the long year is going to be between Hobbit 1 and Hobbit 2, we will be dying to see how it ends! especially the movie should be completed other than maybe some post production work, but they could release that thing in the summer of 2013 not December, AAHHHH!!!

BC... I hate to tell you this but... we already know how it ends.

[quote=""Valkrist""]BC... I hate to tell you this but... we already know how it ends. [/quote]

...'Xactly....I was going to tell him the same thing.

Yes, but we won't know what Smaug looks like for another 2 years!!!

I think once they at least announce the swords they are going to sell, that will curb my lack of sleep

Let the new swords come to me,let them come to the master lol.

I'm with you Rev...once I can pick up some of the swords, I'll be a much happier fellow.

And I might finally stop stressing that the movies will never come out. I'm still fully e xp ecting a meteor to take out all film that's been shot, Peter Jackson to join a cult against hobbits, and Andy Serkis to lose his voice...

I know, I keep telling everyone that if there is a God and he is just, he will NOT allow the world to end before both Hobbit films come out! lol.

I'm fully aware that we know how it ends, haha. We just havent seen how PJ's interpretation of the Hobbit ends visually

I know how the next JJ Abrams Trek movie will end too, Khan will die, and Spock will die and in the 3rd movie will be going to find a regenerated Spock because JJ is so original (Sorry, didnt mean to derail the thread, just wanted to take a stab at Val)

I do have some spair money left so bring on the swords to me,i have a dream to make come true.

Aw, BC you just ruined the next two movies for me! wahhhh ;( I am so sad that I can't see them now, oh wait, I still haven't seen the first

In a recent interview, Evangeline Lilly stated that Tauriel uses a bow and two daggers and she is the head of the Mirkwood guard.

Kit if you're still checking, it's probably way too early to think about these but, is there a chance of replicas being produced of these two daggers?

Also she states she appears briefly at the end of film 1 which I think confirms what me and Thranduil were discussing a couple of months ago. I believe that the first film will end with the Dwarves being captured in Mirkwood

I really like the daggers, and I love the concept art created for the look of her character. I e xp ect if Tauriel gets a lot of screen time in film 2 that we will make the daggers in 2013. Probably not not for the first wave, but too early to say or confirm any of this right now.

Oh no, I'm gonna puke in the theater if I have to watch Legolas getting sappy with his love interest. I'm tolerant of most changes and I don't care that Legolas was over the top in LotR, but if Tauriel and Legolas are gonna actually get screen time as a love affair, that's gonna irritate me.


What do they do on the honeymoon...go shield-boarding down the Lonely Mountain?

I just meant he is in Mirkwood at the time too, since the king was his father. We don't know what Legolas would have been doing at the time so the film makers are obviously creating a function form him in the story. He obviously won't have much screen time in film 1 if the dwarves are captured at the end.

I'm looking forward to seeing Tauriel and her daggers, Peter Jackson stated when it was first announced she had been cast that she wouldn't be playing the love interest for Legolas so I don't think anyone should worry about that

Or he could have just said that to deflect all the negative press that news of Itaril brought about.

Still, I am heartened that Tauriel could be a change for the better because if it was simply a matter of changing actresses, then why would PJ bother changing the character's name?

Well, the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. I reserve judgment on any deviations from the book until I see them onscreen, though this is one that I am not so sure about. We'll see.

In the meantime, invented character aside, I'm all for seeing more elven weapon replicas.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Or he could have just said that to deflect all the negative press that news of Itaril brought about.

Still, I am heartened that Tauriel could be a change for the better because if it was simply a matter of changing actresses, then why would PJ bother changing the character's name?

Well, the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. I reserve judgment on any deviations from the book until I see them onscreen, though this is one that I am not so sure about. We'll see.

In the meantime, invented character aside, I'm all for seeing more elven weapon replicas. [/quote]
I just can't imagine PJ doing what he knows (in advance) will create massive unrest.

They killed Arwyn @ Helms Deep because of popular distaste.
They killed Itaril for the same reason.
Let's do it anyway with a new character? I don't think so.
Legolas was too much the ultimate bachelor warrior in LotR.

But your right, wait and see.

[quote=""Thranduil""]I just can't imagine PJ doing what he knows (in advance) will create massive unrest.

They killed Arwyn @ Helms Deep because of popular distaste.
They killed Itaril for the same reason.
Let's do it anyway with a new character? I don't think so.
Legolas was too much the ultimate bachelor warrior in LotR.

