit, chances are high that he would have included him in the book.
Yeah, The Hobbit was meant to be a stand-alone book. In hindsight, Legolas' absence from The Hobbit is very obvious, though, of course, at the time of writing The Hobbit Tolkien hadn't created that character yet. I don't know about him being one of Tolkien's favourites (considering he isn't given much attention in the books) but for story-telling's sake I'm sure Tolkien would have included him in The Hobbit were it possible at the time, him being Thranduil's son.
@EnigmaDrath I think it was Chris Tolkien who said his father had a soft spot for Legolas? I can't rightly remember, but I have a memory of reading that and of Chris T. approving of all the "fancy" fight scenes that Legolas got in LOTR for that reason :) Might be mistaken though.
When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit he had not even created the massive LotR universe he would later explore in the trilogy. Yes, Legolas was never mentioned in The Hobbit, but only because he hadn't been conceived as a character yet. Tolkien made several personal revisions to The Hobbit while writing LotR and did say that Legolas was around during the events in The Hobbit. Tolkien wasn't able to go back and put Legolas in the book as he would have liked, but the movie can :)
Hey guys, Tolkien was an artist. He spun words into beautiful pictures and epic scenes for us to wrap our heads around and had absolutely no limit to what he could write besides of course his skill as an author, which of course was quite high. Movies have production limits, time tables and have to worry about the waning attention span of movie goers, who get hungry, have to use the bathroom ect. Not to mention the fact that to copy an artists work, word for word sentence by sentenct down to the
@wamyen puncuation would not only have been impossible, but would have turned into a bland project absent of all of the passion that Peter Jackson put into in. I loved Aragorn great king of men from the book who remade Narsil and retook his kingdom for the love of Arwen as Tolkien wrote him. However I also enjoyed Aragorn the flawed ranger who did not want the power of the crown of Gondor or the ring to corrupt him as Peter Jackson did it. Different artists, slightly different visions. Both good
@BlindGus : If you read LotR, specifically "Fellowship," you'll see that Tolkien places him right in the middle of the story told in "The Hobbit." PJ is basing the film not just on "The Hobbit" book, but on other relevant Tolkien writings. So blame Tolkien.
@Scukmydcik1 I read somewhere he'll show up in the battle of the five armies, and he may pop up as the necromancer, since he is in the film and books (albeit in the background).
@KillSwitch2 They did? I know Haldir was there (which he wasn't supposed to be!) but I don't remember it having anything to do with Arwen. And I agree that bringing Sauron to the battle is not a good idea, but if anyone can pull it off PJ can. Maybe he'll have a change of heart like he did in LOTR, he was going to have Sauron fight Aragorn and thought better of it in the end.
Yes, they shot a whole bunch of footage of Liv Tyler(Arwen) fighting side-by-side with Aragorn at Helm's Deep. You can see a lot of filming of her on the EE dvd documentaries. But when word got out during filming that they put Arwen in there, the fans rioted and Jackson was forced to completely cut out all of Liv's scenes.
@KillSwitch2: I'm someone who actually liked some of PJ's deviations -- like expanding the Aragorn/Arwen story and bringing in elves to Helm's Deep. I think they were nice ways to draw on other Tolkien material to bring in important Tolkien themes that wouldn't have been there otherwise. But I agree with you about the narrow brush w/ disaster that Arwen at Helm's Deep would have been, and think direct involvement by Sauron at BoFA would be just as bad.
@KillSwitch2 I don't remember that at all, but thank goodness they didn't! I was so relieved when they cut out the scenes of Eowyn fighting in the caves. I get that there aren't a ton of strong female roles in Tolkien's work, but that doesn't mean they have to add in a bunch. Like this business with Evangeline Lily being an Elf in Thranduil's guard :(
@Vanaathiel: I actually don't have a big problem w/ Tauriel as long as she's inserted into the existing plot. Tolkien moves heavily into narrative mode at points through that part, and as big a part as the elves, Dain's dwarves, and the Laketown men play, there's very little character development ... which would be esp. bad when Thorin & Co. disappear for a while. So a couple new characters won't hurt, nor will making one of them female ... no real problem from a Tolkien canon view.
i'm not a huge fan of his acting skills tbh, but he really suprised me in ''the three musketeers''. I only liked him in lotr because of his handsome looks :3
@0neesan : Tolkien places him in the middle of the story during the Council of Elrond in LOTR. His father is the King of the elves of northern Mirkwood that plays such an important role in the latter half of the story. Between his royal status and his warrior skills, plus the direct reference in LOTR, it just makes sense to have Legolas there.
@SuperThorned : Legolas is not mentioned by name in in "The Hobbit" but Tolkien makes clear in LOTR that he was involved in the story. PJ is drawing on other Tolkien writings to add detail, context, and backstory to the "Hobbit" films.
@drdaveoldguy Legolas's home is in southern mirkwood. He will likely be in the Hobbit when Bilbo and the dwarfs are captured by the woodland elves. Seeing as hes an elf and what? 200 300 years old he probably wont have changed in appearance much. I hope his part is more of just a brief cameo and not some big role.
@SqueesitPlease : Actually, his home is in northern Mirkwood; southern Mirkwood is where Sauron has a fortress. And he's actually quite a bit older than 300 ... in Two Towers he says that 500 years seem but a short while to him. So yeah, he won't look any different. I do think it will be more than a cameo, though I think his involvement will be limited to the Mirkwood scenes, the Battle of the Five Armies (which involved the army of his people), and maybe the aid mission to Laketown.
If Legolas is in this then this movie is ruined. I have no problem with Orlando or Legolas BUT Legolas is not suppose to be in the tale. I heard Arwen is also suppose to make an appearance and yet Arwen is never mentioned in the book. The story is not about elves, its about hobbits and dwarves. The only females mentioned in the books at all are Gladriel and Goldberry and even then their roles were minor in the book.
@thesagebrushkid : Tolkien puts Legolas in the tale in LOTR at the Council of Elrond. And I haven't heard anything substantive that suggests Arwen will be in it. And elves play a key role in the latter half of the story. And if you're talking specifically about "Hobbit," neither Galadriel nor Goldberry are specifically mentioned. And if you're talking about Tolkien books in general, Galadriel and many other women play key roles; and Galadriel is tied to "The Hobbit" tale.
@thesagebrushkid Arwen isn't going to be in, but she IS in the book. The dwarfs visit Elrond at midsomer's eve and he does some translation for them. She's there! And They run around at Thurandil's land and in his palace for ages in the books, so it's not gonna spoil everything if his son is there. Legolas is probably only going to be seen in one of the parties they crach in the forest or somewhere in his fathers halls, and that doesn't interfear with anything!
@Faramirel : Actually, there is no reference to Arwen in "The Hobbit" at all, and there is almost no chance she was there at the time of Bilbo's adventure. She was, at that point, living with her maternal grandparents, Galadriel and Celeborn, in Lothlorien. Also, at that time, Aragorn was a 10-year old boy, living at Rivendell with his widowed mother; Elrond was his foster-father. And Aragorn and Arwen didn't meet until 10 years later. So she almost certainly wasn't there.
