GhaleonQ said:Does anyone want to speculate about how history will remembr Martin Freeman? As I understand it, he's not FAMOUS-famous in the United Kingdom, but at a Naomi Watts or Adrien Brody-level (people would know the name, critically and commercially successful).
History's a great leveler, though, and people just remember the odd, the great, and the successful rather than whomever is placed in front of them at the time.
Martin Freeman now has starring roles in 3 massive, international, presumably lasting hits (The Office, Sherlock, and The Hobbit), lots of cameos and small parts in respected stuff, and a nice catalog of radio and theater work.
Are our kids going to think Martin Freeman was a superstar?
Teh Hamburglar said:Andy Serkis is glad to have a paycheck again.
Teh Hamburglar said:Andy Serkis is glad to have a paycheck again.
Lion Heart said:I wish they made this film before LOTR, I hate prequels.
Kevin Smith has lost 65lbs of weight since November the 1st (according to his latest podcast).Mission said:I give the man props for continuing to lose the weight. Kevin Smith could take a page out of his book.
Napoleonthechimp said:Kevin Smith has lost 65lbs of weight since November the 1st (according to his latest podcast).
dvolovets said:Really looking forward to this. I'm impressed that Christopher Lee is still on board -- he's, what, in his late 80s?
WyndhamPrice said:The story of the Hobbit, apart from the incident with Gollum, is so far removed from LOTR it really doesn't matter in what order they come out.
Napoleonthechimp said:Kevin Smith has lost 65lbs of weight since November the 1st (according to his latest podcast).
Mission said:
He says its because of the Sundance screening of his new movie Red State.OuterWorldVoice said:Southwest first-come seating is a helluva drug.
It's true for the book, but I have a feeling the movie will have stronger ties, especially expanding the part with the necromancer. But Jackson and Co. are clever enough to craft the movies for people who have only seen the previous movies. I don't think this will be a problem in the slightest.WyndhamPrice said:The story of the Hobbit, apart from the incident with Gollum, is so far removed from LOTR it really doesn't matter in what order they come out.
Teh Hamburglar said:Somehow I doubt UK pays him quite the same as New Line.
LegendofJoe said:Why yes Bilbo I would love to join you for tea!
The Hobbit: There and Back AgainScrow said:are they still making this into two movies?
i think that's a mistake.
Salazar said:You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to come uninvited.
I don't see why it couldn't be the same as the book. It's a pretty quick scene with Bilbo rushing around in confusion as more and more dwarves show up at his door.LegendofJoe said:lol, good point
I wonder how the movie will portray the introduction of Bilbo to Thorin and company?
Aaron said:I don't see why it couldn't be the same as the book. It's a pretty quick scene with Bilbo rushing around in confusion as more and more dwarves show up at his door.
Aaron said:It's true for the book, but I have a feeling the movie will have stronger ties, especially expanding the part with the necromancer. But Jackson and Co. are clever enough to craft the movies for people who have only seen the previous movies. I don't think this will be a problem in the slightest.
You are not alone.Brettison said:On a side note I think I'm finally willing to come out and say I just enjoy The Hobbit more than the rest of Tolkien's work. Seems less weighty, doesn't have near the amount of paragraphs intricately describing things, and just seems to flow better for me.
Hokuten said:You are not alone.
You bein' serious?Brettison said:As for the OP something just didn't totally sit with me in the 1st pic. It looks FANTASTIC, but initially the character in the pic didn't match up with what I had in my head.
Wrong.Puddles said:Fellowship = worst LOTR film.
Puddles said:Fellowship = worst LOTR film.
teiresias said:I haven't read the novel in many, many years, but is the extra material they're adding in as the new material actually in the novel or is it all in LOTR appendices? If so, what are the relevant sections? Though having read LOTR itself many times, I admit to never once reading through the appendices of the thing (and I've never been able to get through The Silmarillion, unfortunately).
I just watched the trilogy this past weekend, and I'd have to disagree. Fellowship is probably my favorite, followed closely by Return of the King; Two Towers is the worst of the three.Puddles said:Fellowship = worst LOTR film.
Morn said:The Appendix idea was tossed out a long time ago. The two movies are just The Hobbit. The stuff they're adding is extending stuff from the book like having Bilbo actually take part in the big battle at the end instead of just being knocked out.
The only big thing they're adding that's not in the book are the bookend scenes with Frodo reading Bilbo's book sometime in the four years between Mount Doom and the Grey Havens.
Monocle said:My todger is currently buried in the coals of the hype train's furnace. Choo choo motherfuckers!
nskinnear said:I just watched the trilogy this past weekend, and I'd have to disagree. Fellowship is probably my favorite, followed closely by Return of the King; Two Towers is the worst of the three.
They're all great, though.
It burns so good! Yeehaw!GhaleonQ said:I laughed, but I'll be honest: I did not need those metaphors mixed!
The Silmarillian is set thousands of years before The Hobbit. That would make no sense at all.Brettison said:Interesting. For some reason I thought they were still gonna draw on some more bridge stuff like say from The Sillmarilion.