http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/comic-c ... oviegoing/

Elsewhere, I read a report that PJ used no miniatures in The Hobbit...it's all CG. I find that disappointing. Oh well.

Ha! I read that article and caught PJ in a lie.

He says: "The movie e xp lains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We’ve e xp lained it using Tolkien’s own notes."

No, you didn't. Nazgul imprisoned by Dunedain and fights with a deranged Thrain are nothing from Tolkien's own notes. Read them again, PJ.

Hopefully the rest of Gandalf's e xp loits will be closer to the book.

I sincerely hope they don't buy into that split-the-last-movie-into-two idea. It's really just a cash grab these days. I know that's what the studios are after, but we are the ones that get screwed in the end with very little return. It began with Harry Potter Pt.7 and now everyone has this "me too!" attitude because HP raked in the millions over two movies. Perhaps it was necessary for that particular story, but if you read the article there is a clear dig there at the Twilight Saga, and now Hunger Games is jumping into the same formula by splitting what is not a long book into two movies. It's a blatant attempt to milk some more dollars out of you for some added fluff. I really hope Warner Bros. does not go that route with The Hobbit, foist yet more waiting time on us for a third movie, and instead reserve all of this extra stuff for the home theatre releases.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that The Hobbit was already split into two movies, I really doubt there is much inclination on PJ's part to make a third movie, and next to none to do it as another split-off. I had the impression that if there would be one, it would be the return of the so-called bridge movie...something cobbled together from the Appendices to bridge The Hobbit to LOTR.

[quote=""Olorin""]Setting aside for a moment the fact that The Hobbit was already split into two movies, I really doubt there is much inclination on PJ's part to make a third movie, and next to none to do it as another split-off. I had the impression that if there would be one, it would be the return of the so-called bridge movie...something cobbled together from the Appendices to bridge The Hobbit to LOTR.[/quote]

Exactly, the movie is ALREADY split! I was thinking the same thing. Either way, I doubt that this extra shooting is going to result in much. Probably a release of the "director's cut" which is a newly revived trend that I personally like: re-releasing movies extended in theatres.

I don't think he was referring to making a third movie of The Hobbit. It is already set in stone that there will be two films. They shot a lot of stuff from the appendix of LOTR that fills in the gaps, and Pete wants to shoot more. That will all end up in the extended versions. I'm sure all of that is from material found in Appendix A, Durin's Folk.

I think the third film idea is simply Pete wanting to shoot the bridge movie that fills the gap between TH and LOTR, based on material from the LOTR appendices. Both Guillermo and Pete said that was an idea early on for film 2. There is even a whole movie that could be made of Aragorn growing up in Rivendell, becoming a Ranger, falling in love with Arwen, meeting Gandalf and guarding the Shire, serving Rohan and Gondor, Sauron's rebuilding Barad-dûr, maybe ending with Aragorns assault on Umbar. That would make a great middle film, and it would make Aragorns part of the tale in LOTR even more effective when he is finally recognized and crowned king.

If only we can get Viggo to reprise his role!

It is true that Peter Jackson could have squeezed the entire hobbit book into 1 movie since it is a rather short book.

But I am extremely happy that PJ decided to "fluff it up" and stretch it out into two movies by adding some silmarillion, appendix and his own stuff into the mix.

I fact, when I found out they were incorporating all that backstory into the hobbit movies, I was simply ecstatic as that was the best news since the announcement that PJ was going to be taking the directorial reins. In the hobbit books, Gandalf sods off for large chunks of the story but in the movie we will actually get to see what he did during that time. It doesn't get any better than this!

Some of these Tolkien e xp erts may have their own interpretation of what Tolkien's books represents and how it should be read. But guess what? So does Peter Jackson. And he is actually an Oscar winning world class director who knows how to tell a story on the silverscreen.

And come December, I'll be enjoying me some hobbit silver screen action regardless of 48 frames or dodgy screen props or inaccurate plot lines. And millions of others will too. And guess what? I guarantee you these highly critical Tolkien e xp erts will also be lining up to buy tickets to fatten Peter Jackson's wallet.

That is so true. On here I may seem kind of a stickler for detail but I am a champion for the movies over on lotrplaza.com. I literally get bombarded (e xp ected and wanting) from true "purists." I honestly, have a problem with only two parts thus far: that darn dragon's tooth sword and possibly Bifur speaking only in Dwarvish.