@drdaveoldguy I know, that's what my math sums it up to too! Aragorn should be living there and not Arwen, (and I know their story thank you very much) but I destinctly remember Elrond mentioning her from my reading of the book! Aragorn is 87 in the books, right, and there's 60 years between the hobbit and Fellowship in the ring, plus the 15 years or so that passes in the beginning of the book. mMybe I should check another copy. Yours doesn't mention Arwen at all?
@Faramirel : Yeah -- Aragorn is 87 when he first appears in LOTR, and there are 77 years between "Hobbit" and his appearance in LOTR. But nope -- there's no mention of Arwen in my 1973 edition, and it would be hard to miss as Elrond's piece is less than three pages long. Maybe you're misremembering? Another possibility is that it is an error in earlier editions that Tolkien corrected later in life; he did attempt to eliminate some discrepancies in "The Hobbit" like that.
@Faramirel : Actually, scrap that last idea. According to Wiki, Tolkien writes in one of the volumes of "History of Middle Earth" that Arwen as a character was one he conceived late in the writing of LOTR. So that puts her creation long after original publication of "The Hobbit," and really makes it unlikely she was ever in it.
@drdaveoldguy I checked my new copy now - no Arwen! That gives two possible explanations - either I am really miss-remembering, which considering how weird I've always found it is unlikely, or, my other copy (wherever it's currently at) which is where I read the story in full, is wrong. Very possible, seing it's probably the same translation (my new copys is in english by the way) were in two tovers Legolas speaks about his kids, that he in no normal version even has. Why do I keep trustin them?
@drdaveoldguy Found my other copy - no bloody alven maiden there either! So many copys of his books and so little sence! I have no idea how I managed to confuse myself to that extent. (Or hord so many Tolkien books!) So OK - she's not in the Hobbit. It's good that she wont be in the film! (I know she won't becouse I was really angry about that *sigh*) hahaha. I'm gonna watch some Born of hope (she isn't in that either, but Elrond is mentioned!) and try not to feel so darn unlitterate..,.
@Faramirel : OK -- if there's a version of LOTR out there w/ Legolas' kids, then I suppose it's possible there'd be a version of "Hobbit" w/ Arwen ... but I'd be happier if there wasn't. Tolkien is complicated enough. Enjoy "Born of Hope" ... haven't seen it, and don't know how true it is to Tolkien, but I might give it a try sometime and find out ...
@drdaveoldguy It's no version, just a poor translation, and the Arwen thing was obviously just in my head. Born of hope is very true to the story, and very good! You can find it full here on youtube, you should check it out! Don't watch the long hunt for gollum, thought. It's well made, but there you find characters we know from LotR, which doesn't help, and Aragorn isn't believable in that. In Born of hope Aragorn is the only LotRseen character to appear, and he's about two. It's a great film!
@dramaqueen872005 No, course it wont top the trilogy, but ONLY becouse that is fysically IMPOSSIBLE! I can't wait for it to be december! (Even though it just were...)
@inamerica55585 : True, but it's clear from material in LOTR that Legolas was involved in the imprisonment of the dwarves, and given his status and skills as a warrior, he almost certainly was involved in the Battle of the Five Armies as well. The movies are drawing on other Tolkien writings to flesh out detail and provide context. (That's why people like Galadriel and Saruman -- who were in the White Council -- are also in the movie.)
@inamerica55585 lotr books was written after the success of the the hobbit book therefore the charactor legolas was not created yet during the hobbit phase .so he was not mentioned in the hobbit book. the charactor legolas was created much later in the lotr books .lotr books was written due to the demand by the publisher . but legolas was still alive - i read on google .
so peter jackson put him in this movie to make a connection between the lotr movie and the hobbit movie .
@Doug19752533 honestly saying.its frustrating . the movie releases on december .so its practicaaly making everybody including me go crazy with excitement . and the whole world is trying to guess
1 how is peter jackson gonna split this movie in two parts
2 and how is he gonna fit all those unwanted charactors like frodo galadriel tauriel saruman legolas necromancer
therefore everybodys coming up with there own theories and watching lotr movies back to back . including me .lol
@SuperAiden007 Pete Jackson in several interviews has said how and why hes splitting it in two movies - the first part will cover some of the events prior to the events in The Hobbit like the White Council which is where Gladriel and Sauraman come in and as for Frodo its going to be in the form of flashbacks - old Bilbo played by Ian Holmes telling Frodo the story of "their and back again". second movie will cover events between The Hobbit and LOTR
@Doug19752533 : I think that was the plan when del Toro was at the helm, but I'm not sure they expect to do much with material between "Hobbit" and LOTR anymore. I think they are more fleshing out detail, adding backstory, and covering events that happened in parallel with Bilbo's adventure. A recent interview with Evangeline Lilly made it sound like the break between movies will probably occur in Mirkwood .. which is about halfway through the book, page-wise and event-wise.
@SuperAiden007 I think he's going to put Frodo in the movie because he'll be retelling the story of the Hobbit, before Frodo begins his journey. The trailer makes that clear I think
And I believe he'll draw on the story of how Saruman/Gandalf/ Galadriel form the white council and move to crush Dol Goldur.
@SuperAiden007 : I'm pretty sure Arwen is not in it. No sign of Liv Tyler for one thing. Plus they'd have crossed paths only at Rivendell, but Arwen at that time lived with her maternal grandparents (Galadriel and Celeborn) in Lorien, not Rivendell. Finally, Aragorn was a 10-year-old boy living at Rivendell at the time, with Elrond as his foster-father. But he didn't meet Arwen until 10 years later ... which also means no Arwen at Rivendell at that time.
@SuperAiden007 : The actress playing the wood elf Tauriel said her part kicks in right near the end of the first film, which suggests the break will take place about the time the dwarves are taken prisoner. Frodo and old Bilbo have cameos used as a framing device to tell the story. And Jackson is drawing on other Tolkien writings to provide backstory and details about the White Council ... hence Galadriel and Saruman.
@SuperAiden007 : As for Legolas, Tolkien puts him there in the Council of Elrond scene in LOTR. Given his warrior skills and royal status in the Mirkwood kingdom it just makes sense to include him. As for Tauriel, the latter part of the story heavily involves tons of Mirkwood elves, Laketown men, and Iron-Hills dwarves, but Tolkien doesn't really do much character development. I think PJ just wanted to add a couple of characters to make the movie work better.
@inamerica55585 no he wasnt mentioned, but wouldnt it be logical for Legolas to be present by his fathers side when he is speaking with Thorin? im just saying that even though hes not called by name, it is plauseable that he was present
@inkstersco Lol maybe his hair got in the way or grew to much? He was still rather tan back then when they were filming. He is more tan now, but makeup and lighting change all of that;) Just can't wait to see this movie!!!
@inkstersco your kind of... stupid. Pretty dumb comment attempt. I feel physically sick for accidently giving you thumbs up... twas only because Im using a touch screen blackberry playbook tablet. But uh... yeah bud... cool story. Very funny pal. seriousky champ... sport ;)
@SuperAiden007 : Well ... I'm pretty sure the actors playing Frodo, the old Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Gollum all appear in the first film as well.
@temptstress666 : Nope -- the actor that played Bilbo in the LOTR movies (Ian Holm) is also playing the "old Bilbo" in "The Hobbit." The whole movie is being portrayed as the old Bilbo telling Frodo the story of his adventure with the dwarves many years earlier. In that story itself, the "young" Bilbo is played by Martin Freeman. But the "old Bilbo" is being played by the same actor who played him in LOTR.
