[quote=""Elvenguard13""] I would also like Liv tyler to be seen at Rivendell but there's been no news on that either[/quote]
So this made me think, "Aragorn would be 27 years old".

Ah, a young Aragorn... what are they going to do, tape Viggo's face back like they did for Ian Holm to make him look younger in FOTR?

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Ah, a young Aragorn... what are they going to do, tape Viggo's face back like they did for Ian Holm to make him look younger in FOTR? [/quote]

They're bringing Stuart Townsend in to play the younger Aragorn.

As I understand it they actually filmed several scenes with the young Estel/Aragorn and Arwen in Rivendel for LOTR that we have never seen, so those could make it into TH1 or TH2. The problem is, TH takes place in 2941-42. I don't think he met Arwen until long after that, around 40 years as I recall, so they would have to play with the timeline to allow this. Aragorn did not even know of his heritage or real name at the time of The Hobbit.

They did rebuild the shards of Narsil set for TH, so...

[quote=""Valkrist""]So, if I may conjecture upon your comments, United Cutlery, Noble Collection, and Weta itself will likely hold the licenses and produce the replicas and mastersmith versions respectively.[/quote]

IMO, this would be the most intelligent scheme:

1) United/Noble producing display-only replicas for wide range of collectors (as many pieces as required; $200-300)
2) Albion re-creating these blades, making them fully functional, extremely detailed, in limited editions for more demanding customers (500-1.000 pieces; $2.000-3.500)
3) Master Swordsmith's Collection for mentally deranged (10-15 pieces; $10.000+)

So far we only have (had -- I hope) mass-produced display swords and
ultra-limited and quite e xp ensive master art.

Since I (and people like me) cannot complete the Master Swordsmith's
collection (or maybe I could -- I just don't want to spend 100% of my year
salary every year (maybe 3-4 times per decade only -- once was enough
and it drained me mentally), I'm forced to stick with UC.

The missing link is Albion (or someone like them, even though they gathered
most e xp erience with film replicas). That would keep me happy for a while.

All would win and none of those three variations would be competing with
another.



Oh yes, and I never thought Haldir's sword is endangered. Licenses e xp ire
from time to time, but they can always be renewed. Ask Albion (hint: Conan
the Barbarian 1982). Not only that, but I truly believe we'll see things like
Faramir's sword and Guthwine. Even another run of Aragorn's Elven knife
that's so difficult to find these days. The only question is when. (And it's
not like we have nothing to collect in the meantime!)



Many thanks to Nasnandos for the info and forum activity. Very helpful.

I'm pretty sure Albion will not be involved. That would seriously conflict and compete with the Master Swordsmith line in Weta's eyes. I don't think anything fully hand made will come from anyone but Weta. That's their territory, and they deserve to have it. Of course, there may not even be a Master series from Weta line for TH. I know it was in the works, and I hope they do it, but I have not yet heard it confirmed.

If it does come to fruition, hopefully there will be slightly higher editions in the Swordsmith line than the past swords, and more Albion/Conan like price points. I don't see how Peter Lyon would have the time to do these all himself though. I think he will be quite busy for the next few years.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]I'm pretty sure Albion will not be involved. That would seriously conflict and compete with the Master Swordsmith line in Weta's eyes. I don't think anything fully hand made will come from anyone but Weta.[/quote]

How can anything "seriously conflict and compete" with their lines of 10 or
15 swords? We all know that Master Swordsmith's Collection is hand-crafted
by Peter Lyon, and Albion's swords, even though fully functional and
exquisitely detailed, are still production-made recreations (the smallest runs
are 500 pieces).

Peter Johnsson can create a few prototypes for Albion's historical lines, and
those few would always be high-priced and cherished among collectors, even
though there's an immediate follow-up by 500 (or more) functional replicas,
created by a team of people, with a help of a computer-guided cutter that
shapes the blades out of steel billets.

If Albion ever made a run of 10.000 Andúril swords, Weta would still sell their
ten in an eye blink (just as they did).

However, I do agree there could be problems if Weta decides to increase
the run -- without Peter Lyon doing 100% of the job. But that's mere
speculation at this moment (correct?).