I personally like P.J. and crews interpretation of much of the films. Reading the screenplay is actually absolute genius compared to some of the crap out today. I tend to only get irritated when details are changed that not only make no Tolkien sense, but also make no financial sense for the producers themselves.

Nice insulting post there, Aragorn.

I don't consider myself a Tolkien e xp ert, but I do know a fair bit about the subject. How exactly should a book be read? Yes, there can be various thematic interpretations of what is set down on a page, but the basic facts as written will always remain the same.

The undeniable proof that is staring you right in the face in Tolkien's books is that he spelled out very clearly what Gandalf was doing when he went off, and why. What Jackson is filling those gaps with is not an "intrepretation," as you put it, but a blatant and non-sensical invention. I'm sorry, you can dress it up any way you want, but this isn't a case of a filmmaker having to create material to tell a story, it is a deliberate attempt to change established book history.

I also think you read my post wrong in saying that the second movie was just "added fluff," I was referring to the other examples of current movie franchises that have gone this route and was e xp ressing my sentiment that I sincerely wished The Hobbit to avoid this trend.

I love being misinterpreted and insulted in one fell swoop. It really raises the level of intelligent discussion around here when you adopt such a condescending tone toward your fellow posters. I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find your words.

Correct me if I am wrong Val, but I thought your second movie "fluff" comment was specifically a result to the false rumor that the final movie was going to be split into two movies, not that the book was originally split into two films.

In general terms, The Hobbit book specifically does not talk about all of Gandalf's adventures away from the Company, but the Appendices do. I am hoping that all of P.J.'s comments are just referring to "filling the gaps of the Hobbit" with the information from the Appendices, and not making up too much stuff. I am fine with the Morgul blade, but let's hope they do not take it to a whole other level of creationism.

I personally think that 6 movies could have been made out of Lord of the Rings. Fellowship book contains 2 "books" and so does Two Towers and Return of the King. Now, those "books" usually split the difference between Frodo and Sam, and the rest of the characters throughout ME. Now, I don't think that the movies should have followed that format to the "T" but they could have easily made 2 films (maybe 2.5-3 hr each, rather than the almost 5 hours like ROTK) per book publication, adding much of the detail that all the purists say the movies lost. Now, P.J. has the funds and finally decides to make 2 movies out of a shorter book and it is considered milking by many. Note about my last sentence: I wasn't talking about anyone on this forum.

Now, splitting the second Hobbit into 2 films would be milking, but that is a gross guessing misunderstanding that our media has reported.

Yes, Rev, I will correct your misperception.

I've never had a problem with the Hobbit being split into two movies. Read back far enough in this thread to understand that. I was even open to and excited about a bridge movie when that was the first idea being tossed about.

What I was talking about in my latest post was the possibility of a third movie being added, and whether there would be sufficient relevant material to be doing this. In illustrating my point, I cited the examples of recent franchises that have split their final movie into two to cash in more revenue without necessarily adding much to the final product as a story. The article quoted that led to my post even makes a reference to this trend.

So there you have it: I wasn't knocking the two-movie concept with regard to the Hobbit, I was saying how I felt about the possibility of a third movie.

I think that's exactly what Rev said in his first sentence, Val

[quote=""Jamanticus""]I think that's exactly what Rev said in his first sentence, Val [/quote]

Yeah, I posted in a rush as I was out the door going to work. I'm at work now... and not doing any of it to post here.

Yes, Rev got it right the first time with regards to what I meant to e xp lain in my original post. Since I had just freshly read his defence and agreement of what Aragorn had said, I quickly glossed over his last post in order to clarify my position.

At any rate, the source of my resentment is to be labelled a "Tolkien e xp ert" like that's some kind of disease and how dare I show any modicum of respect for a set of books that I dearly love and e xp ress my desire for a little more care and respect given to the movie adaptations?

I don't know how many times I've had to come on here or the ME discussion thread to say that I love the LOTR movies and will enjoy the Hobbit movies, but I do so in spite of the changes Jackson made, not because of them. Is that so difficult to understand?

Aragorn's post was filled with contempt and I don't appreciate that. Forgive me for not worshipping at the altar of Peter Jackson.

I consider Val one of the leading Tolkien e xp erts that I know and I use that term as a term of respect. I have learned more from listening to Val, and others on the forums that I could have ever learned on my own... its like being in a online course.

No worries Val, I thought you had misread. Not a problem.