@SuperAiden007 : Are you sure? I haven't seen anything to suggest that, and in fact in the last interview I saw with Orlando Bloom he said he'd be shooting scenes off and on throughout 2012. That wouldn't make sense if he wasn't going to be in the second movie.
@drdaveoldguy well according to the movie wikipedia and the movie imds and actors wikipedia . he only appears in the first movie .but that can change right .
and besides liv tyer was on and off the set for like three years only to have a role of 5 minutes in each film soooo. i mean basically peter jackson is gonna make a movie like 5 hours long then edit to 3 hours long . bcoz theres no doubt he is shooting both films
back to back . so he can appear in the second film .we just wait ......
@SuperAiden007 : Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into the cast lists that appear on those sites for the second film ... for films in production they mostly rely on information released by the production companies and news items ... kind of like the rest of us. IMDB shows Gollum appearing in the second film (which is probably not correct). It also doesn't show Stephen Fry as a cast member in the second film, even though that's been officially confirmed.
Tolkien made many more epic stories, LotR is just one of them. The hobbit is being filmed now and edited now. BUT there's another very awesome book called: "the children of Húrin" I hope that book gets filmed by peter jackson!!!!
@Doug19752533 would be impossible also... you can make like 10 movies from the silmarillion... and if you cannot include characters from lord of the rings you are in a pretty though spot as a director
@alahad yeah true, was just saying it wold be interesting. prob the only characters from LOTR that would concieveably be in The Silmarillion movie (or movies) would be Elrond, Galadriel, and Celeborn, although that would be a huge stretch to put them in
@Doug19752533 yeah you can put gil galad probably, sauron, for them to understand a little, celebrimbor, what else... Glorfindel, or pete jackson could just might aswell replace glorfindel with argen fighting balrogs in the first age ¬¬' in gondolin... (yeah im complaining about what he did in lotr and glorfindel lol)
I love the Silmarillion, I pray to go God that Jackson and Hollywood stay away from it. One day it will make a fantastic film but not for a mass market. It should remain unmade until someone comes along that will stay true to the Beauty of Tolkien's greatest masterpiece.
@memnonofrhodes dude what are u talking about? Yes you are right about that Hollywood shoul stay away from making the silmarillion but Peter Jackson? He's the best one I can think of to make it
Jackon did a great Job, I'm not going to knit pick the flaws in the trilogy. Nor am i going to say " the book was so much better blah blah blah" but I would imagine most people supporting your comment know the work of Tolkien through Jackson's interpretations, at least initially. The silmarilion does not lend itself to a mass market the same way the LOTR does but is 100x a better tail imo. Hollywood would try to tailor it to a mass market as was done to LOTR
@memnonofrhodes The silmarilion was panned by critics and fans of Tolkien alike. Therefore if it was to be vastly changed as to suit a mass market, I see it as a positive more than a negative.
@MrTooboredtocare: I view Silmarillion as a very good reference book, with a number of really nice short stories thrown in ... especially when supplemented with material from sources like "Unfinished Tales." So I would love to see some of those stories filmed and don't think they'd require all that much in the way of changing. But doing a series of short films ... without some way of providing the overall context ... wouldn't generate that much broad interest from filmgoers, I suspect.
@FreedomFighter08 well, he might hae made a good movie, but the only way to accept the plot(if you've read the book and know the original story) is by accepting that he remade the story, and turned is to his own ideas, it is not the same story that Tolkien made :) So, short said: look at the books and the moveis as two entirely different things :D
@BaronBuddy: Saying he "remade the story" is overstating things. He did cut a couple of major episodes that didn't impact the plot to deal w/ time issues, played w/ timelines some to get the various storylines to sync up, and made some lesser changes. But two of the biggest changes - the expansion of the Arwen/Aragorn story and the elves at Helm's Deep - were beautiful ways to bring in Tolkien themes, drawing on other Tolkien materials, that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
@msklurgh: I would have enjoyed having him and the Downs in there as well, and probably could have held out another 30 minutes in the theater to watch it. But I totally understand why he cut him out.
@drdaveoldguy yeah ofc. that's one of the things that really doesn't add anything to the "toryline" except thaht they get their daggers there. And the wood is pretty lame in the movie compared to the book also. Great movie! It's just that for the most part you dont have anything to compare with :)
@drdaveoldguy Of course, the base of the story is still somewhat there, but he did some major changes that you forgot: their age(not a great thng, really), designs, points of view, and he skipped the whole part with Tom Bombadil(i really wished him tae be there). I d'nae say it sucks, i just say he made some major changes that affects the plot so heavily that if you are a LoTR freak, you'd go nuts when comparing. So if you're supposed to be neutral, think of them as different :)
@BaronBuddy: Well, I have no idea what major changes you see regarding ages, designs, or points of view that reduced the story to something that only vaguely looks like the books. With the exception of Bilbo, who was admittedly too old in the early scenes, most everyone was about the right age ... at least once the quest to destroy the ring began. And as far as Tom goes, yeah, that was a major cut, but it didn't have a significant impact to the plot.
@drdaveoldguy Bah, its ok. I spent so much time complaining before of all the things that he had done different, when i realized that it was stupid. I love the books, i love the movie. That's why i think you can regard them as different stories; the movies is made for the action and thrill of love and fight, the books were made because Tolkien had to get them out. I just pray they'll make a movie about Thurin!
@BaronBuddy: OK ... got it. I was just wondering because I think some people miss the fact that PJ sometimes makes changes so that general themes from parts of the story he won't have time to film can be incorporated into the movie (line the elves at Helm's Deep) ... or he pulls in themes from other Tolkien material (like Arwen/Aragorn's story from the LOTR Appendices). So those changes aren't entirely of PJ's own making ... and it's clear he's doing the same w/ "The Hobbit."
@drdaveoldguy yea. Can't say i approve that he might cange too much of the Hobbit, but at least he does his best. Thank you for good arguments, its always fun reading well thought words at the interwebs :D
@BaronBuddy: Yep. And if it'll make the changes any easier to take, try to think of them not so much as "changes" but more as a more complete telling of the story than in contained in "The Hobbit" book. Because that's really what at least some of the differences between the books and PJ's films ... like including Galadriel and Saruman and Legolas in "The Hobbit" films ... are about.
@drdaveoldguy i know, ia actually enjoy that alot. But ofc. he is not doing this randomly, he does it based at research and knowledge of the works of Tolkien. Legolas is a neccesarry character as he is the son of the wood-elf king, who plays a major role in the story. Saruman will most likely appear in some kind of flasback or something, or they might conclude the part that during the time of the Hobbit's historythe humans were driving, i think, the Witch King of Angmar into Mordor
LEGOLAS <3 I KNEW HE WAS GONNA BE IN IT!!! MY SISTER AND MY UNCLE TOLD ME HE WOULDN'T !!! WHOS THE DUMBASS NOW ?! :D sooooooo excited!!!
xXForgivexForgetXx 12 hours ago
@xXForgivexForgetXx: Maybe they only read "The Hobbit" and not LOTR. He's not actually mentioned in the book version of "The Hobbit" ... you only would know he was involved in the story if you read LOTR, which explains who Legolas is, where he comes from, and a little bit of how he was involved in Bilbo's adventure.
drdaveoldguy 4 hours ago
Im excited! This is gonna be awesome, I havent read the books so I dont know whats its going to be about, but I wonder if Strider is going to be in this movie too?
