The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

[CTF]

STOP messing with the story and just do it right, Peter, for frig's sakes!! :|

What works in a book, won't always work in a movie.

So shush.

 

[CelticRuins]

What works in a book, won't always work in a movie.

So shush.

I know that, full and well. But putting something in that NEVER even happened, at all is stupid. This also takes away from 'The Hobbit' as a whole.

So you shush.

I never minded Arwen taking the place of Glorfindel, in fact I'm making her costume from that scene! I didn't mind Arwen's extra appearances at all, though I'm glad she was deleted from Helms Deep.

If it's a story change that screws with the nature of the story, it shouldn't be done. Extractions and additions that worked and could never be filmed include Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs, the Elves at Helms Deep, getting rid of Glorfindel and minor characters that wouldn't be character developed, etc.

The Necromancer at 5 Armies is NOT something that works or feels right. Again, he'd have no business or use to being there. This article got it right about that:

Hobbit forming: will Peter Jackson give Tolkien's story a new ending? | Film | guardian.co.uk

 

[Goodwolf]

Yeah, I gotta say that putting Sauron in The Hobbit just... doesn't make sense.

Smaug was the bad guy, and Sauron, aka the Necromancer was a distant and not entirely obvious threat in the books. OK, maybe they put him in some of the scenes shown where Gandalf meets Thráin... I could accept that, since he was in the Necromancer's lair, after all.

 

[Kit Rae]

I think it makes perfect sense. It's not just the storyline from the Hobbit being told in the films, although that is the core. It is all the events that occurred during the time of the Hobbit, primarily as told in a section of the LOTR appendix. There are really detailed accounts in the Silmarillion, The Quest for Erabor in Lost Tales, The Annotated Hobbit, et cetera. All of that material occurred during The Hobbit and directly ties The Hobbit into The Lord of The Rings.

As a kid, I was always curious what Gandalf did when he disappeared for so long in the book. In fact, Gandalf's whole motive to get involved in Thorin's quest in TH and bring Bilbo into the adventure was entirely motivated on bringing down Sauron and destroying The One Ring, if it were to be found. That was his mission in Middle-earth. Gandalf suspected and confirmed Sauron and the Ringwraiths had reappeared in Mirkwood, and he knew that Sauron would be seeking The One Ring and what an ally the dragon Smaug would be to him if he were to regain his power. The events of The Hobbit only happened because of this fear.

I reread The Hobbit many times as a kid, but I never understood the full impact of that small tale on the larger events occurring in the background until after reading the other Tolkien works that explained all of this, and how the entire adventure in The Hobbit was directly tied to the Necromancer/Sauron and The One Ring's destruction. I wished Tolkien had been able to tie it all together in one book. Many people may not know this, but after writing LOTR Tolkien actually DID attempt to rewrite The Hobbit in the same style as LOTR, to directly tie the two works together as a whole.

Being able to jump back and forth between the two story lines across two films will also nicely blend with the way Jackson wove the various LOTR story lines together in his films. I have faith in Jackson and Co. and cannot wait to see the entire story told in these two films.

 

[Jedi2016]

The problem with that theory is that they apparently don't have the rights to adapt any of the work that explains what "really" happened during the events of the first book. So because Gandalf does mention that he found Thrain in the Necromancer's Keep, and that's where he got the map and the key, then they can certainly build up a subplot regarding that. But they can't mention anything about Gandalf's reasons behind what he did, because that's actually part of Unfinished Tales, which they have no film rights to (despite the scene being originally written for LOTR).

There is plenty of backstory in the various books, the problem is that they can't actually use any of it.

 

[Kit Rae]

There is a brief summary of these events told by Gandalf in Rivendell at the end of The Hobbit. Even if that was all they had the rights to use, they could fill in the blanks with that, but the fact is, there is much more detail in the appendices of LOTR, specifically Appendix A - Durin's Folk, and the event timelines in Appendix B.

 

[Jedi2016]

Well, whatever they can get away with, I'm all for it.

 

[CelticRuins]

As a kid, I was always curious what Gandalf did when he disappeared for so long in the book. In fact, Gandalf's whole motive to get involved in Thorin's quest in TH and bring Bilbo into the adventure was entirely motivated on bringing down Sauron and destroying The One Ring, if it were to be found. That was his mission in Middle-earth. Gandalf suspected and confirmed Sauron and the Ringwraiths had reappeared in Mirkwood, and he knew that Sauron would be seeking The One Ring and what an ally the dragon Smaug would be to him if he were to regain his power. The events of The Hobbit only happened because of this fear.