But your right, wait and see. [/quote]

They dropped the Arwen at Helm's Deep thing because of fan uproar, but they kept Elves at Helm's Deep, which was pretty annoying to some people, and all the Helm's Deep uproar pretty much blinded everybody to the fact that they darkened Faramir's character considerably. I like to pick my battles. Elves at Helm's Deep? Not in the book, should have used the Rangers from the North, who were in the book (albeit showing up after the battle), but whatever. Faramir being seduced by the Ring, Faramir allowing his men to beat the stuffings out of Gollum, those are things that bothered me a lot more.

Anyway, my point is that just because PJ backs off on one thing that's annoying doesn't mean he won't slip in something else that's worse.

[quote=""Valkrist""]
In the meantime, invented character aside, I'm all for seeing more elven weapon replicas. [/quote]

Amen to that, Sir Admin.



Olorin, I had never thought about Rangers as an alternative to the elves at Helm's Deep! That would've been so much better. I guess I just associated them arriving with the aftermath of the battle and never thought of them arriving beforehand.

They didn't kill Itaril. I think that Itaril casting call description was legit for that character, at least for the time it went out, but the script was still being developed, and still is. I doubt it had much to do with the fan reaction, as I think the name changed before that, but who knows. I'm sure the characters will continue be changed and developed until the films are finished, just as the LOTR scripts and characters did (a lot more than most people are aware of).

Those are some very encouraging words, Kit, and thanks for posting them!

I love Elven weapons!

In fact I love Elves as well

I do not feel that the darkening of Faramir was bad. Obviously, there is a deviation from the original story but think about the basics of Faramir, he did what his brother could not, let the Ring go. That is the whole premise of it. Now, why make him darker? For a visual audience, we "needed" to see something detrimental happen to Gollum to make him change from "happy ole Smeagol" back the the Gollum. So, they darkened Faramir simply to give us that visual. Does it make sense? Of course, this younger sibling is ridiculed his whole life for being a "lover of music" and "pities before ridicules (like his father)". It makes complete human logic for him to be "tempted" by something that could "earn" his father's love. But in the end, Faramir was still Tolkien's Faramir by letting the ring go.

As Kit said, there are many, MANY things not written in any of the books. But the Aragorn/Arwen love story is cleary "in" the books, although not e xp licitly described. Do I want some 30 minute long Elvish love story that does literally nothing for the general quest and plot? No, but if they throw it in there; eh I won't care because of how freakin awesome I know the thing as a whole will be. We also live in a different time where people and especially young girls want strong role models and I do not mind at all another strong female part, similar to Eowyn.

This is not meant to reopen the old book vs movie argument, but here we go. I have no argument in concept with changes to the story. Obviously, you couldn't film the book as written—it would be about 50 hours long (might make one awesome miniseries though). The reason they darkened Faramir's character, by their own statement, is they felt it weakened the concept of the Ring as an irresistible seducer if everyone who encounters it turns it down. Gandalf turned it down, Galadriel turned it down (in spite of being sooooooooo obviously tempted by it), and Aragorn turned it down.

I agree in concept that the way Faramir's temptation is portrayed in the book—he's not tempted at all—would be disempowering to the Ring. It's just that Faramir was just such a noble character in the book.

Moreover, if PJ & Co hadn't made so many changes to so many characters, a shade of darkening to Faramir might have been more acceptable. But the litany of character changes was very lengthy by the time they got to Faramir. Gandalf was dumbed down, Merry and Pippin were dumbed down, Aragorn was filled with doubt and misgivings, Elrond was darkened, Gimli was turned into a fount of bodily sounds, Theoden became vacillating, and so on.

For many people I believe, the changes to characters were the movies' biggest and most disliked change. No Scouring of the Shire? Good riddance. Elves at Helm's Deep? Fine, whatever. Make characters almost unrecognizable? Now just a minute!

For the record, I thought a few characters actually came off better in the movies than in the book. Boromir seemed more likable and his fall more tragic. And Gollum was also much more sympathetic.

Speaking of Gollum, as for a motivation for him to revert to the nastier Gollum personality instead of the not-quite-as-nasty Smeagol personality, the unending gnawing hunger for the Ring, so close at hand, was sufficient.