Tammy8525 1 day ago
@Tammy8525: Strider/Aragorn won't be in it .. at least not the adult version people know from the LOTR films ... as Aragorn was only 10 years old at the time of "The Hobbit." Also, Viggo M. has said in interviews that he won't be appearing. There still might be a brief bit of Aragorn as a boy, since he was living at Rivendell with his widowed mother at the time ... Elrond was his foster-father ... and Bilbo&Co. spend a good two weeks there near the start, mostly just resting up.
drdaveoldguy 1 day ago
@drdaveoldguy Ewww! Elrond was his father-figure? Oh man, that just turned Aragorn into WoodyAllenesque.
stockinettestitch 1 hour ago
@stockinettestitch: Not quite that bad, since Allen married his (for all intents and purposes) step-daughter ... somebody he'd been a father-figure to. In Aragorn's case it's more like he married a foster-sister ... one who he didn't actually meet until he was 20, and she was 2700. (Actually, Aragorn was descended from Elrond's brother, Elros, so he and Arwen were actually also first cousins 60-some times removed.) Things get complicated when humans fall for elves.
drdaveoldguy 1 hour ago
please tell me that Legolas is going to be in "The Hobbit"!! I really want to see him again in his wig and with his bow and arrow :D
LostBoyzGurl 2 days ago
@LostBoyzGurl: That's kind of what the interview w/ Bloom is about .. yes, he's in it.
drdaveoldguy 1 day ago
@drdaveoldguy YAY!! I LOVE LEGOLAS AND ORLANDO!!! hhahahaa!!! sorry Im a bit of a blonde, even though Im not blonde, SHHH dont tell ;)
LostBoyzGurl 17 hours ago
@LostBoyzGurl: Though, not to raise your hopes too much, he may not be in the first movie all that much; probably more in the second. And it's not clear exactly how much screen time he'll get. He's not really part of the main story line .. it's just that his people take the dwarves prisoners, probably near the end of the first film, and then participate in the big battle in the second film. So he'll probably be limited to those two episodes.
drdaveoldguy 16 hours ago
@drdaveoldguy At least he's in it a little, it's better than not at all :)
LostBoyzGurl 16 hours ago
"The blonde wig still fits so thats a relief."
HAHAH yeah.
jlwolfe122 2 days ago
I WANT GLORFINDEL!!! I don't remember the book very well; but I want to see him
babis8142 2 days ago 2
legolas is badddasss
MikeRichards91 3 days ago
I don't care if they're crowbarring him in; can hardly complain about seeing more of Orlando Bloom. ;)
tantan627 3 days ago
why is it called three musketeers when theres four of them
Isac4real 4 days ago
@Isac4real cause it's like da legend of the three, and then the boy comes. nigggggggga
Slushflush 4 days ago
Hopefully he doesn't butcher this one like he did the series.
VanillaIceCreamNao 5 days ago
@EnigmaDrath
In my opinion its Gimli+Legolas tied for 1st, then Aragon as 2nd best, and Frodo+Sam as 3rd. Those are my fav characters in the 3 LOTR series, in the Hobbit, Its obviously Thorin, Gloin, Gandalf
abspartanlaser 5 days ago
i dont know how ill surive!!!!!!!!!! ive been waiting for this movie since i read the book, and i STILL have to wait till december! :-(
mssilentstranger 6 days ago
The Hobbit is gonna be absolutely awesome, but nothing will ever be better than The Lord of the Rings!
Puppetdragon44 6 days ago 3
@Puppetdragon44 Ooooh, tough call. Tolkien did write The Hobbit first ... but Jackson’s film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings set an incredibly high standard. I cannot wait to see how it measures up.
theovermindliveth 6 days ago
Totallytiger08 1 week ago 2
sorry last one meant 0:51
Totallytiger08 1 week ago
@Totallytiger08 Far, far too much effort for way too little return
TheLordSod 6 days ago
... did he just call him "Gandy"?! ohh that is just too awesome lol XD
39galaxyZi 1 week ago
yeah, he's geting a bit chubby : /
ombra247 1 week ago
he's gettin' chubby :3 its cute
ThePrincessBrideGirl 2 weeks ago
Sauron and Saruman dislike video
Nifferek 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey guuys (: watch my lotr fanvids!! pleaseeee ^_^ only really awesome people do.. xD
raggyypt 2 weeks ago
im super excited about all of it. peter jackson, the old actors returning, the fact that The Hobbit is finally being done, everything.
<3 orlando bloom too XP
ErinAlatariel314 2 weeks ago
trolls, begone. Your presence here is unnecessary u_u
If you no like
then why are you here -.-'''
16thwarrior001 2 weeks ago
Like if you want British actors to GTFO
Yondur1 2 weeks ago
@Yondur1 im sorry what the fuck are you on about?? are you trolling or....
sam15mohsen 2 weeks ago
@Yondur1 why because they're better than american ones?? and half of them are Australian !
samjenkins100 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Yondur1 2 weeks ago
the original Hobbit movie was animated and it really sucked. There is no other director alive today that can bring the Hobbit to life and do the right way than Peter Jackson. After The Return of the King I said that now they need to make The Hobbit and Peter Jackson must direct it.
frank53681 3 weeks ago
Hmmm I wonder if Thranduil also says Captian obvious lines and care a bunch for his hair
Maybefunny2468 3 weeks ago
but leg isnt in the book....thers no need for him in the movie
owden18 3 weeks ago
@owden18 : If you read LOTR, you'll find out that Legolas was the son of Thranduil, king of the Mirkwood elves that play such a key role in the latter half of "The Hobbit." You'll also find out that Tolkien specifically identifies him as having been involved with the imprisonment of the dwarves in "Hobbit." Between his royal status, his warrior skills, and Tolkien's placement of him in the story in other writings ... it would actually be very odd for him not to be in these films.
drdaveoldguy 3 weeks ago 3
@drdaveoldguy i know the books well. as do u it would seem :) and i know that the mirkwood r in the hobit but like i said "legoas isnt in the hobbit. the only reson the r bringing him into this new movie is cose he was in LoTR. its just sad that tey feel like they need to do that. its a grate story by itself it dosnt need all these call backs
owden18 2 weeks ago
@owden18 : Well, I basically disagree. He's not in "The Hobbit" simply because he was in LOTR, but because the LOTR books specifically say he was involved in the story told in "The Hobbit." Sure, you could film "The Hobbit" as if none of the other Tolkien works exist, and end up with inconsistencies between the film and those other works. But I don't know why anybody would want to do that. Part of the beauty of Tolkien is that he's created an entire history told through many books.
drdaveoldguy 2 weeks ago
@owden18
I do agree that the movie decided to include Legolas due to how popular the character was with the cinema audience, but, again, I don't feel like they're crowbarring him in. It is actually a very logical addition, seeing that he was alive back then and his father plays such a big role. It just ties in well with the original trilogy.
As a fan, I am rather interested to see what his role will be. Legolas was always one of the least explored characters in the books.
EnigmaDrath 1 week ago 47
@EnigmaDrath Good point. Also, while Legolas was one of the least explored characters, he was one of Tolkien's favourite creations. Had Tolkien created Legolas when he wrote The Hobbit, chances are high that he would have included him in the book.