Mr. Lyon could continue forging swords for the rest of his life, and never
fear not selling any of them, especially the ones from Tolkien's lore. The
moment he became famous, he wrote at his web page:

Due to increasing personal and professional commitments, I am unable to take on any new work for the foreseeable future. Rather than having a waiting list stretching into the far future, I have decided it is fairer to stop accepting new work; this also means I will not discuss possible designs for future work either, as there is no prospect of me being able to complete the job in any reasonable timeframe. This is to avoid disappointment on your part, and minimise the pressure on me.

It's like you say Japanese craftsmen are in a serious conflict and
competition with Hanwei, just because Hanwei replicates the tamahagane
process for some of their lines and sells those katanas for $3.000.

As I said, "in Weta's eyes". I don't think they will want anything hand made of that quality, in any capacity, if they are doing their own hand made limited editions. There are differences in quality between one swordsmith, and a group of swordsmiths obviously, but not much difference in construction other than Peter grinds most of his steel hilt parts from blocks of steel rather than casting them as Albion does.

That's just IMO, from what I know has been discussed in the past, and one of several reasons New Line would not allow UC or anyone else to create fully functional swords with the first LOTR license.

Hell, I would love for Albion to make a higher quality sword along with UC, but I totally see what Kit is saying. I would say, UC needs to at least need to continue the Museum Collection swords from High Carbon not the Samwise poo that came out. Museum collection of the main swords in the movie, highest sellers: Orcist, Glamdring (pretty please), Sting, ect. That way you have to lower end wall hangers for regular enthusiasts and for us with a larger pocket book and/or huge amounts of debt and dreams, the museum collection.

Did they really confirm Townsend as Aragorn? Really, the original Aragorn coming back? Please, I pray to Eru that he isn't there...

The post about Stuart Townsend was a joke.

Ha! *heart beats hard* Oh how I can't stand that guy.

Only thing I ever saw him in was "Queen Of The Damned". I didn't care much for his performance. Definately breathed a sigh of relief when I heard that he was replaced with Mortensen.

Oh yes. I know that guy. It was his own fault he got ditched, and that he's
being ridiculed years after. If you remember the story, they were saying he's
too young for the part. But since the whole team had to work together for so
many months, they were simply forced to get rid of him in time because he
was a complete dick.

I guess we get to say hooray for Henry Mortensen again

[quote=""ed209""]Oh yes. I know that guy. It was his own fault he got ditched, and that he's
being ridiculed years after. If you remember the story, they were saying he's
too young for the part. But since the whole team had to work together for so
many months, they were simply forced to get rid of him in time because he
was a complete dick.[/quote]

And your source for this is?

[quote=""Olorin""]And your source for this is?[/quote]

This:

http://www.wellingtonrover.co.nz/

February 23rd 2010.

(Need a photo or two to prove it?)

It's extremely fun and informative.

(Of course, the tour guide didn't use as appropriate term as I did, but the
point remains the same.)

I also learned much about the Helm's Deep battle filming, Minas Tirith's
Citadel, Gardens of Isengard, Aragorn washed ashore, etc, etc. Basically
stuff you wouldn't find even in bonus DVDs.

But you'll just have to trust my word, since you'd have to win a lottery to
go there and e xp erience it yourself.

"At the last minute, Peter Jackson decided that he needed someone older than Townsend, who was only 29 at the time. There were also rumors that the two did not get along well on set. "

"Townsend never received compensation for his time on set, yet he was apparently happy to be moving on."

http://listverse.com/2010/06/04/top-10- ... dont-know/


Here's a good discussion on it:

http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums ... -3781.html


I'm sure there are more definitive sources out there, but that's what I found in a quick google search.

But you know, it seems to me that to cast a 29 year old guy to play the part of an 87 year old Dunedain with a ton of e xp erience under his belt might not have been the best choice. (When I picture Townsend as Aragorn in several scenes, I just find myself shaking my head, "No".)

[quote=""ed209""]This:

http://www.wellingtonrover.co.nz/

February 23rd 2010.

(Need a photo or two to prove it?)

It's extremely fun and informative.

(Of course, the tour guide didn't use as appropriate term as I did, but the
point remains the same.)