I fully agree about not worshiping P.J. But not only him, I don't think Tolkien's works should be viewed (not saying you do at all) as worthy of worship either wholly. There are many things in my opinion that are in the books that are very, very anti-climatic. For me, I think Eowyn going to Theoden while he dies is a much stronger emotional appeal than for Merry to stumble his way there and Theoden never knowing Eowyn saved him. I see the dramatic irony in it, very Greek drama like, but I personally like the movie version of that better. Now, I would never put P.J. on the same level as the great late J.R.R. but they both have reason for praise and a bit of disdain

Thanks BC, you give me way too much credit. I myself get schooled by Olorin and a couple of others from time to time, so I consider myself an adept at best.

Rev, I'm glad we're on the same wavelenght. It's refreshing, to be honest. Yes indeed, Tolkien is not perfect and he stumbled several times. There is a fine balance between what the movies achieved and what he wrote, and both are deserving of love and praise in their own rights, as well as criticism. I'm generally fairly outspoken in Tolkien's defense, but only when I see changes and inventions being made for the movies that make absolutely no sense and provide zero value to the story. I find this most egregious in places where Tolkien provided a perfectly good description/e xp lanation/fact/etc, yet the filmmakers felt the need to invent something to appease their own egos and place their mark on the story.

Your example of Theoden and Eowyn is a perfect instance of an adjustment that delivers a far better and poignant emotional effect to the audience than Tolkien's classical tragic approach. I couldn't agree with you more, and I will praise Jackson for having the vision to 'update' things that way.

Now, the case of the upcoming Morgul blade in The Hobbit. Perhaps it is premature to judge this change before the movie is even out, but enough about this subplot has been leaked to make me want to bash my head against a brick wall in frustration at the sheer stupidity of what is being invented. The discovery of the Morgul blade itself is not a bad plot device in and of itself: we know the Nazgul were in Dol Guldur, and what better proof can Gandalf deliver to Elrond than this physical bit of evidence? No, what bothers me is the highly questionable 'history' for the reason why that Morgul blade was there. This story about the Nine being imprisoned in cages by the Dunedain in ages past, turning Dol Guldur into a prison, and further making the Nazgul look like a bunch of inept scarecrows is nothing short of ridiculous and flies in the face of anything and everything Tolkien ever wrote about those particular subjects. You can love these movies all you want, but don't tell me I have to shut up and swallow this tripe, especially when what Tolkien did write on the subject is exceptional storytelling to begin with, and works equally well on the screen without the need for pointless modifications.

So, Mr.Jackson, change what you will, these are your movies, but please do so with a valid reason that we mere mortals can at least grasp the whys and wherefores of.

Val, I think you should go to next years Comic-Con and tear PJ and crew up during their panel!

I am indeed worried about that whole subplot of the dunedain imprisonment, Ill tearthat one apart once i see it. Its hard when so much of this information is coming from "spies"

High resolution pics from EW finally released. Save them for whatever use you may have them!

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/07 ... esolution/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXWsz7QSEh0

The new Vlog.... and Legolas has Orcrist strapped around his waist I would imagine this is from the battle of the five armies.

pics of legolas with orcrist on hip, appears the scene where he fights in mirkwood.

[quote=""ecthelion""]pics of legolas with orcrist on hip, appears the scene where he fights in mirkwood.[/quote]

I don't think its in Mirkwood Ecthelion because Thorin still has Orcrist when he is captured. Its probably from the battle of the five armies.

speaking of which this may be from the prequel scene but maybe dains army. Thorins?

Whoa, Dale looks completely different than I'd have imagined. Not necessarily in a bad way, just is going to take some getting used to, hehe. But Beorn's house looks wonderful, just like I hoped it would.

Looks like Legolas has a new bow (Mmm, maybe UC will be replicating that!) that's got a bit more sculpted features than his first bow in LotR while still retaining the dark Mirkwood look...

One thing I was surprised at though.... Orcrist is growing on me. I'm actually really enjoying the design. As long as I don't think of it as Orcrist, that is.

Well, that is a reason to put him into the film I guess...

Makes sense to see it on him. After taking it from Thorin, I'm sure the elves would want to see such a weapon in 'worthy' hands...not dwarven. Not completely out of the question to see it in that battle. Looking at the whole picture; it would have been really neat to see Orcrist look a lot more like Legolas' knives. As if after wielding Orcrist temporarily, he had his knives made to mimic the blade (since it was 'given back' to Thorin after the battle).

