The Hobbit (Dec 14, 2012/Dec 13, 2013/Dec 16, 2014)

[Bweigelt]

They'll find a way to work in Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli. Cuz they'll just be thinking "This is Lord of the Rings Zero, right?"

Well, none of the characters would be completely out of place... Legolas is the son of Thranduil (the king of the Mirkwood elves), so he should definitely be seen hanging around in the scenes involving Mirkwood and the Battle of Five Armies. Aragorn would be 9 or 10 years old and living in Rivendell at the time the dwarves visit there, and about a year older when Bilbo and Gandalf stop by on their way back to the Shire.

Gimli is harder to place. His birth year is given as 2879 TA, which is 62 years before the story takes place, so he'd certainly be alive and would look basically the same or younger somehow (he would be 139 years old at the time of LOTR, despite his non-gray hair). The problem lies with where he was living at the time. He's known to be distantly related to Durin I, which means he's also distantly related to both Thorin and Dain. Thus, it's possible he was living with Dain's folk in the Iron Mountains at the time, which would allow him to appear in scenes near the end of the story.

Pretty sure Gimli is Gloin's son meaning he would be really easy to fit in.

[Po]

Yup yup, "Gimli son of Gloin".

My favorite character to see is gonna be Thorin Oakenshield.

He is gonna be a fucking badass.

[Turambar]

Pretty sure Gimli is Gloin's son meaning he would be really easy to fit in.

I know he's Gloin's son, but that's not relevant to the question of where he was at the time of The Hobbit. The only certain fact is that he wasn't with his father.

[Daahan]

i'm curious as to know who the actors are going to be. I'd imagine Ian McKellen for Gandalf though. I just hope he isn't getting too old to play the role.

[Olo401]

i'm curious as to know who the actors are going to be. I'd imagine Ian McKellen for Gandalf though. I just hope he isn't getting too old to play the role.

I don't think it would matter too much, since if you go by the timeline in the Silmarillion Olorin/Mithrandir/Gandlaf is one old mofo.

[Turambar]

i'm curious as to know who the actors are going to be. I'd imagine Ian McKellen for Gandalf though. I just hope he isn't getting too old to play the role.

I don't think it would matter too much, since if you go by the timeline in the Silmarillion Olorin/Mithrandir/Gandlaf is one old mofo.

He doesn't look old because he's 15000 years old. As a Maia he's capable of assuming different physical forms. He looks like an old man by choice.

[Daahan]

By calling him old I mean in real life, not in Middle Earth times lol

[Khamsin]

i'm curious as to know who the actors are going to be. I'd imagine Ian McKellen for Gandalf though. I just hope he isn't getting too old to play the role.

I don't think it would matter too much, since if you go by the timeline in the Silmarillion Olorin/Mithrandir/Gandlaf is one old mofo.

He doesn't look old because he's 15000 years old. As a Maia he's capable of assuming different physical forms. He looks like an old man by choice.

Was it ever explained why, after all this time, he had to fall off a bridge to become more powerful? He should have done it 14000 years ago.

[Venture]

i'm curious as to know who the actors are going to be. I'd imagine Ian McKellen for Gandalf though. I just hope he isn't getting too old to play the role.

I don't think it would matter too much, since if you go by the timeline in the Silmarillion Olorin/Mithrandir/Gandlaf is one old mofo.

He doesn't look old because he's 15000 years old. As a Maia he's capable of assuming different physical forms. He looks like an old man by choice.

Was it ever explained why, after all this time, he had to fall off a bridge to become more powerful? He should have done it 14000 years ago.

Falling off the bridge I don't think was intentional to become more powerful. Always thought it was an accident, where dying and being reborn gave him a better grasp of such things, and thus more powerful.

[Fhqwghads]

He didn't just fall off, the Balrog dragged him down. It was also a convenient vehicle for the Valar to send him back as the leader of the emissaries, since it was blatantly obvious that Saruman was treacherous and had fallen off the path of the wise. This is why Gandalf came back as The White, and cast Saruman out of the order, breaking his staff. Had Gandalf died prior to Saruman's foolishness, he would have come back exactly as he had been, because there would be no need to elevate his status.

[Turambar]

Well, most of you have probably heard by now, but for those that haven't: Guillermo del Toro signed on a couple weeks ago to direct these two movies. Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis have also expressed interest in reprising their LOTR roles.

[gunner]

I have to say I'm pretty bummed that PJ won't be directing The Hobbit, but Guillermo del Toro's movies are so good that I have hope.

[Tekki]

If anyone other then Peter Jackson directed a LOTR movie, I would have Guillermo del Toro with the same satisfaction, if not more. I love Guillermo del Toro's style.

[Turambar]

Jackson is (executive?) producing.