I also learned much about the Helm's Deep battle filming, Minas Tirith's
Citadel, Gardens of Isengard, Aragorn washed ashore, etc, etc. Basically
stuff you wouldn't find even in bonus DVDs.

But you'll just have to trust my word, since you'd have to win a lottery to
go there and e xp erience it yourself.[/quote]

No need to get defensive; I had never heard anything except the official e xp lanation before, so I was just curious.

[quote=""Sedhal""]"At the last minute, Peter Jackson decided that he needed someone older than Townsend, who was only 29 at the time. There were also rumors that the two did not get along well on set. "

"Townsend never received compensation for his time on set, yet he was apparently happy to be moving on."

http://listverse.com/2010/06/04/top-10- ... dont-know/


Here's a good discussion on it:

http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums ... -3781.html


I'm sure there are more definitive sources out there, but that's what I found in a quick google search.[/quote]

Interesting that one poster thought it was because Townsend was adamant about portraying Aragorn closer to how he was in the book. That's probably nothing more than idle speculation, though.

[quote=""MorgulMike""]But you know, it seems to me that to cast a 29 year old guy to play the part of an 87 year old Dunedain with a ton of e xp erience under his belt might not have been the best choice.[/quote]

That's pretty much what PJ said. So what were the makers of Queen of the Damned thinking when they cast him as the centuries-old Lestat? Of course, in the books, Lestat is emotionally not much more advanced than the 16-year old he was when he was turned, so age shouldn't be a problem there. However, Townsend had the distinct bad luck of following Tom Cruise in the role, and it was just impossible not to hark back to his performance.

But getting back to LOTR, one thing that almost no-one comments on is that PJ cast 18-year-old Elijah Wood to play 50-year-old Frodo! Of course, Frodo's age in the movie is never commented upon, so if you want, you can just assume him to be the age he appears. Likewise, the gap between Bilbo's departure from the Shire and Frodo's is never made e xp licit in the movie. In the book, it was 17 years. In the movie, it seems like a few weeks. However, if you take note of the few time references in the movie, such as Bilbo's reference to it being SR 1400 at the time of his party, and Aragorn telling Eowyn he's 87, the times all line up pretty well with the book, within a year anyway. So even though it seems like a few weeks before Frodo leaves the Shire, it had to be 16 or 17 years. On a similar note, Hobbits live longer than humans, so it seems reasonable that an 18-year-old human might not look much or any younger than a 33-year-old Hobbit...and once Frodo takes possesion of the Ring, he wouldn't visibly age within the timeframe of the movie.

Thinking of Mortensen's performance in general, it's hard to imagine anyone playing the part as written by the moviemakers better than Mortensen played it. As for the more forceful and determined book Aragorn, that role just had Daniel Day Lewis written all over it. I've commented on this before, but PJ likes to say he got his first choice for all of the cast, with the exception of Aragorn...because it's all too well documented that they started filming with a different Aragorn. However, the other first choices that they allegedly had and didn't get, are quite interesting. DDL as Aragorn (a heavy sigh for what might have been), Anthony Hopkins as Gandalf (no regrets there, and that one strains credulity anyway), and Sean Connery as Gandalf. Connery claims he was offered the part and turned it down because he couldn't figure out what it was about, and still couldn't figure it out even after seeing the finished movie.

[quote=""Olorin""] ...and Sean Connery as Gandalf. Connery claims he was offered the part and turned it down because he couldn't figure out what it was about, and still couldn't figure it out even after seeing the finished movie.[/quote]

I guess those famous Bond brains were all [mental] movie magic.

Do you think he was really that obtuse?

[quote=""Deimos""]I guess those famous Bond brains were all [mental] movie magic.

Do you think he was really that obtuse? [/quote]

That's a very good question that I've wondered about. The only way I can interpret Connery's comments that give him any credit is that he doesn't understand Gandalf's motivation...how can anyone be that good, even to the point of self-sacrifice, when there's nothing in it for him? That e xp lanation only holds water, though, if PJ failed to tell Connery that Gandalf is an angelic being on a mission from God, or from God's appointed rulers of the world. That should have put it all in perspective. But who knows what Connery really thought or didn't understand? Like Christopher Lee, he's certainly made his share of bad movies, but unlike Lee, he didn't recognize destiny knocking in the form of a short, fat Kiwi.