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Well, that is a reason to put him into the film I guess...[/quote]

I assume you mean Legolas? I think that's one cameo that makes absolute sense. I'm surprised it seems you might disagree, Rev. Not sure why he would be carrying Orcrist though, unless during the final battle he picks it up from Thorin's body to fight with and then returns it to Dain when it's all over.

I agree with Jaman on the look of Dale: totally not what I had envisioned. Considering the Men of Dale were of the same racial stock and cultural background that begat the Rohirrim < Eorlingas < Eotheod, you'd e xp ect e xp ect a town with more Northman overtones. The Italian/Moroccan look and feel seems very misplaced, culturally and geographically, but it's really not a big deal in the end. My biggest source of confusion is that the town actually appears whole when it is supposed to be nothing more than a windswept and dragon-blasted ruin by the time of the events of the book. Could they be showing it in a prologue scene when Smaug descends upon the town and destroys it?

Other things I liked: Beorn's house looked amazing, the dwarven army looks spot-on, loving the fact they are including Rhosgobel in the movie, and the guy playing Thranduil looks perfect for the part.

Still no sign of Bard though, and I would love to see their interpretation of the Arkenstone, but I guess we need some surprises for the movie after all.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I agree with Jaman on the look of Dale: totally not what I had envisioned. Considering the Men of Dale were of the same racial stock and cultural background that begat the Rohirrim < Eorlingas < Eotheod, you'd e xp ect e xp ect a town with more Northman overtones. The Italian/Moroccan look and feel seems very misplaced, culturally and geographically, but it's really not a big deal in the end. My biggest source of confusion is that the town actually appears whole when it is supposed to be nothing more than a windswept and dragon-blasted ruin by the time of the events of the book. Could they be showing it in a prologue scene when Smaug descends upon the town and destroys it?

Other things I liked: Beorn's house looked amazing, the dwarven army looks spot-on, loving the fact they are including Rhosgobel in the movie, and the guy playing Thranduil looks perfect for the part.

Still no sign of Bard though, and I would love to see their interpretation of the Arkenstone, but I guess we need some surprises for the movie after all. [/quote]

I wonder if they misspoke when they referenced Dale and what they really meant to say was Laketown? Or perhaps it's pre-Smaug, as you suggest. Or perhaps they've simply simplified and folded it into one town. I guess we'll find out.

And you're right, culturally it's not what I would e xp ect. I'm guessing they wanted to make it look different from any of the Mannish locales we saw in the LOTR trilogy, and that was the route they went. Whether it looks culturally appropriate or not, I'd have to say it looks stunning, and very much like a place I'd like to visit.

I also thought Rhosgobel and Beorn's house looked great. But the real surprise in this VBlog, so quick that apparently none of you noticed? The second or two of the footage that they showed the Comic-con crowd, and there was a stone giant! It's at about 1:20.

[quote=""Valkrist""]
My biggest source of confusion is that the town actually appears whole when it is supposed to be nothing more than a windswept and dragon-blasted ruin by the time of the events of the book. Could they be showing it in a prologue scene when Smaug descends upon the town and destroys it?[/quote]

Almost certainly the case. There was a knocked over wheelbarrow with fresh apples in it. Perfect set dressing for a disaster in progress...

Other things I liked: Beorn's house looked amazing, the dwarven army looks spot-on, loving the fact they are including Rhosgobel in the movie, and the guy playing Thranduil looks perfect for the part.

Agreed, especially Beorn's house and Rhosgobel. Very cool!

Tim

Nope, Olorin, you don't win the prize. I did notice the Stone Giant, I simply didn't comment on it because I assumed everyone had already seen the footage and it was little more than a split-second glimpse, but it looks cool from what could be gleaned.

Also, I really hope they don't roll Dale and Lake-Town into one settlement. That would alter quite a few elements of the book and would make no sense, except to an audience that doesn't know any better.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Also, I really hope they don't roll Dale and Lake-Town into one settlement. That would alter quite a few elements of the book and would make no sense, except to an audience that doesn't know any better.[/quote]

When PJ was originally planning a 2-movie version of LOTR instead of a 3-movie version, there was going to be no Lothlorien, and Theoden's court was to have been at Helm's Deep...no Edoras. That would have cut considerable depth from the movie. Thankfully that didn't happen. We'll see what happens with The Hobbit, I suppose. I can hardly wait for the next trailer, due in September. That new blog really whetted me for it.