SwapMeetFlea 3 days ago
@SwapMeetFlea
Yeah, The Hobbit was meant to be a stand-alone book. In hindsight, Legolas' absence from The Hobbit is very obvious, though, of course, at the time of writing The Hobbit Tolkien hadn't created that character yet. I don't know about him being one of Tolkien's favourites (considering he isn't given much attention in the books) but for story-telling's sake I'm sure Tolkien would have included him in The Hobbit were it possible at the time, him being Thranduil's son.
EnigmaDrath 3 days ago
@EnigmaDrath I think it was Chris Tolkien who said his father had a soft spot for Legolas? I can't rightly remember, but I have a memory of reading that and of Chris T. approving of all the "fancy" fight scenes that Legolas got in LOTR for that reason :) Might be mistaken though.
SwapMeetFlea 1 day ago
@EnigmaDrath also he was a prince of mirkwood when and where Golum was being held prisoner before the Fellowship of the Ring
ThomasOfTheShire 52 minutes ago
@owden18
When Tolkien wrote The Hobbit he had not even created the massive LotR universe he would later explore in the trilogy. Yes, Legolas was never mentioned in The Hobbit, but only because he hadn't been conceived as a character yet. Tolkien made several personal revisions to The Hobbit while writing LotR and did say that Legolas was around during the events in The Hobbit. Tolkien wasn't able to go back and put Legolas in the book as he would have liked, but the movie can :)
EnigmaDrath 1 week ago
Hey guys, Tolkien was an artist. He spun words into beautiful pictures and epic scenes for us to wrap our heads around and had absolutely no limit to what he could write besides of course his skill as an author, which of course was quite high. Movies have production limits, time tables and have to worry about the waning attention span of movie goers, who get hungry, have to use the bathroom ect. Not to mention the fact that to copy an artists work, word for word sentence by sentenct down to the
wamyen 3 weeks ago
@wamyen puncuation would not only have been impossible, but would have turned into a bland project absent of all of the passion that Peter Jackson put into in. I loved Aragorn great king of men from the book who remade Narsil and retook his kingdom for the love of Arwen as Tolkien wrote him. However I also enjoyed Aragorn the flawed ranger who did not want the power of the crown of Gondor or the ring to corrupt him as Peter Jackson did it. Different artists, slightly different visions. Both good
wamyen 3 weeks ago
it looks like he has natural elf earss
serai7 3 weeks ago
Lets just be thankful george lucas was extremely far away from both of these movies
greghouse1234 3 weeks ago
@greghouse1234 Why would george lucas direct it? Peter Jackson had big interest in it wich is why he didit.
JediKniight1995 3 weeks ago
@JediKniight1995 I meant to say movie series. I am glad he was not involved in either the LOTR movies or the hobbit movies
greghouse1234 3 weeks ago
Gardaş Türkçeye çevirin şunu :)
uluocak 3 weeks ago
they would need makeup to make him look younger
MrInception12 3 weeks ago
@MrInception12 He's an elf. he doesn't age so not really lol.
xAn0THerxnUMberx1 3 weeks ago 2
what fuck legolas has to do with this movie? Why every good book has to be destroyed by a movie :(
BlindGus 3 weeks ago
@BlindGus : If you read LotR, specifically "Fellowship," you'll see that Tolkien places him right in the middle of the story told in "The Hobbit." PJ is basing the film not just on "The Hobbit" book, but on other relevant Tolkien writings. So blame Tolkien.
drdaveoldguy 3 weeks ago
The one dislike must be Sauron, cause he won't be in the movie
Scukmydcik1 3 weeks ago 78
@Scukmydcik1 on the contrary my friend i heard that Jackson will include Sauron as Necromancer in Dol Guldur in the Gandalf-Part of the movie!
EragonElda13 2 weeks ago
@Scukmydcik1 And the other Saruman, because he was too young.
Butterbiscuits42 2 weeks ago
@Butterbiscuits42 haha ya
eyeam19able 2 weeks ago
@Scukmydcik1 LOL, *SPOILER* sauron is the necromancer ;)
santaist 2 weeks ago
@Scukmydcik1 I read somewhere he'll show up in the battle of the five armies, and he may pop up as the necromancer, since he is in the film and books (albeit in the background).
Vanaathiel 2 weeks ago
@Vanaathiel
That would be fucking terrible. It was bad enough that they tried to shoehorn Arwen into the Helm's Deep battle.
KillSwitch2 2 weeks ago
@KillSwitch2 They did? I know Haldir was there (which he wasn't supposed to be!) but I don't remember it having anything to do with Arwen. And I agree that bringing Sauron to the battle is not a good idea, but if anyone can pull it off PJ can. Maybe he'll have a change of heart like he did in LOTR, he was going to have Sauron fight Aragorn and thought better of it in the end.
Vanaathiel 2 weeks ago
@Vanaathiel
Yes, they shot a whole bunch of footage of Liv Tyler(Arwen) fighting side-by-side with Aragorn at Helm's Deep. You can see a lot of filming of her on the EE dvd documentaries. But when word got out during filming that they put Arwen in there, the fans rioted and Jackson was forced to completely cut out all of Liv's scenes.
KillSwitch2 2 weeks ago
@KillSwitch2: I'm someone who actually liked some of PJ's deviations -- like expanding the Aragorn/Arwen story and bringing in elves to Helm's Deep. I think they were nice ways to draw on other Tolkien material to bring in important Tolkien themes that wouldn't have been there otherwise. But I agree with you about the narrow brush w/ disaster that Arwen at Helm's Deep would have been, and think direct involvement by Sauron at BoFA would be just as bad.
drdaveoldguy 2 weeks ago
@KillSwitch2 I don't remember that at all, but thank goodness they didn't! I was so relieved when they cut out the scenes of Eowyn fighting in the caves. I get that there aren't a ton of strong female roles in Tolkien's work, but that doesn't mean they have to add in a bunch. Like this business with Evangeline Lily being an Elf in Thranduil's guard :(
Vanaathiel 2 weeks ago
@Vanaathiel: I actually don't have a big problem w/ Tauriel as long as she's inserted into the existing plot. Tolkien moves heavily into narrative mode at points through that part, and as big a part as the elves, Dain's dwarves, and the Laketown men play, there's very little character development ... which would be esp. bad when Thorin & Co. disappear for a while. So a couple new characters won't hurt, nor will making one of them female ... no real problem from a Tolkien canon view.
drdaveoldguy 2 weeks ago
@Scukmydcik1 the second must be the witch king
Spncr313 2 weeks ago
@Scukmydcik1 Actually, Sauron will be in the movie.
Zoomataw 1 week ago 9
@Scukmydcik1 Epic fail or what? He IS in the movie faggot. Go die in a corner.
Premoguys 1 week ago
@Scukmydcik1 he may be =P
jebas1322 1 week ago
@Scukmydcik1 hes incognito in the hobbit.
thebludoc 6 days ago
@Scukmydcik1 Are you sure? I mean he might show up as the necromancer.