Well, I wouldn't e xp ect Connery to make any film that was a bit deeper than the kiddie pool at any of the Disney resorts here in Florida anyways. Ian Mc. was perfect for it and I am too glad that he is return for TH. If there was one actor I could meet out of the whole cast it would be him, superb actor. Gotta love those theatre actors, Ian, Ian, Hugo, they are all just so good.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]....Ian Mc. was perfect for it and I am too glad that he is return for TH. If there was one actor I could meet out of the whole cast it would be him, superb actor. ...[/quote]

If I am not mistaken (and not taking the time to look it up) I believe McKellen was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in FOTR, which --imo-- he should have won hands down.

He, more than any other actor portraying Tolkien's characters except for Sean Astin's Samwise, captured the facial e xp ressions, the mannersims, indeed the very essence of his character. Not to mention the voice....absolutely loved it when he thundered at the Balrog, "You shall not pass!"

Happy beyond words that he is in the Hobbit.

When he is gone "his like shall not pass this way again."

[quote=""Deimos""]If I am not mistaken (and not taking the time to look it up) I believe McKellen was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in FOTR, which --imo-- he should have won hands down.[/quote]
Absolutely correct, and the Academy dissed him.

[quote=""Thranduil""]Absolutely correct, and the Academy dissed him. [/quote]

Down with the Academy!


When you think about it, they really did mess that up. FotR, one of the best fantasy films of all time, didn't get as many awards as the other two, including the one that Sir Ian definitely should've got. Then they go and give everything to RotK, the movie that leaned most heavily on action and violence and had the most major deviations from the original story. Just doesn't seem right to me.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Ian Mc. was perfect for it and I am too glad that he is return for TH. If there was one actor I could meet out of the whole cast it would be him, superb actor. Gotta love those theatre actors, Ian, Ian, Hugo, they are all just so good.[/quote]

Back in 2001 when they were doing promotional appearances prior to FOTR, you could have met, at one table, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Ian Holm. How much would that have been worth, LOL?

[quote=""Deimos""]If I am not mistaken (and not taking the time to look it up) I believe McKellen was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in FOTR, which --imo-- he should have won hands down.[/quote]

[quote=""Thranduil""]Absolutely correct, and the Academy dissed him. [/quote]

[quote=""Fingolfin""]F**k the establishment! Down with the Academy! [/quote]

Jim Broadbent won that year. He is a great actor who has also been in some of our favorite movies, as Slughorn in Harry Potter and the Professor in Narnia:LWW. I didn't see the movie he was in, but I'm sure he did a great job. But, he was a safe choice. There was a fear, probably well founded, that Ian McKellen would have used the occasion of his thank you speech to denounce Hollywood for its hypocrisy in how it deals with gay actors.

[quote=""Olorin""]...Jim Broadbent won that year. He is a great actor who has also been in some of our favorite movies, as Slughorn in Harry Potter and the Professor in Narnia:LWW. I didn't see the movie he was in, but I'm sure he did a great job. But, he was a safe choice. There was a fear, probably well founded, that Ian McKellen would have used the occasion of his thank you speech to denounce Hollywood for its hypocrisy in how it deals with gay actors.[/quote]

Jim Broadbent is indeed a great actor. I have not seen every movie he has been in, but I've seen quite a few.

I was not aware that McKellen used awards ceremonies as a pulpit, since I never watch awards ceremonies.

I thought that Hollywood's (or the Academy's) reason for dissing him was more because they would never ever even consider giving a major Oscar to any fantasy movie.

And my understanding as to why they finally gave it to ROTK was that it was such a monumental accomplishment (however it much it strayed from the book) that they couldn't very well ignore it without publicizing their prejudice against the genre.

[quote=""Deimos""]Jim Broadbent is indeed a great actor. I have not seen every movie he has been in, but I've seen quite a few.

I was not aware that McKellen used awards ceremonies as a pulpit, since I never watch awards ceremonies.

I thought that Hollywood's (or the Academy's) reason for dissing him was more because they would never ever even consider giving a major Oscar to any fantasy movie.