Well, I hope you're right and that two movies gives PJ the needed time and space to have two mannish settlements in the second movie rather than one.

Honestly, because Dale is a ruin, the movie really gains nothing from merging it with Lake-Town: you're not saving screentime on anything because nothing happens in Dale in the book that requires scenes of any kind except perhaps as a backdrop for the battle. Besides, you have to a have a thriving human town in the area to e xp lain the presence of Bard and the human army that marches to the final battle, as well as show to whom exactly the elves of Mirkwood are shipping all those barrels to. If this place were merged with Dale, then how could it be thriving if it was living in the shadow of Erebor with a hostile dragon in it? And if Dale itself is relocated to the lake, then why would Smaug have bothered to torch something so far away originally? This is why it would make no sense to me to merge these two so let's hope it doesn't happen.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I assume you mean Legolas? I think that's one cameo that makes absolute sense. I'm surprised it seems you might disagree, Rev. Not sure why he would be carrying Orcrist though, unless during the final battle he picks it up from Thorin's body to fight with and then returns it to Dain when it's all over.[/quote]

Thranduil confiscates Orcrist from Thorin when they are captured in Mirkwood and for the movie thranduil probably gives it to legolas to carry and then gives it back to thorin after the battle

I don't remember how that part goes in book. Obviously Legolas is not in the book, but does Thranduil have the sword the whole time from when the dwarves get captured all the way to the Battle of the Five Armies? I'm at work so I can't access the novel to check. I suppose it wouldn't make sense to have armed prisoners, and I do recall the dwarves girding themselves for battle from Smaug's treasury, so they clearly did not recover their original weapons, and Orcrist would be among them.

This brings up the intriguing possibility that we are going to see a lot of different weapons being wielded by these dwarves over the course of two movies. UC is going to have their hands full.

[quote=""Valkrist""] and the guy playing Thranduil looks perfect for the part.

and I would love to see their interpretation of the Arkenstone, but I guess we need some surprises for the movie after all. [/quote]
Seeing that they showed Lee Pace with no costume, I'm guessing he has a really cool look in the film, I felt that was very deliberate (keeping that secret).

There has been an Arkenstone revealed, and I sure hope it's a guess, because I can't stand the look of the one I've seen; it's so cliche. http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/06 ... more-57914

I'm really hoping it is an irregular shape. I envision the dwarves mining away and digging out this incredible stone that simply needs no cutting or polish. That its value to the dwarves is because they consider it flawless as is, and to cut it in order to shape it would be disgraceful to them. Kind of like, in all the mining the entire race has done, never has such a stone been found, and therein lay its value.

Actually, that's exactly how the Arkenstone is described in the book.

"The Arkenstone! The Arkenstone!" murmured Thorin in the dark, half
dreaming with his chin upon his knees. "It was like a globe with a thousand
facets; it shone like silver in the firelight, like water in the sun, like
snow under the stars, like rain upon the Moon!"

But, that Badali stuff is from a book license with the Tolkien estate, not the film.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I don't remember how that part goes in book. Obviously Legolas is not in the book, but does Thranduil have the sword the whole time from when the dwarves get captured all the way to the Battle of the Five Armies? I'm at work so I can't access the novel to check. I suppose it wouldn't make sense to have armed prisoners, and I do recall the dwarves girding themselves for battle from Smaug's treasury, so they clearly did not recover their original weapons, and Orcrist would be among them.

This brings up the intriguing possibility that we are going to see a lot of different weapons being wielded by these dwarves over the course of two movies. UC is going to have their hands full.[/quote]

Yes, I did mean Legolas before. I specifically meant that it was definitely a way to put him in battle. Daddy takes Orcrist from Thorin, hands it over to Legolas as a gift or at least for safe keeping. They all go to the battle, clash, clang, bang, death. Legolas returns the sword to Thorin. It is structurally sound when we talk about plot except for the Legolas addition which I do not mind. It isn't like Gimli where he is "too young." Legolas has plenty of age under his belt already, those darned immortals!

Kit is right about the Arkenstone, but I agree that one in the picture looks like a glass bauble hanging off the bottom of a cheap chandelier. I have no doubt the one in the movie is probably going to be CGI-enhanced.

[quote=""Valkrist""]Kit is right about the Arkenstone, but I agree that one in the picture looks like a glass bauble hanging off the bottom of a cheap chandelier. I have no doubt the one in the movie is probably going to be CGI-enhanced.[/quote]

Yeah, kind of reminds me of something out of the late 70's early 80's. Something that would be in a roller rink!