I reread The Hobbit many times as a kid, but I never understood the full impact of that small tale on the larger events occurring in the background until after reading the other Tolkien works that explained all of this, and how the entire adventure in The Hobbit was directly tied to the Necromancer/Sauron and The One Ring's destruction. I wished Tolkien had been able to tie it all together in one book. Many people may not know this, but after writing LOTR Tolkien actually DID attempt to rewrite The Hobbit in the same style as LOTR, to directly tie the two works together as a whole.

Ehh...Technically The Hobbit is it's own story, with slight tie-in's to LotR. The dwarves and their story doesn't completely tie in with the legend of the One Ring. Thrain does, yes, but that's not even told in the Hobbit, it's in the appendices. While yes, Peter is trying to tie in bits and pieces of the appendices stories, adding Sauron will not make any sense to the part of the story that has NOTHING to do with Sauron.

At that point, he had not been dealt with yet. It wasn't until after the Battle of the Five Armies, that Gandalf, Thranduil, Galadriel and Celeborn went to Dol Guldor to deal with the Necromancer problem. Gandalf had no clue that this tormentor of Southern Mirkwood WAS Sauron. He only found that out when he found Thrain, while he was looking for the map and key to the Lonely Mountain.

Galadriel was the pivotal character that "cleared" Dol Guldor. She used her powers to destroy Dol Guldor, which led Sauron to flee to Mordor and construct Baradur.

Again, this was AFTER the Battle of Five Armies, and even after Bilbo came back home. This was not during and before. Meaning they will screw up the time line of events, just to give us a glimpse of a character that didn't have anything to do with The Hobbit??? Meh. Not feeling it, if you ask me.

Like others have stated: Smaug is the threat in this story. Goblin King is a close second. Why would we need someone that doesn't even come back into play until 30-50+ years later??? :angry

 

[Lynn TXP 0369]

Is the dragon in this?
I saw the trailer yesterday, but I never saw the dragon in it.
Lynn

 

[Jedi2016]

Is the dragon in this?
I saw the trailer yesterday, but I never saw the dragon in it.
Lynn

Seeing as the book is being split into two films, it makes perfect sense that we won't see Smaug until the second film. I doubt they'll show him at all in the first film, even during the flashbacks.

 

[nwjedidave]

I think most of us are VERY curious to see what Smaug will end up looking like. I heard someone mention Richard Taylor (not sure who it actually was) said something like the Dragon from Dragonslayer is the bench mark, and that they want to UP the bench mark!

 

[EyeofSauron]

yeah if the dwarves arent enough (i could live with those, but hardly) if they put sauron in this, im out

 

[Lynn TXP 0369]

I think most of us are VERY curious to see what Smaug will end up looking like. I heard someone mention Richard Taylor (not sure who it actually was) said something like the Dragon from Dragonslayer is the bench mark, and that they want to UP the bench mark!

The Dragonslayer dragon is the best ever!! I would love to see it back or better.
Lynn

 

[Ceebrupt]

Ehh...Technically The Hobbit is it's own story, with slight tie-in's to LotR. The dwarves and their story doesn't completely tie in with the legend of the One Ring. Thrain does, yes, but that's not even told in the Hobbit, it's in the appendices. While yes, Peter is trying to tie in bits and pieces of the appendices stories, adding Sauron will not make any sense to the part of the story that has NOTHING to do with Sauron.

At that point, he had not been dealt with yet. It wasn't until after the Battle of the Five Armies, that Gandalf, Thranduil, Galadriel and Celeborn went to Dol Guldor to deal with the Necromancer problem. Gandalf had no clue that this tormentor of Southern Mirkwood WAS Sauron. He only found that out when he found Thrain, while he was looking for the map and key to the Lonely Mountain.

Galadriel was the pivotal character that "cleared" Dol Guldor. She used her powers to destroy Dol Guldor, which led Sauron to flee to Mordor and construct Baradur.

Again, this was AFTER the Battle of Five Armies, and even after Bilbo came back home. This was not during and before. Meaning they will screw up the time line of events, just to give us a glimpse of a character that didn't have anything to do with The Hobbit??? Meh. Not feeling it, if you ask me.