JohnKulo 6 days ago
@Scukmydcik1 The Necromancer=Sauron
TechDragonID 6 days ago
@Scukmydcik1 Benedict Cumberbatch is doing mo-cap for the Necromancer/Sauron (as well as the voice) and the voice of Smaug.
vexx801 3 days ago
*northern Mirkwood I mean
SqueesitPlease 3 weeks ago
he does have pointy ears, real one!
gigiluckyful 4 weeks ago
i'm not a huge fan of his acting skills tbh, but he really suprised me in ''the three musketeers''. I only liked him in lotr because of his handsome looks :3
MonLeAmour 4 weeks ago
WHAAT?! Legolas in the Hobbit?
I have read the book but I don't remember such part... O_O?
Not like I would mind, Orlando makes good Legolas ;3
0neesan 1 month ago 2
@0neesan : Tolkien places him in the middle of the story during the Council of Elrond in LOTR. His father is the King of the elves of northern Mirkwood that plays such an important role in the latter half of the story. Between his royal status and his warrior skills, plus the direct reference in LOTR, it just makes sense to have Legolas there.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@0neesan actually i do remember that on some page it did mention legolas, though its long time since i readed that book.
SuperThorned 4 weeks ago
@SuperThorned As I recall, Legolas is the son of Thranduin, Elf lord/king of Mirkwood
sjuthberg 3 weeks ago
@SuperThorned : Legolas is not mentioned by name in in "The Hobbit" but Tolkien makes clear in LOTR that he was involved in the story. PJ is drawing on other Tolkien writings to add detail, context, and backstory to the "Hobbit" films.
drdaveoldguy 3 weeks ago
@drdaveoldguy Legolas's home is in southern mirkwood. He will likely be in the Hobbit when Bilbo and the dwarfs are captured by the woodland elves. Seeing as hes an elf and what? 200 300 years old he probably wont have changed in appearance much. I hope his part is more of just a brief cameo and not some big role.
SqueesitPlease 3 weeks ago
@SqueesitPlease : Actually, his home is in northern Mirkwood; southern Mirkwood is where Sauron has a fortress. And he's actually quite a bit older than 300 ... in Two Towers he says that 500 years seem but a short while to him. So yeah, he won't look any different. I do think it will be more than a cameo, though I think his involvement will be limited to the Mirkwood scenes, the Battle of the Five Armies (which involved the army of his people), and maybe the aid mission to Laketown.
drdaveoldguy 3 weeks ago
If Legolas is in this then this movie is ruined. I have no problem with Orlando or Legolas BUT Legolas is not suppose to be in the tale. I heard Arwen is also suppose to make an appearance and yet Arwen is never mentioned in the book. The story is not about elves, its about hobbits and dwarves. The only females mentioned in the books at all are Gladriel and Goldberry and even then their roles were minor in the book.
thesagebrushkid 1 month ago
@thesagebrushkid : Tolkien puts Legolas in the tale in LOTR at the Council of Elrond. And I haven't heard anything substantive that suggests Arwen will be in it. And elves play a key role in the latter half of the story. And if you're talking specifically about "Hobbit," neither Galadriel nor Goldberry are specifically mentioned. And if you're talking about Tolkien books in general, Galadriel and many other women play key roles; and Galadriel is tied to "The Hobbit" tale.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@thesagebrushkid Arwen isn't going to be in, but she IS in the book. The dwarfs visit Elrond at midsomer's eve and he does some translation for them. She's there! And They run around at Thurandil's land and in his palace for ages in the books, so it's not gonna spoil everything if his son is there. Legolas is probably only going to be seen in one of the parties they crach in the forest or somewhere in his fathers halls, and that doesn't interfear with anything!
Faramirel 1 month ago
@Faramirel : Actually, there is no reference to Arwen in "The Hobbit" at all, and there is almost no chance she was there at the time of Bilbo's adventure. She was, at that point, living with her maternal grandparents, Galadriel and Celeborn, in Lothlorien. Also, at that time, Aragorn was a 10-year old boy, living at Rivendell with his widowed mother; Elrond was his foster-father. And Aragorn and Arwen didn't meet until 10 years later. So she almost certainly wasn't there.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy I know, that's what my math sums it up to too! Aragorn should be living there and not Arwen, (and I know their story thank you very much) but I destinctly remember Elrond mentioning her from my reading of the book! Aragorn is 87 in the books, right, and there's 60 years between the hobbit and Fellowship in the ring, plus the 15 years or so that passes in the beginning of the book. mMybe I should check another copy. Yours doesn't mention Arwen at all?
Faramirel 1 month ago
@Faramirel : Yeah -- Aragorn is 87 when he first appears in LOTR, and there are 77 years between "Hobbit" and his appearance in LOTR. But nope -- there's no mention of Arwen in my 1973 edition, and it would be hard to miss as Elrond's piece is less than three pages long. Maybe you're misremembering? Another possibility is that it is an error in earlier editions that Tolkien corrected later in life; he did attempt to eliminate some discrepancies in "The Hobbit" like that.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@Faramirel : Actually, scrap that last idea. According to Wiki, Tolkien writes in one of the volumes of "History of Middle Earth" that Arwen as a character was one he conceived late in the writing of LOTR. So that puts her creation long after original publication of "The Hobbit," and really makes it unlikely she was ever in it.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy I checked my new copy now - no Arwen! That gives two possible explanations - either I am really miss-remembering, which considering how weird I've always found it is unlikely, or, my other copy (wherever it's currently at) which is where I read the story in full, is wrong. Very possible, seing it's probably the same translation (my new copys is in english by the way) were in two tovers Legolas speaks about his kids, that he in no normal version even has. Why do I keep trustin them?
Faramirel 1 month ago
Comment removed
loveatrej 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy Found my other copy - no bloody alven maiden there either! So many copys of his books and so little sence! I have no idea how I managed to confuse myself to that extent. (Or hord so many Tolkien books!) So OK - she's not in the Hobbit. It's good that she wont be in the film! (I know she won't becouse I was really angry about that *sigh*) hahaha. I'm gonna watch some Born of hope (she isn't in that either, but Elrond is mentioned!) and try not to feel so darn unlitterate..,.
Faramirel 1 month ago
@Faramirel : OK -- if there's a version of LOTR out there w/ Legolas' kids, then I suppose it's possible there'd be a version of "Hobbit" w/ Arwen ... but I'd be happier if there wasn't. Tolkien is complicated enough. Enjoy "Born of Hope" ... haven't seen it, and don't know how true it is to Tolkien, but I might give it a try sometime and find out ...
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy It's no version, just a poor translation, and the Arwen thing was obviously just in my head. Born of hope is very true to the story, and very good! You can find it full here on youtube, you should check it out! Don't watch the long hunt for gollum, thought. It's well made, but there you find characters we know from LotR, which doesn't help, and Aragorn isn't believable in that. In Born of hope Aragorn is the only LotRseen character to appear, and he's about two. It's a great film!
Faramirel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Faramirel It was probably poor translation because in the correct one Legolas calls Aragorn and Gimli children.
Legolas says in Two Towers: "I feel young again, as I have not felt since I journeyed with you children."
loveatrej 1 month ago
@thesagebrushkid wait what arwen in the hobbit . r u sure . arwen is in the hoobit movie . how did u find that .
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
I respect Orlando Bloom
ole78aol 1 month ago 91
The Hobbit will undoubtedly be good, but it won't top the trilogy.
dramaqueen872005 1 month ago
@dramaqueen872005 No, course it wont top the trilogy, but ONLY becouse that is fysically IMPOSSIBLE! I can't wait for it to be december! (Even though it just were...)