In general, I don't mind that design, but I am excited to see the film's take on it.

On Dale, I always imagined it more like the video games did...

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Dale

but I do like that we see something different. I mean the more "Italian Renaissance" look makes sense for a city built next to a mountain sort of on a river, kind of like a Venetian feel. I like it, something different.

[quote=""Nasnandos""]Actually, that's exactly how the Arkenstone is described in the book.

"The Arkenstone! The Arkenstone!" murmured Thorin in the dark, half
dreaming with his chin upon his knees. "It was like a globe with a thousand
facets; it shone like silver in the firelight, like water in the sun, like
snow under the stars, like rain upon the Moon!"

But, that Badali stuff is from a book license with the Tolkien estate, not the film.[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying Kit. If it's described that way, I'll accept it that way.
And I agree with you Val that in order to make it look like the description it will indeed need CGI enhancement.

I'd assume it will be much like the phial that Galadriel gave to Frodo in LotR. Just MUCH more brilliant, hopefully! And round.

Darn you, Olorin, I was gonna point out the giants! Oh well. Yes, I saw them and yes, as long as all we see is them throwing rocks through flashes of lightning, I like them! Just keep that bit of mystery around them, know what I mean? Not too defined.

I couldn't figure out if that was Dale at first, I thought it looked like something from Coastal Gondor. But now that I think about it, I really like it. It's certainly a beautiful set, even if I had imagined it being more Scandinavian. I bet it's from the flashback, but maybe instead of having the town totally ruined, it will just be deserted. That way they can have their nice set.

I'm sure that Thranduil takes Orcist from Thorin and wields it, seeing as it was an elven sword after all. And I personally am looking forward to the onslaught of weapons and gear from Erebor in the second film. I don't know about any of you, but I just got my email from Derek Smith and he said that UC appears to be planning to launch their products in small batches, so we won't have 50 things coming out at once. This is good news, that way they can make all these cool things and we can keep up!

As for that Dwarven Army...I love it! Just how I pictured Dwarven ranks, and I bet it's Dain's army. Although it could be from the flashback, the Battle of Azanulbizar (did I spell that right? I don't feel like looking it up. )

Overall, this blog gives me a lot of hope for these films. Rhosgobel and Beorn's Hall look stunning, exactly how I would picture it. And the goblin stuff looks awesome too. The guy playing Thranduil looks more than up to the task, and it's even good to see Orlando back in Legolas costume.

And who was the guy playing saxophone with Andy Serkis? I didn't even know Andy played saxophone!

[quote=""Valkrist""]... I agree that one in the picture looks like a glass bauble hanging off the bottom of a cheap chandelier.....[/quote]

Accompanied with booming disco music too

I took a few pictures from the video blog that everyone has been talking about.

Trolls


Legolas and Orcist


And this blurred behind Gandalf image I believe is Rahdagast

Did you notice the Warg-like (LOTR Film Warg-like) creature @ 7.06? I thought we were supposed to be seeing more "wolfy" wargs. Hmm, multiple species maybe? Will the Wolfies talk because they are smarter and the "wargs" as we have seen are more like tortured dumbed down wolves? Who knows...

Wow N2, you were in rare form when you made that post. Three pictures, three errors!

Never fear, Captain Pedantic to the rescue!

Pic 1: That's a Stone Giant, not "Trolls"

Pic 2: Legolas has Orcrist at his hip. I don't know what "Orcist" is.

Pic 3: The brown wizard is called Radagast, not "Rahdagast."

You're welcome. **ducks**

Ok, seriously now though, did anyone notice that what is on Legolas' hip is not the full Orcrist prop but just the hilt and about eight inches or so of scabbard and blade?

[quote=""Valkrist""]
iously now though, did anyone notice that what is on Legolas' hip is not the full Orcrist prop but just the hilt and about eight inches or so of scabbard and blade?[/quote]

Yep I noticed too Val. The scabbard has red tracker dots on it so I believe the rest will be added in post production. This was probably done so that it would be easier to cut out legolas from the green screen.

I noticed the short Orcrist too. My guess is that Legolas' movement in that final shot was causing the entire sword to swing around on his hip too much so they made that version to keep it in place.
And EG is correct, the dots indicate they plan to complete it post production.

Ah movie magic