|
Post by Admiral Rodgers on Apr 10, 2011 8:23:08 GMT -5
The two part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's ,1937,novel The Hobbit has now established the majority of its cast .
The cast thus far is. Bilbo Baggins - Martin Freeman Gandalf - Sir Ian McKellen Gollum - Andy Serkis Galadriel - Cate Blanchett Saruman - Sir Cristopher Lee Frodo Baggins - Elijah Wood Legolas - Orlando Bloom Thorin - Richard Armitage Kili - Aidan Turner Fili - Rob Kazinsky Dwalin - Graham McTavish Oin - John Callen Bombur - Steven Hunter Dori - Mark Hadlow Gloin - Peter Hambleton Bofur - James Nesbitt Ori - Adam Brown Beorn - Mikael Persbrandt Radagast -Sylvester McCoy Lord Balin - Ken Stott Drogo Baggins - Ryan Cage Nori - Jed Brophy Bifur - William Kircher Thror - Jeffrey Thomas Thrain - Mike Mizrahi Lindir - Bret McKenzie
As well as negotiations to seal the following
Ian Holm as Older Bilbo Baggins Hugo Weaving as Elrond David Tennant as Thranduil Saoirse Ronan as Itaril
I , myself am very happy with the cast so far , with certain doubts but all round it seems a solid cast , the choice of Martin Freeman is risky but i think he will do well , the return of Sir Ian McKellen is a delight to see , also as some Dr.Who fans may know Scottish actor David Tennant may claim the role of Legolas' father Thranduil , King of the Woodland realm of Mirkwood , which i think could be a very good role for him , also the return of Hugo weaving as Elrond would be another good point.
Although Galadriel does not directly appear in the book Kate Blanchet will be returning to her role , my guess would be with the white council along with Saruman (Sir Christopher Lee) and Gandalf , which although does not give a detailed description of what they do during the time of the hobbit novel it does tell they succesfully drive out Sauron the Necromancer from Dul Gulder in Mirkwood.
Overall i'm pleased with this cast , and i should suspect under Peter Jackson's directory it should make yet another quality addition to the cinema adaptation of John Ronald Rueld Tolkien's novels.
Please give your opinions ;D
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Apr 10, 2011 8:28:00 GMT -5
Anything with David Tennant should bee good.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Rodgers on Apr 10, 2011 8:36:13 GMT -5
Yup ! , he wont be a major part though , but should be in it quite a bit for a small part of the movie
|
|
|
Post by Power NeXus on Apr 10, 2011 15:27:23 GMT -5
....... Legolas?
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Apr 10, 2011 16:23:17 GMT -5
Makes sense at least. Legolas is Tranduil's son. To feature him while the dwarves are parading (in loose terms) through Tranduil's kingdom is not a huge stretch.
Saruman and Galadriel, not so much. As much as awesome Cate Blanchet and Christopher Lee (especially Christopher Lee) are, their induction automatically shifts the part of the spotlight to Sauron being in Mirkwood, turning Hobbit into a LOTR tie-in and prequel, rather than a stand alone story. Then again, I figure that's what they're going for, and it's not that huge of a deal or anything.
I am sad because Guilermo Del Toro had to leave the project though. Not that I don't like Jackson, I would just loved to see Toro's perspective on it.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock Laforet on Apr 11, 2011 0:00:12 GMT -5
Well i loved the Book and the cast seems pretty solid but my expectation are very low due to Jackson directing.He fvcked up the Trilogy and i dont want to see what he does to this but only time will tell if it comes out alright or not but im not getting my hopes up
|
|
|
Post by Power NeXus on Apr 11, 2011 10:01:19 GMT -5
I'm just not sure how I feel about this. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books of all time, but it's not the kind of story that will translate well to a movie unless they change a lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Apr 11, 2011 18:13:28 GMT -5
not sure how they can pull this off properly.
|
|
|
Post by Power NeXus on Apr 11, 2011 20:37:28 GMT -5
not sure how they can pull this off properly. Come on Crom. Have faith in the movie industry. Movie adaptations of books are almost always awesome. And if you believe that, I'm a prince from an African nation who would like to transfer all of my wealth to your bank account.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Apr 11, 2011 20:39:06 GMT -5
loool!