Like others have stated: Smaug is the threat in this story. Goblin King is a close second. Why would we need someone that doesn't even come back into play until 30-50+ years later??? :angry

Actually, the "tale of years" in the Appendices of LOTR says that during the events of the Hobbit (in TA 2941), the "The White Council meets, Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur". So it does happen at the same time, but the fortress was destroyed much later by Galadriel, after the One Ring had been destroyed.

Davy

 

[DARTH SABER]

I think most of us are VERY curious to see what Smaug will end up looking like. I heard someone mention Richard Taylor (not sure who it actually was) said something like the Dragon from Dragonslayer is the bench mark, and that they want to UP the bench mark!

If that's their benchmark, then they're definitely on the right track. Now I'm even more excited to see the final look of Smaug.

 

[DARTH SABER]

Considering that the LOTR films stayed very faithful to the art of John Howe and Alen Lee I'm sure Smaug will be closely based in their art.
On the Weta website there's a statue of Smaug by John Howe (looks very similar to Vermithrax from Dragonslayer), I wouldn't be surprised if Smaug from the film looks very close to this.

 

[CelticRuins]

Actually, the "tale of years" in the Appendices of LOTR says that during the events of the Hobbit (in TA 2941), the "The White Council meets, Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur". So it does happen at the same time, but the fortress was destroyed much later by Galadriel, after the One Ring had been destroyed.

Davy

I admit to having been mixed up on Galadriel coming to Dol Guldor, with when Saruman attacked.

Still, Tolkien said nothing Sauron having business with the Battle of 5 Armies, which is my beef here. But, I digress...I'm assuming Cumberbatch is merely mixed up, hasn't read the script/book and doesn't really know what's going on. Especially since PJ and his team were well known for re-writing entire sections of the script on the day they were shooting that script's sequence.

I do have faith in what PJ has to offer, of course. If he sticks to how he worked out LotR, I do believe all will be safe .

 

[nwjedidave]

Just read this over at MTv.com

"Motion-capture wizard Andy Serkis took some time off from filming "The Hobbit" to hit the red carpet at the 2012 Golden Globes, but it seems like he left all of his precious Middle-earth secrets back in New Zealand.

When Serkis took some time to chat with MTV News' Josh Horowitz, he refused to give any clue what the legendary dragon Smaug might look like on the big screen. "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."

In "The Hobbit," Serkis reprises the role that made him a capture-performance all-star: Gollum. Additionally, he will step behind the camera as the director of the films' second unit.

An iconic character in J.R.R. Tolkien's mythological world, Smaug is the impetus for all of the action in Peter Jackson's upcoming "Lord of the Rings" prequel, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." Such a revered character is bound to come with a high level of security.

Serkis suggested that there might be more to his own secrecy than just avoiding spoilers. According to the actor, Weta Workshop is still working on the creature's look. "It's still a very secret character that is very closely safeguarded, and it's still in the design process," he said.

The little we do know about Smaug is more than enough to get us excited. Benedict Cumberbatch will voice Smaug in "The Hobbit" before going where no man has gone before as the villain in J.J. Abrams' next "Star Trek."

Serkis said that with Cumberbatch as Smaug, audiences certainly have something to look forward to. "With an actor like Benedict Cumberbatch playing him, it will be extraordinary," he said. "

 

[seven]

I think people are flipping back and forth over staying true to the book and what is being added as "creative licence". You cannot say "leave it out "cause it's not true to the book" and say "...They better not add that part that is in the book..."

The Necromancer, aka Souran, is in the book, not only as a flash back to Gandalf meeting thrain and receiving the map and key from him, but also again when Gandalf, along with the White Council, join forces and removed (battled?) The Necromancer from the his Dark place in the Southern part of Mirkwood. These are two instances where Souran is mentioned in the Hobbit, so it would not be creative licence to show him in the movie, but instead would be keeping true to the text. Further more, Galadriel is part of the White Council so she too would be shown here, so Jackson would be staying true to the source again by having her in the movie.

It is quite possible, that the Gandalf met with the entire White Council at Elronds when the company rested there. This is where the may have talked about the Necromancer and the need to remove him. They would then have made plans to meet and do just that. It was Gandalf who said at Beorns that he had plans else where and had to leave. It still wouldn't be creative licence to show him making those plans would it?
By including everything that is mentioned in stories outside the Hobbit that happended during the Hobbit isn't adding creative licence, it's filling in the blanks.
I for one, would love to see all this in the movie.

 

[DuneMuadDib]

I'd argue that depicting events that were never explicitly detailed is artistic license. It's a change to the narrative to include details not presented in it.