And my understanding as to why they finally gave it to ROTK was that it was such a monumental accomplishment (however it much it strayed from the book) that they couldn't very well ignore it without publicizing their prejudice against the genre.[/quote]

I don't know if he ever has used an award ceremony as a pulpit, but he's definitely not shy. It might be a different kind of prejudice, prejudice against fantasy, as you suggest. It was a great big deal when Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins took top acting honors for Silence of the Lamps, as it was essentially a horror movie.

I also feel LOTR got cheated. They didn't really consider each film individually, in spite of FOTR's stunning 13 nominations. They knew it was a trilogy and I guess they figured that they'd never live it down if at least one part didn't win Best Picture, so they lumped all the accolades on ROTK. Not that it wasn't deserving of them! But TTT really got passed over...six noms and only two wins. There was some confusion over changes to Oscar's rules about whether sequels could be nominated in categories where the work was largely done in a prior installment. So for example, Howard Shore as not nominated for best score. An outrage!

I can't believe the news today.



Sir Mick Jagger is about to perform at the London's premiere of "The Hobbit:
An Une xp ected Journey." However, he is going to change some of the lyrics of
his memorable songs, all for the needs (and the proper mood) of the event.
For instance, his Old Habits Die Hard single from 2004 should be renamed to
Old Hobbits Die Hard.

For the potential doubters, here's my source:

The Empire Exclusive: "Concerning Sir Jagger's Hobbits"

[quote=""ed209""]...Sir Mick Jagger is about to perform at the London's premiere of "The Hobbit"...[/quote]

Nauseating ...Is nothing sacred?

Back when FOTR & TTT were getting sidelined in the awards, I kept telling people that the Academy can't just keep piling awards on what is essentially one story. I further predicted that they were holding off to dump it all on ROTK.

I was glad that they did indeed follow that pattern and didn't proceed to just honor the LOTR with the most nominations.

While they were all separate films, I still think it was their intention to honor all three by doing what they did.

I'm certainly not defending the Academy. It's more like pointing out how we'd all feel if they had continued to hand out nominations and fail to actually give it awards.

This same pattern can be seen in other areas of life, especially if you pay attention to athletic competition like the Olympics when it comes to judged events. There is a natural feeling to spread things around when there is only one who gets to be at the top. Part of trying to be fair is to recognize those who've come close but gotten sidelined in the end.

The, "It's your turn", mentality pays off for those who persevere in spite of multiple rejection.

Would we feel better if the Academy had 3 Oscars? A gold, silver, and bronze?

Even those recognized can voice there disdain for the Academy's faults, like Speilberg did with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
(For those wondering; The Academy dissed Speilberg for years because in his youth he voiced his opinion of them [much the same as we do here]. Ultimately they gave him the Irving Thalberg award, but Speilberg didn't let up; he used his Thalberg award in IJ&LC as a prop. It was the small bust that got stuck in the revolving fireplace scene to stop it. The ultimate F*** You!).

[quote=""Thranduil""]For those wondering; The Academy dissed Speilberg for years because in his youth he voiced his opinion of them [much the same as we do here]. Ultimately they gave him the Irving Thalberg award, but Speilberg didn't let up; he used his Thalberg award in IJ&LC as a prop. It was the small bust that got stuck in the revolving fireplace scene to stop it. The ultimate F*** You!.[/quote]

Uh, that was a bust of Hitler. At least, it sure looks like Hitler...I just freeze-framed the DVD. I also googled the Thalberg award and it's also a bust, but it doesn't really look like the prop from Indiana Jones. It's possible that Spielberg had his model shop modify the Thalberg bust. Now that would be a real F-you!

[quote=""Deimos""]Nauseating ...Is nothing sacred?[/quote]

Sacred? What's that?

[quote=""Olorin""]Uh, that was a bust of Hitler. At least, it sure looks like Hitler...I just freeze-framed the DVD. I also googled the Thalberg award and it's also a bust, but it doesn't really look like the prop from Indiana Jones. It's possible that Spielberg had his model shop modify the Thalberg bust. Now that would be a real F-you![/quote]
Well I guess it goes to show how much first impressions can be lasting ones.
When I saw the film in the theater back in 89, it had only been just over a year since the award had been given out. And back then there was no internet per se to verify it.
Now that I can view the statue, I see it is not the same. The funny thing is, every time I watch the film again, I never thought it was a Hitler bust. Now I want to watch that part again, but my copy is on VHS and my player died.