[barber2006]

* MGM and New Line will co-finance and co-distribute two films, “The Hobbit” and a sequel to “The Hobbit.” New Line will distribute in North America and MGM will distribute internationally.

Are they trying to say The Hobbit will be broken into 2 parts? Because it sure sounds like they are making The Hobbit as one movie and a separate movie as a sequel with statements like this.......

[Rulke]

Hm, I think I have a thread about this someplace but oh well. Anyway, good news! Project has a green light with Peter Jackson directing!
http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Ho...e_Helm/7349469

"This piece of news is a long time coming! The Wrap reports that MGM and Warner Bros. have reached a deal to officially start work on the highly anticipated prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy The Hobbit!

And here's the cherry on top of that nerd-gasmic sundae - Peter Jackson will direct the two part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved novel! According to the source, production will begin in February in New Zealand, bringing the crew back to the Middle Earth sets where the original trilogy was shot.

For fans of the film franchise and casual observers of this often heartbreaking tale of financial woes and flip-flopping talent, today's announcement is a major sigh of relief. If there never was a plan to adapt The Hobbit, there wouldn't have been such an outcry when the project went into jeopardy as a result of MGM's money troubles. People's hopes were drummed up only to be let down time and time again as one problem after another kept the film from rolling before cameras.

Now, as Oscar winner Jackson, who also co-wrote and will produce the epic two-part production, is ready to rock, the sky is the limit for The Hobbit, which should first hit theaters in December 2012 before completing in December of 2013. Though there's still no word on who will play protagonist Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman has been most recently rumored for the part), Sir Ian McKellen is set to reprise his role as Gandalf the Grey in the film, while other characters from LOTR like Hugo Weaving's Elrond and Cate Blanchett's Galadriel could show up at some point or another. "

[foopy]

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/10/12...ve-movie-ever/

Let's go over the preliminaries: We're ridiculously excited that after what seems like the longest process ever there is finally (sort of) some forward momentum on "The Hobbit." But an article posted by New Zealand Herald News said the films, which are being shot back-to-back and are still awaiting an official green light, are expected to cost in the $500 million price range.

That would make it the most expensive movie production of all time, beating out even "Avatar" and the two "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels (which hold the record with a combined price tag of $450 mil) for the title. Will all that money make for better flicks, though? Or will Peter Jackson's insane budget garner the same result his monetary freedom on "King Kong" did? To make a quick comparison, "King Kong" cost $207 million to make and grossed $550 million worldwide, while all three "Lord of the Rings" films cost $285 million cumulatively and made $2.9 billion worldwide. Chew on that.

Yes, in "Avatar's" case, big budget meant big payoff. But James Cameron also spent more than a decade creating the technology to film his dream project in 3-D, and the film subsequently blew the minds of people worldwide and made 3-D all the rage in Hollywood. And, though I could be proved wrong, I have a feeling that is not what has kept "The Hobbit" in development for the past seven years.

We already know that "The Hobbit" is set to be filmed in 3-D, so it can be assumed that a decent amount of the estimated budget is going to be used to make that seamless and beautiful. Plus, with all the legal disputes occurring in New Zealand over production of the film, there are bound to be some increased monetary requirements coming into these two films' productions.

But does more money automatically mean a better movie? The answer is a resounding no, and I'd argue that more often than not the smaller the budget the better the quality of the film. Look at "At World's End" or "King Kong" for proof of that, and then throw them up against films like "District 9" and even the other "Lord of the Rings" films that performed well and were critically well-received despite having smaller budgets. Fox lucked out with "Avatar" (if luck is the right word to describe a Cameron flick), but now every studio seems willing to throw buckets of money away to try to replicate that success.

I've always been a bit biased against larger-budget blockbusters because my concern is that the focus is taken away from creating a quality film and instead, as is likely to be the case with "The Hobbit," on creating quality effects. Still, there are plenty of elements in the story that could really thrive off a seemingly limitless budget. At least we can (hopefully) be promised a killer Smaug and some great casting.

[Tagus]

Though there's still no word on who will play protagonist Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman has been most recently rumored for the part

Haha... I totally read that as Morgan Freeman, and my mind was blown. Still, pretty exciting news!

[orson]

Haha... I totally read that as Morgan Freeman, and my mind was blown. Still, pretty exciting news!

Morgan Freeman is the Narrator for sure... >.> Then revealed to voice Smaug!!!!!!

[Byrd]

I totally forgot I started this thread almost three years ago.

Glad to see The Hobbit is moving forward. Sounds like we're only 2+ years from seeing the film. I'm almost more curious about the second film over the first, since the second film will be charting basically new territory as far as storyline goes. Of course, the same thing could be said about Star Wars Episode I, II, III...