But like I say, I don't want to go down the adaptation argument avenue again. Been there, done that too many times with too many people, and it's pointless. Moreover, if we had to do it, this would not be the thread for it.

My point was that I could really care less what they do because no matter how "unrecognizable" anything it is, it will work because its PJ. I am cool with whatever they do, I trust them.

[quote=""RevAnakin""]My point was that I could really care less what they do because no matter how "unrecognizable" anything it is, it will work because its PJ. I am cool with whatever they do, I trust them.[/quote]

Clearly spoken by someone who doesn't appreciate the spirit of the books and the characters as they were originally written.

I'm not a believer in blind trust, and PJ is only human. He is not infallible, and there is much in the LOTR movies that proves that.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Clearly spoken by someone who doesn't appreciate the spirit of the books and the characters as they were originally written. [/quote]

I'm not going to lie, I am slightly offended by that statement. I have read the books more than I have watched the movies. I have read at least 20 supplemental books approved by Tolkien and taken a Tolkien class. I have the cognizant ability to separate what works in films and what works in books and sometimes certain aspects in the books work better "messed up" in the films. And most importantly the books are literature which is art which is completely subjective, so your "spirit of the books" may be completely different from even Olorin or mine, or Thran, or Gramma.

It isn't blind truth, but I am just not a fan when people are already complaining about speculations about how PJ may do the film. As it stands, if PJ made the Hobbit so close the book, it would then not fit into the Trilogy already released. I trust that whatever they will do is going to fit into the series perfectly, hence why I hated when Del Toro was on the project.


But why am I even saying this? I know you, Val and everyone on here are truly intellectuals and none of us need any education from another member unless asked.

Speculation is part of human nature, and given that there is already a precedent in that Peter Jackson has taken certain questionable liberties with Tolkien's work in his movies, it is not outside of this realm of credulity for people to be prematurely aprehensive about what more changes The Hobbit may hold for us.

I refuse to be criticized for something that is my right. I will not make apologies for everything that Jackson does, and once again, I will say that I place blind trust in no one, for that is what it is when you accept everything put before you unquestioningly.

I won't sit here and accept that every single alteration or 'interpretation' that Jackson, Walsh, and/or Boyens made has 100% value or was necessary, and there are many instances where the book vs. movie medium argument bears no relevance to what I am talking about.

Yes, the spirit of the books is indeed subjective, but understanding what made Faramir what he was, to cite just one example, is something that transcends even that. The character was written that way for a reason, and to not recognize that and so dismissively accept what was done to him in the movies points to an issue with not getting what Tolkien intended. Listening to Boyens discuss in an interview that they had to make Faramir fallible and vulnerable to corruption because no one can be that pure is to not only lack an understanding of the best and noblest parts of human nature, but to gainsay Tolkien and call him a fool for writing a completely unbelievable character and essentially claiming to do one better than the authour. That, to me, is the epitome of hubris and arrogance.

I apologize for the offense to you, Rev, but I won't retract my statement. Jackson is not going to please everyone, and you have to ask yourself why. I'm very appreciative that such a dedicated man is working so hard to bring all these books to life on the screen, but I'm also cognizant of the fact that some wrong decisions will be made. It is inevitable.

I absolutely love LOTR, but being completely honest I had never read the books, heck I have stated this many times on the forums that I didnt even know what LOTR was until it came out to the movies, literally didn't even hear about it during all the development. After watching the movies and then hearing about the deviations from the book from the forums and elsewhere on the internet, I think I have missed out greatly on something I was ignorant of. I still want to read LOTR one of these days, but it will never be the same as someone reading it for the first time, pre-Jackson LOTR days. My mind has been corrupted by what I have seen, I was e xp osed to Jacksons adaptation before I even knew who JRR Tolkien was.

Which thinking back, surprises me greatly after going through school and being in Honors English and Literature and all the "greats" we had to read and write about, we NEVER mentioned LOTR, we did read Lord of the Flies, haha.

This debate reminds me of a conversation I had at work yesterday with someone about which was better Star wars vs Trek, and me being me says it is definitely Trek, I said Trek has quality and quantity with 10 movies, and 27 TV seasons and the "JJ Abrams movie" (notice I didn't says 11 movies) and he told me that the new Star Trek movie was the closest they got to having an "Okay movie".