Thanks for setting the record straight on that Olorin

So rereading the hobbit and I am stumbling across more descriptions of Kili and Fili and as it stands, the only thing that isn't spot on is that Kili should have blonde hair, but otherwise their youth and lack of good sturdy beards are in the book.

In the recent promo picture, one of them did have blond hair. Was it the wrong one?

No, both are supposed to have "yellow beards". Eh, I don't care I trust PJ more than anyone else.

[quote=""Olorin""]Jim Broadbent won that year. He is a great actor who has also been in some of our favorite movies, as Slughorn in Harry Potter and the Professor in Narnia:LWW. I didn't see the movie he was in, but I'm sure he did a great job. But, he was a safe choice. There was a fear, probably well founded, that Ian McKellen would have used the occasion of his thank you speech to denounce Hollywood for its hypocrisy in how it deals with gay actors.[/quote]

Fair point; Sir Ian isn't exactly quiet about his pride. And You're right about Broadbent, if he won he probably deserved it, he is a great actor.

I hope they don't make Kili and Fili too likable, I don't want to be too sad to see them go.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]I hope they don't make Kili and Fili too likable, I don't want to be too sad to see them go.[/quote]
You can't be serious. PJ's going to make it the major of the film.

Well, I have a feeling that Thranduil is going to be made into a major a..hole but I really wonder how Thorin will play off. Honestly in the book, Tolkien didn't make him likable at all. In all honesty thesedwarves are so different from Gimli in the lotr. All are scared and really in significant. I think the names Oin gloin and dwalin were used less than any other word in the book. There is so much I forgot, I just finished the book last night again and I was surprised given how different the writing of it is from lotr. Th has many more anti-climatic points that I honestly know will not work in film. I am just trying to think how they are going to iron them out. Only one major event I can think off is in the lotr books, and that was the burning of the shire. So glad they took that out. Cinematically, it is a resolution killer and I am glad it was taken out. There just seems to be A LOT more of those "huge climax, then mini climaxes" right afterwards in the hobbit. Hmmm...

I wish they would've filmed the scouring of the Shire. Who cares if it would've trashed the plot, I want my favorite scenes!

Kidding, of course.

What parts of the book do you find anti-climactic, Rev?

I also re-read the Hobbit recently to refresh my memory of it, and will probably read it again before next December.
My opinion is that it will be used more like an outline for the films story; all the basic elements embellished just a bit (or a lot in some cases), because there are a lot of vague details. Since there will be two films, it's pretty obvious that back story will play a major role. LOTR appendices, Unfinished Tales, The Book of Lost Tales, and The Simarillion will all play some part or another in the stories development, or dialog.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that we'll see a film as grand as LOTR was for the same reasons. When you think about it, even Smaug doesn't amount to much in the book itself, he comes and goes almost as fast.

No doubt that The Hobbit purest will be greatly disappointed, but if one e xp ects The Hobbit alone, they can watch the animated version. Personally I'm looking forward to more than just what's written in The Hobbit; for that would be imo just a childrens's story.

And I seriously doubt Thranduil will be an a**hole, but rather a very cautious, speculative King, who is VERY aware of his authority within his kingdom. He happens to be a very noble elf with a great deal of positive history under his belt.

Well, the most anti-climatic part in the entire book of course is the death of Smaug. Come on, the company goes all this way and you e xp ect a Ring of Fire (dwarves jumping off ledges onto dragon) style fight to the death. Of course he just flies away and gets shot in a matter of two pages. Other anti-climatic parts would included their capture in Mirkwood. In all honesty, Thranduil comes off as an a** in the book and I read that part twice. Because of course when you read a lot of back story you find who Thranduil really is (kind of mirroring the Thingol in over cautious and speculative king), a kind wise King who has dealt with much evil from angmar. Of course, the last battle seems rushed but as "Thranduil" said, it is way more of a children's book.