Guillormo might have been able to pull it off. But no Jackson. He barely pulled of LOTR which is easier to do.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 24, 2011 6:05:07 GMT -5
So apparently, Evangeline Lily is set play an elf called Tauriel in the movie. Now at first, I thought this was just blatant shoehorning, but then I thought about it and, well, is there a single female character in the Hobbit? Seriously. Granted, I've read the book some 8-9 years ago, and of the top of my head, I don't remember a single one. It's uncanny, really. The film will be divided into two parts: An unexpected journey and There and back again. The first is set to come out in December 2012 (so no chance of seeing it before the Apocalypse ) and the second in December 2013.
|
|
|
Post by Power NeXus on Jun 24, 2011 10:20:31 GMT -5
So apparently, Evangeline Lily is set play an elf called Tauriel in the movie. Now at first, I thought this was just blatant shoehorning, but then I thought about it and, well, is there a single female character in the Hobbit? Seriously. Granted, I've read the book some 8-9 years ago, and of the top of my head, I don't remember a single one. It's uncanny, really. The film will be divided into two parts: An unexpected journey and There and back again. The first is set to come out in December 2012 (so no chance of seeing it before the Apocalypse ) and the second in December 2013. Hmm. I hadn't thought about it before, but now that you mention it the Hobbit is a pretty big sausage-fest.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2011 10:22:17 GMT -5
loool! Guillormo might have been able to pull it off. But no Jackson. He barely pulled of LOTR which is easier to do. *spits drink* How did Jackson 'barely' pull off LotR? I have zero interest in that franchise and recognize the films are extremely well done (final 30 minutes or so of the last film aside).
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 24, 2011 19:41:13 GMT -5
*spits drink* How did Jackson 'barely' pull off LotR? I have zero interest in that franchise and recognize the films are extremely well done (final 30 minutes or so of the last film aside). Have you read the books? If you have then you'll know why he barely pulled it off. The movies were barely in the "good but not great" category
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2011 21:38:28 GMT -5
Why should I need to read the books to formulate my own opinion on the quality of the films? Nolan's movies are excellent, but extremely different than the source material, too. I don't see anyone really citing that as a flaw. But really, to say Jackson 'barely pulled it off' is solely your opinion, and the polar opposite of...Well, a massive majority.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jun 25, 2011 0:31:19 GMT -5
The franchise is still regarded as one of the landmark movies of its time. It is still the highest grossing trilogy of all time as well. Having cleared over 2.91 billion dollars at the box office and got 11 fuggin Academy Awards for Return of the King alone and 17 total for the trilogy. I am sure they just give those things away to the low end of the "good but not great" movies.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 16:04:09 GMT -5
Why should I need to read the books to formulate my own opinion on the quality of the films? Nolan's movies are excellent, but extremely different than the source material, too. I don't see anyone really citing that as a flaw. Because adapting a novel and adapting an on-going comic character is vastly different. When you adapt a novel, you're essentially rendering a self contained world and theme into image rather then giving your take on a character that has multiple interpretations. When you are attempting such a task. You have to try and present the work as closely to the original source material as possible. Or if that would not be possible in a movie for it to be viable, make sure that what you change to make keeps into what the work essentially carries. In numerous places Jackson made deliberate changes that totally destroyed meaningful bits of theme or changed the underlying message it carries. He further developed aspects into directions that were not at all the intent or theme of Tolkien's masterpiece. Some of the changes were all the more sad since they were obviously products of the syndrome of "americanitis" or need to appeal to a wider audience, thus diminishing the work and it's beautiful subtlety. But really, to say Jackson 'barely pulled it off' is solely your opinion, and the polar opposite of...Well, a massive majority. The vast majority of people (especially those who could not appropriately critique the adaptation) have not read lord of the rings. Awards and popularity are further meaningless. Twillight is insanely popular was even up for movie awards. So are a number of movies and works. Has not actual relevance to actual quality.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 25, 2011 16:29:05 GMT -5
"Awards and popularity are further meaningless. Twillight is insanely popular was even up for movie awards." A VERY moot comparison. 1) Twilight is popular among a specific demographic. LoTR is respected by viewers across the board. 2) Twilight received mediocre to bad reviews. It has less than 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, if my memory serves me right. 3) We're not talking about 'MTV movie awards' or other events of that nature.
Also, I'd love to see where this standard is that when adapting a novel no changes must be made for it to be done well.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Stargrave on Jun 25, 2011 16:34:37 GMT -5
Twilight is critically panned. Lord of the Rings isn't
Really Crom, you're grasping at straws. Yes, the movies made numerous adaptations to the work for one reason or the other. That's bad and detracted from the richness of the setting, but that doesn't detract from what the movies did accomplish, which is to be an excellent, emotionally engaging and epic work that set the standard for movies after it.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 25, 2011 16:34:44 GMT -5
Also, I'd love to see where this standard is that when adapting a novel no changes must be made for it to be done well. This is not what I said. I said what changes are done (if they are necessary for it to be a viable movie) should be ones that keep the intent, theme, mood and message of the author. Otherwise you're not making a good movie adaptation because you're not rendering the work. At which point it makes the entire effort to adapt a novel to a movie pointless. And Jackson made some deliberate changes that completely altered, destroyed or turned over key elements of Tolkien's work. The better portions of the LOTR movies were not the story. But rather the acting performances, the quality of the special effects and images, the music etc. Because story wise, with all the changes Jackson made, some blatantly because of " sell it to the dumb audience" syndrome, it was actually the weakest aspects of the LOTR movies.
|
|