[quote=""Valkrist""]...Yes, the spirit of the books is indeed subjective, but understanding what made Faramir what he was, to cite just one example, is something that transcends even that. The character was written that way for a reason, and to not recognize that and so dismissively accept what was done to him in the movies points to an issue with not getting what Tolkien intended. Listening to Boyens discuss in an interview that they had to make Faramir fallible and vulnerable to corruption because no one can be that pure is to not only lack an understanding of the best and noblest parts of human nature, but to gainsay Tolkien and call him a fool for writing a completely unbelievable character and essentially claiming to do one better than the authour. That, to me, is the epitome of hubris and arrogance...[/quote]

Wow, Val. A stunning, concise and spot on defense of Tolkien's ethos.
I could not have said it half so well.

My last point on Faramir: Tolkien strictly noted that Faramir's character was something he did not plan and it was his own incarnation that seeped into the story. The character in black and white is written with a nobility and almost perfection. But as the devout Christian Tolkien was, and the fact that he noted that Faramir was himself with his "love not for the sharpness of the blade, but for what it defended," he would have never written the character infallible, because he knows himself as not infallible. I read the books before I saw the movies with Faramir. I did indeed read him as the "model chivalric knight," but I don't believe that one as great as Tolkien would write Faramir to be such a static character as not to change at least a little. That's where I feel the on screen dynamic character Faramir fills in things we can't literally "see" in the book while reading.

I just take each for what they are and love them both! That is why I am so excited for the Hobbit. I love the first half of the Hobbit book, I am not a fan of how it ends. Nonetheless, it is still a great book and my wife and i are re-reading it now.

Like Val, I don't put complete blind trust in anyone. At the same time, like probably everyone here, I believe that I will love the Hobbit movies as I love the LOTR movies, in spite of what I perceive to be their warts. I loved what I saw in the teaser, and I'm heartened by the thought that a lot of del Toro's contributions may have gone out the window. He's a great director and great visual stylist, and when he was in charge, I certainly cheered him on. Once he left and PJ took over, I cheered again, because that promises more stylistic continuity with the LOTR movies.

I have always found that I like a movie better when I haven't read the book yet, and when I finally do read the book, I still like the book. So BC, I think you will do just fine when you read LOTR. I think you should read it soon, but I'll say this. Hold off till you have about a week to read it uninterrupted. That's the best was, as once you start, you wont want to put it down.

I'm not surprised you never read it in school. Too many critics think it is too "slight," so it doesn't find its way onto many school reading lists, probably.

The comment your coworker made about the Abrams movie proves a criticism of mine: they dumbed Trek down to the level of Wars. And this is coming from someone who also loves Star Wars.

[quote=""Olorin""].... I'm not surprised you never read it in school. Too many critics think it is too "slight," so it doesn't find its way onto many school reading lists, probably.....[/quote]

At my high school it was offered in one of the English lit classes freshman year. Unfortunately I was scheduled in a different lit class that didn't offer it ...(I think we read Hawthorne or maybe Steinbeck). I finally got around to reading it on my own in the early 1990s.

As far as I know my former high school still has it on the freshman reading list.

As I recall, the Hobbit was on the list at my high school, but not LOTR. I imagine LOTR's length may keep it off some lists.

It should be noted that Tolkien himself constantly rewrote his stories, sometimes completely changing the tone of characters and motives to suit what he was writing at the time. He updated LOTR and The Hobbit many times, usually to make things more consistent (the Ring had NO corruptive power over Gollum in the original book, then Tolkien changed it so that it did in later editions), but not always. After the publication of LOTR he even tried to completely rewrite the Hobbit in the same more adult tone and less whimsical style of LOTR.

As far as Faramir, I actually don't think the gist of his character was all that different from the book, in the film if you look at the extended edition including ALL of his scenes. He came off as the most noble and pure of that family to me. The films actually made some of the book characters, especially more tragic ones like Boromir, more interesting to me that the ones in the book.

But films are not books to me. Nothing can change how I feel about the books. I look at the films as some alternate universe version of that history. That's actually how I look at any film adaptation of any book.