I have read Lord of the Rings and the other books many more times than the Hobbit and I think I just got way too used to the, Matter-of-fact-historical-recollection-very-very-descriptive wrtiting style that were in those. The Hobbit as stated just above is very vague on many things and spends more time telling the future, then retracting or stating the completely obvious vs really setting up dynamic characters. In all honesty, the only change we see in anyone is in Bilbo and Balin.

Here is an article posted on TORN about why the Hobbit is so anticipated and why it is the cinematic end for middle-earth:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/08 ... dle-earth/

Here is a quote from the empire magazine article:

- "You know, I might talk to Warner about the Silmarillion," he says with a wry smile. He might be only half-joking. -

I'd like to be able to go back to Middle-earth again after the Hobbit, but if it is the end then I will be pleased with what we have been given.

The person (or people) who wrote the article are not only ignorant but completely uninformed. To first start quoting the very few bad reviews of Tolkien's work from the 60's saying that they are "ill written" is ridiculous. Come on, when we have Twilight and Harry Potter today and those are CLEARLY children's novels, Tolkien is ill-written??!?! Anyways, to then continue onto how SO many people did not like PJ's adaptation of LOTR, which in some part is true. Some purests did not like certain things: 1. So called "love story" between Ara and Arw (heavily implied in the books just never written until index), 2. Gimli's behavior (which after rereading the Hobbit, he actually fits that mold better) 3. No Tome Bombadil (not necessarily to the story, I am glad they took it out) Just to name a few. As I have stated before, I am a Tolkien junkie, have taken a Tolkien class, have read all the books more than 3 times (except the Hobbit twice) in the last 5 years, I consider myself well informed in the realm of Middle Earth; and even I understand the difference between book and film, hence my love for PJ's adaptations.

I am so tired of journalists and movie "critics" (of which 95% have never been on a movie set, have acted, directed, produced, or written ANYTHING) writing extra large paragraphs stating why this will happen or this will not. There is absolutely NO guarantee that the Tolkien estate will not sell write to the Silm?!?! Come on what kind of reason is this, "Far more important to the estate, that is doing just fine on book sales..." Hmm, what business in their right mind would say, "Well, we just made a boat load of money off of these last five movies; and you know, the books are doing pretty well on their own. So, lets decide NOT to make way more money in both book and cinema sales by released the Silmarillion."

I may get nailed for saying all this, so let me make it clear, I KNOW that there are chances the Silmarillion may not be made. I UNDERSTAND the point (eh) that the author was trying to get across. But my main issue is to so blatantly and arrogantly write what was written as if the Tolkien Estate just made a public statement "No more Middle Earth PJ, we give you the Middle Finger!" is ridiculous. Overall, the article had a very negative connotation and for that it gets my disapproval.

BTW E.G. thanks for sharing! (no sarcasm)

I like cheese. Do you think there will be any dialogue about cheese in the hobbit movie? Maybe there will be some cheese in those barrels the dwarves hide in, yeah?


My favorite bit of LOTR is butter scraped over too much bread. It's not quite cheese, but close.

Nice Sed...nice!

[quote=""Sedhal""]I like cheese. Do you think there will be any dialogue about cheese in the hobbit movie? Maybe there will be some cheese in those barrels the dwarves hide in, yeah?


My favorite bit of LOTR is butter scraped over too much bread. It's not quite cheese, but close.[/quote]

Prior to the scraped butter scene, Bilbo offers Gandalf something to eat, and he runs through the whole litany of what he's got in the house...and it was lifted verbatim from the Hobbit. I'm pretty sure there was some cheese in there, so if that line goes back to its source, I think you can e xp ect to hear it mentioned. And perhaps even to see Dwarves eating it.

The Elves' barrels that were ridden by Bilbo had contained wine...which goes well indeed with cheese.

Yes I thought so! As I recall that scene seemed very cheese-orientated, it almost felt like I could taste it or know it should be there somewhere with the wine. Like Orcrist and Glamdring -- err, I mean Sting, they go hand in hand. I'm sure that cheese was lurking somewhere nearby.

Now that you mention it, I believe there was some cheese in the cupboard wasn't there? I like that scene a lot more now. I hope Smaug is a mouse.