Faramirel 1 month ago
Legolas forever! Can't wait to see the hobbit!!!!
dancer5021 1 month ago
It will indeed be like going back to a family!
Can't wait!
8wild8creature8 1 month ago
Wait, Legolas wasn't in the hobbit. His father Thranduil, the king of the wood-elves was, but Legolas was never mentioned.
inamerica55585 1 month ago
@inamerica55585 : True, but it's clear from material in LOTR that Legolas was involved in the imprisonment of the dwarves, and given his status and skills as a warrior, he almost certainly was involved in the Battle of the Five Armies as well. The movies are drawing on other Tolkien writings to flesh out detail and provide context. (That's why people like Galadriel and Saruman -- who were in the White Council -- are also in the movie.)
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@inamerica55585 lotr books was written after the success of the the hobbit book therefore the charactor legolas was not created yet during the hobbit phase .so he was not mentioned in the hobbit book. the charactor legolas was created much later in the lotr books .lotr books was written due to the demand by the publisher . but legolas was still alive - i read on google .
so peter jackson put him in this movie to make a connection between the lotr movie and the hobbit movie .
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 right, its makes sense for Legolas to be in Mirkwood at the same time the dwarves were there
Doug19752533 1 month ago
@Doug19752533 honestly saying.its frustrating . the movie releases on december .so its practicaaly making everybody including me go crazy with excitement . and the whole world is trying to guess
1 how is peter jackson gonna split this movie in two parts
2 and how is he gonna fit all those unwanted charactors like frodo galadriel tauriel saruman legolas necromancer
therefore everybodys coming up with there own theories and watching lotr movies back to back . including me .lol
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 Pete Jackson in several interviews has said how and why hes splitting it in two movies - the first part will cover some of the events prior to the events in The Hobbit like the White Council which is where Gladriel and Sauraman come in and as for Frodo its going to be in the form of flashbacks - old Bilbo played by Ian Holmes telling Frodo the story of "their and back again". second movie will cover events between The Hobbit and LOTR
Doug19752533 1 month ago
@Doug19752533 : I think that was the plan when del Toro was at the helm, but I'm not sure they expect to do much with material between "Hobbit" and LOTR anymore. I think they are more fleshing out detail, adding backstory, and covering events that happened in parallel with Bilbo's adventure. A recent interview with Evangeline Lilly made it sound like the break between movies will probably occur in Mirkwood .. which is about halfway through the book, page-wise and event-wise.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 I think he's going to put Frodo in the movie because he'll be retelling the story of the Hobbit, before Frodo begins his journey. The trailer makes that clear I think
And I believe he'll draw on the story of how Saruman/Gandalf/ Galadriel form the white council and move to crush Dol Goldur.
TrunkMonkey3000 1 month ago
@TrunkMonkey3000 is arwen in the movie
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 : I'm pretty sure Arwen is not in it. No sign of Liv Tyler for one thing. Plus they'd have crossed paths only at Rivendell, but Arwen at that time lived with her maternal grandparents (Galadriel and Celeborn) in Lorien, not Rivendell. Finally, Aragorn was a 10-year-old boy living at Rivendell at the time, with Elrond as his foster-father. But he didn't meet Arwen until 10 years later ... which also means no Arwen at Rivendell at that time.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 : The actress playing the wood elf Tauriel said her part kicks in right near the end of the first film, which suggests the break will take place about the time the dwarves are taken prisoner. Frodo and old Bilbo have cameos used as a framing device to tell the story. And Jackson is drawing on other Tolkien writings to provide backstory and details about the White Council ... hence Galadriel and Saruman.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 : As for Legolas, Tolkien puts him there in the Council of Elrond scene in LOTR. Given his warrior skills and royal status in the Mirkwood kingdom it just makes sense to include him. As for Tauriel, the latter part of the story heavily involves tons of Mirkwood elves, Laketown men, and Iron-Hills dwarves, but Tolkien doesn't really do much character development. I think PJ just wanted to add a couple of characters to make the movie work better.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@inamerica55585 no he wasnt mentioned, but wouldnt it be logical for Legolas to be present by his fathers side when he is speaking with Thorin? im just saying that even though hes not called by name, it is plauseable that he was present
Doug19752533 1 month ago
Orlando Bland
tomsega 1 month ago
Top LOTR!? Psh, nothing can do that!
Videogenius7 1 month ago
'blond wig still fits'
Why wouldn't it? Did he put on head-fat?
Real problem is, bloom is very tanned. But he wasn't back then.
inkstersco 1 month ago
@inkstersco Lol maybe his hair got in the way or grew to much? He was still rather tan back then when they were filming. He is more tan now, but makeup and lighting change all of that;) Just can't wait to see this movie!!!
XxOhSoEnviousxX 1 month ago
@inkstersco your kind of... stupid. Pretty dumb comment attempt. I feel physically sick for accidently giving you thumbs up... twas only because Im using a touch screen blackberry playbook tablet. But uh... yeah bud... cool story. Very funny pal. seriousky champ... sport ;)
temptstress666 1 month ago
im a guy and i love orlando bloom
bloodbeag 1 month ago
THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING THAT SHIT FOR OVER TEN YEARS
openminded1 1 month ago
@openminded1 Nope 2 years
ErikTheCrazie 1 month ago
hes the only one who is there only in the first film -hobbit an unexpected journey
rest of them reprise their characters in the second movie
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 : Well ... I'm pretty sure the actors playing Frodo, the old Bilbo, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Gollum all appear in the first film as well.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy Nah its a different Bilbo
temptstress666 1 month ago
@temptstress666 : Nope -- the actor that played Bilbo in the LOTR movies (Ian Holm) is also playing the "old Bilbo" in "The Hobbit." The whole movie is being portrayed as the old Bilbo telling Frodo the story of his adventure with the dwarves many years earlier. In that story itself, the "young" Bilbo is played by Martin Freeman. But the "old Bilbo" is being played by the same actor who played him in LOTR.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy yaa they do . but he dosent reprise his role in the second film .
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 : Are you sure? I haven't seen anything to suggest that, and in fact in the last interview I saw with Orlando Bloom he said he'd be shooting scenes off and on throughout 2012. That wouldn't make sense if he wasn't going to be in the second movie.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
@drdaveoldguy well according to the movie wikipedia and the movie imds and actors wikipedia . he only appears in the first movie .but that can change right .
and besides liv tyer was on and off the set for like three years only to have a role of 5 minutes in each film soooo. i mean basically peter jackson is gonna make a movie like 5 hours long then edit to 3 hours long . bcoz theres no doubt he is shooting both films
back to back . so he can appear in the second film .we just wait ......
SuperAiden007 1 month ago
@SuperAiden007 : Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into the cast lists that appear on those sites for the second film ... for films in production they mostly rely on information released by the production companies and news items ... kind of like the rest of us. IMDB shows Gollum appearing in the second film (which is probably not correct). It also doesn't show Stephen Fry as a cast member in the second film, even though that's been officially confirmed.
drdaveoldguy 1 month ago
Lord of the rings in epic.
cocokid115 1 month ago
Tolkien made many more epic stories, LotR is just one of them. The hobbit is being filmed now and edited now. BUT there's another very awesome book called: "the children of Húrin" I hope that book gets filmed by peter jackson!!!!