If you guys seriously had that much of a problem with PJ and Co's LOTR films, you are going to hate The Hobbit films. They are not only deviating completely from the book in tone and style, but probably 1/3rd of the two films is being 'invented' based on only a few paragraphs of what Tolkien wrote outside of the Hobbit. I'm sure the criticism will be 10 fold what they were on LOTR. While I love The Hobbit, I actually had zero interest in seeing it made into a film in the style it was written. I remember talking with my friends after we saw ROTK about the inevitable The Hobbit film that would be coming next. We thought how it would be cool if the Hobbit film started with Sam reading There and Back Again to his kids, as the toned down and more whimsical children's story The Hobbit was written to be. Then the film would dissolve into the "real" telling of the story as Sam's voice over faded - and we would see that story told on film as if it were an exact prequel to LOTR in look, tone, and style. Everything I have seen, read, and been told tells me that is exactly what we are getting. A LOTR prequel. They are attempting to follow the spirit of the Hobbit story, but this is not The Hobbit book.

In my opinion Kit, oh thank Eru! That is exactly what I want!

I said to a friend here in an email that the Hobbit could only be a general outline for the story they intend to tell, due to the fact it's a children's book and it is so obvious they are making a more adult adaptation that is clearly delving into e xp lanations outside of the Hobbit, like where does Gandalf go?

After re-reading the Hobbit to remind myself of it's story line, throughout the reading I recognized the need for a great deal of new depth it would require to marry it to the LotR's we know from the films.

Personally, I have no intention to ruin the film for myself by e xp ecting to go and see the books story. To stick to this book The Hobbit verbatim, you'd have about a 100 minute, there ya go, wasn't that fun kids? movie, I'm sure would be a total let down.

Seems to me I also mentioned in that email that I'll probably avoid this thread after seeing the film. I like what I saw in the trailer. When I saw LotR in the theater I recognized the need to tell the story to people who had never read the books, and BC stands as a perfect example of how good that was. Olorin was right to say that when BC reads LotR he'll love it all the more. In a bizarre way, I e xp ect the film version of the Hobbit to read better than the book.

[quote=""Olorin""]

I have always found that I like a movie better when I haven't read the book yet, and when I finally do read the book, I still like the book. So BC, I think you will do just fine when you read LOTR. I think you should read it soon, but I'll say this. Hold off till you have about a week to read it uninterrupted. That's the best was, as once you start, you wont want to put it down.

I'm not surprised you never read it in school. Too many critics think it is too "slight," so it doesn't find its way onto many school reading lists, probably.
[/quote]

Maybe I will try and read it this summer, right now I am taking classes online and it is keeping my reading time busy with text books, articles, online discussions, etc.

In our school, some of the books that stick out to me were 9th grade - The Odyssey, Romeo and Juliet... 10th Grade - Julius Caesar, Night, Alas Babylon ... 11th Grade, The Scarlet Letter, The Crucible, Ethan Frome (and I read the Natural for a research paper), and parts of Hamlet 12th Grade, we read Macbeth, Canterbury Tales, and spent more time writing essays and research papers

This may surprise you guys, but I agree with Kit (about the Hobbit comments.)

I can assure you I won't be foaming at the mouth because The Hobbit has been translated to film as a serious story more in tone with LOTR than the children's book that it is. Much as I love the book, that is not the movie I want to see. Now don't get me wrong here and misinterpret what I am saying: I'm not going to be happy with alterations that make no sense, are illogical, or seem to be there simply to satisfy a director or writer's overblown ego. What I am hoping to see are changes that add gravitas to The Hobbit tale as a part of Middle-earth's lore as it fits with the tone set with by Tolkien in LOTR.

When Kit mentioned a "few paragraphs" written outside the book, I'm sure he's referring to things like the White Council, Dol Guldur, etc. Well, guess what? I'm very happy with the inclusion of those events because they are a part to that history and really did occur, even if they did not appear in the book.

My critics here need to understand that I am very much ok with Jackson showing us things that we know to be a factual part of Tolkien's work even if they were not in the books word for word. All I ask is that they be depicted accurately and with respect to the source material.

Yes, plenty more elves live in Mirkwood that just Legolas and Thranduil, so is it ok to include a captain of the guard named Tauriel? Of course it is. Do we need to see the thirteen dwarves belching and farting all the way to the Lonely Mountain? No, thanks. That's the kind of stupid humour that ruined many moments in PJ's LOTR for me. Am I making sense yet, or am I speaking in orcish here?

I understand you Val, but I was always worried that people would allow their concerns to ruin the movie for them. I want everyone to enjoy the movies and I'm sure Peter and the rest of his team do.