ILHINightwishFTW 1 month ago
@ILHINightwishFTW would be interesting to see pete jackson tackle Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion
Doug19752533 1 month ago 36
@Doug19752533 would be impossible also... you can make like 10 movies from the silmarillion... and if you cannot include characters from lord of the rings you are in a pretty though spot as a director
alahad 1 month ago
@alahad yeah true, was just saying it wold be interesting. prob the only characters from LOTR that would concieveably be in The Silmarillion movie (or movies) would be Elrond, Galadriel, and Celeborn, although that would be a huge stretch to put them in
Doug19752533 1 month ago
@Doug19752533 yeah you can put gil galad probably, sauron, for them to understand a little, celebrimbor, what else... Glorfindel, or pete jackson could just might aswell replace glorfindel with argen fighting balrogs in the first age ¬¬' in gondolin... (yeah im complaining about what he did in lotr and glorfindel lol)
alahad 1 month ago
@Doug19752533
I love the Silmarillion, I pray to go God that Jackson and Hollywood stay away from it. One day it will make a fantastic film but not for a mass market. It should remain unmade until someone comes along that will stay true to the Beauty of Tolkien's greatest masterpiece.
memnonofrhodes 1 month ago
@memnonofrhodes dude what are u talking about? Yes you are right about that Hollywood shoul stay away from making the silmarillion but Peter Jackson? He's the best one I can think of to make it
sabuomarrr1 3 weeks ago
@memnonofrhodes Praying isn't gonna do shit, fool.
Michaelmop 3 weeks ago
@memnonofrhodes How dare you speak ill of Jackson no one could ever have honored Tolkien's work like Peter Jackson did, respect to him!
FreedomFighter08 3 weeks ago 150
@FreedomFighter08
Jackon did a great Job, I'm not going to knit pick the flaws in the trilogy. Nor am i going to say " the book was so much better blah blah blah" but I would imagine most people supporting your comment know the work of Tolkien through Jackson's interpretations, at least initially. The silmarilion does not lend itself to a mass market the same way the LOTR does but is 100x a better tail imo. Hollywood would try to tailor it to a mass market as was done to LOTR
memnonofrhodes 2 weeks ago
@memnonofrhodes The silmarilion was panned by critics and fans of Tolkien alike. Therefore if it was to be vastly changed as to suit a mass market, I see it as a positive more than a negative.
MrTooboredtocare 2 weeks ago
@MrTooboredtocare: I view Silmarillion as a very good reference book, with a number of really nice short stories thrown in ... especially when supplemented with material from sources like "Unfinished Tales." So I would love to see some of those stories filmed and don't think they'd require all that much in the way of changing. But doing a series of short films ... without some way of providing the overall context ... wouldn't generate that much broad interest from filmgoers, I suspect.
drdaveoldguy 2 weeks ago
@FreedomFighter08 well, he might hae made a good movie, but the only way to accept the plot(if you've read the book and know the original story) is by accepting that he remade the story, and turned is to his own ideas, it is not the same story that Tolkien made :) So, short said: look at the books and the moveis as two entirely different things :D
BaronBuddy 2 weeks ago
@BaronBuddy: Saying he "remade the story" is overstating things. He did cut a couple of major episodes that didn't impact the plot to deal w/ time issues, played w/ timelines some to get the various storylines to sync up, and made some lesser changes. But two of the biggest changes - the expansion of the Arwen/Aragorn story and the elves at Helm's Deep - were beautiful ways to bring in Tolkien themes, drawing on other Tolkien materials, that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
drdaveoldguy 2 weeks ago
@drdaveoldguy I think cutting out Tom Bombadill entirely was too bad :/ Love that one. And the barrow downs would've been so scary :)
msklurgh 2 weeks ago
@msklurgh: I would have enjoyed having him and the Downs in there as well, and probably could have held out another 30 minutes in the theater to watch it. But I totally understand why he cut him out.
drdaveoldguy 2 weeks ago
@drdaveoldguy yeah ofc. that's one of the things that really doesn't add anything to the "toryline" except thaht they get their daggers there. And the wood is pretty lame in the movie compared to the book also. Great movie! It's just that for the most part you dont have anything to compare with :)
msklurgh 2 weeks ago
@drdaveoldguy Of course, the base of the story is still somewhat there, but he did some major changes that you forgot: their age(not a great thng, really), designs, points of view, and he skipped the whole part with Tom Bombadil(i really wished him tae be there). I d'nae say it sucks, i just say he made some major changes that affects the plot so heavily that if you are a LoTR freak, you'd go nuts when comparing. So if you're supposed to be neutral, think of them as different :)
BaronBuddy 1 week ago
@BaronBuddy: Well, I have no idea what major changes you see regarding ages, designs, or points of view that reduced the story to something that only vaguely looks like the books. With the exception of Bilbo, who was admittedly too old in the early scenes, most everyone was about the right age ... at least once the quest to destroy the ring began. And as far as Tom goes, yeah, that was a major cut, but it didn't have a significant impact to the plot.
drdaveoldguy 1 week ago
@drdaveoldguy Bah, its ok. I spent so much time complaining before of all the things that he had done different, when i realized that it was stupid. I love the books, i love the movie. That's why i think you can regard them as different stories; the movies is made for the action and thrill of love and fight, the books were made because Tolkien had to get them out. I just pray they'll make a movie about Thurin!
BaronBuddy 1 week ago
@BaronBuddy: OK ... got it. I was just wondering because I think some people miss the fact that PJ sometimes makes changes so that general themes from parts of the story he won't have time to film can be incorporated into the movie (line the elves at Helm's Deep) ... or he pulls in themes from other Tolkien material (like Arwen/Aragorn's story from the LOTR Appendices). So those changes aren't entirely of PJ's own making ... and it's clear he's doing the same w/ "The Hobbit."
drdaveoldguy 1 week ago
@drdaveoldguy yea. Can't say i approve that he might cange too much of the Hobbit, but at least he does his best. Thank you for good arguments, its always fun reading well thought words at the interwebs :D
BaronBuddy 1 week ago
@BaronBuddy: Yep. And if it'll make the changes any easier to take, try to think of them not so much as "changes" but more as a more complete telling of the story than in contained in "The Hobbit" book. Because that's really what at least some of the differences between the books and PJ's films ... like including Galadriel and Saruman and Legolas in "The Hobbit" films ... are about.
drdaveoldguy 1 week ago
@drdaveoldguy i know, ia actually enjoy that alot. But ofc. he is not doing this randomly, he does it based at research and knowledge of the works of Tolkien. Legolas is a neccesarry character as he is the son of the wood-elf king, who plays a major role in the story. Saruman will most likely appear in some kind of flasback or something, or they might conclude the part that during the time of the Hobbit's historythe humans were driving, i think, the Witch King of Angmar into Mordor
BaronBuddy 1 week ago
@FreedomFighter08 I even heard he single-handedly killed a pack of Wargs
roxumedia 5 days ago
@memnonofrhodes lol if hollywood dosnt make it, then it will just be another "search for gollem" (horrible)
fierokr3w 3 weeks ago
@memnonofrhodes whate fuck...
KimsCS124