[quote=""Elvenguard13""]I understand you Val, but I was always worried that people would allow their concerns to ruin the movie for them. I want everyone to enjoy the movies and I'm sure Peter and the rest of his team do.[/quote]
EG and I are on the same page here.

Val, I'm glad you've clarified yourself. I agree with your disdain for certain indulgences PJ & Co. may pull. Hopefully the humor will be directed as we saw in the trailer with Bombir's weight breaking the bench or table he was sitting on, in other words; specific to each character.

And I hope there will be no unnecessary crap thrown in for the sake of throwing it in because of, of, of, what?

It'll be really nice if we all end up with great things to say come December.

One things for sure, the anticipation isn't just thick, more like dense as a rock.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]If you guys seriously had that much of a problem with PJ and Co's LOTR films, you are going to hate The Hobbit films. They are not only deviating completely from the book in tone and style, but probably 1/3rd of the two films is being 'invented' based on only a few paragraphs of what Tolkien wrote outside of the Hobbit. I'm sure the criticism will be 10 fold what they were on LOTR. While I love The Hobbit, I actually had zero interest in seeing it made into a film in the style it was written. I remember talking with my friends after we saw ROTK about the inevitable The Hobbit film that would be coming next. We thought how it would be cool if the Hobbit film started with Sam reading There and Back Again to his kids, as the toned down and more whimsical children's story The Hobbit was written to be. Then the film would dissolve into the "real" telling of the story as Sam's voice over faded - and we would see that story told on film as if it were an exact prequel to LOTR in look, tone, and style. Everything I have seen, read, and been told tells me that is exactly what we are getting. A LOTR prequel. They are attempting to follow the spirit of the Hobbit story, but this is not The Hobbit book.[/quote]

LOL, based on what you just said, I am going to love these movies. I don't get upset at filmmakers' changes on principal; I get upset at them when I feel they seriously undermine what the author intended. Yes, Tolkien did rewrite his stories incessantly; I have read the whole History of Middle-earth series. I don't recall anywhere in there where characters sat around belching and farting with abandon. I could say I suspect that Tolkien would have been mortified by such a depiction but I'd have nothing to base it on (other than how prudish he can come across in the Letters book). Instead I'll say that's not how he wrote his characters and it's not how characters were depicted in movies during the era in which Tolkien wrote, the 1930s to the 1950s. When something like that is added into a movie to "update" it for a "modern" audience, it acts like an anachronism and snaps me out of the reality of the movie.

On the other hand, the trailer shows the Dwarves tossing Bilbo's plates, which is pretty much directly from the book, and Bombur destroying a chair with his weight, which while maybe not in the book is certainly in keeping with Tolkien's use of the character.

Anyway, bodily sounds aside, if PJ is making the tone similar to that of the LOTR movies, I welcome that. The story of The Hobbit is very good, and it's fine to read even though it's written as a children's story...but that's not how I'd want to see it depicted on film. Even the 1970s Rankin/Bass animated version did not try to duplicate the tone of the book. And as Val mentioned, the addition of the White Council/Necromancer material is a very welcome addition. Not only does it broaden and enhance the scope of the movie, it also helps tie it to the existing LOTR movie trilogy.

Do not be fooled: even though the hobbit book appears to have a rather childish presentation, its central plot as well as the associated themes are rather mature in nature.

The hobbit could very easily be rewritten as an adult book.

While the LOTR movies certainly have some inconsistencies in relation to the books, that I don't like, I still absolutely love both the books and movies.

I more or less e xp ect The Hobbit to be the same. Some things I don't like or would have liked to see done differently, but in the end I e xp ect to still love the movies as much as I love the book.

From what I've seen from the trailer I think this adaption will be outstanding. I just can't wait to lose myself in new e xp lorations of Middle Earth!

Well said! I imagine that's how a lot of us feel.

Billy Connolly has been cast as Dain Ironfoot!

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/02 ... l-release/

Connolly is a great actor and I hope they've crafted a part worthy for him.

[quote=""Olorin""]Billy Connolly has been cast as Dain Ironfoot!

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/02 ... l-release/

Connolly is a great actor and I hope they've crafted a part worthy for him.[/quote]
Not much make up needed there, looks like he'll foot the bill.

Wow, that's surprising and welcome news. I love that guy!

I think that leaves only one major part not cast yet, right? Bard the Bowman...?

I believe Luke Evans will be playing Bard...