The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

He is the son of the Wood Elf King in Mirkwood. He is not mentioned in the book, though. I think Peter Jackson just has a raging boner for everyone that was in LOTR, and feels he needs to insert them somehow for this film to be a success. While I understand him putting in Legolas, since Elves or immortal in the book, and he would most likely be around in the timeline, bringing in Frodo is bullshit of the highest order. I really hate Elijah Woods, and his long watery eyed close up camera staring contests.

I think they need to put Samwise into the film, too, and he should literally rather than metaphorically just suck Frodo's cock the entire time he's on screen.

"Oh, what an interesting story, Mr. Frodo...*om nom nom*..."

Yes. Maybe have it start off on one of Elijah Wood's idiot eye shots, and slowly bring the camera down to a nob slobbing Samwise.

I like this.

  On 6/1/2011 at 8:24 AM, MAXIMUS MISCHIEF said:

  On 5/31/2011 at 10:06 PM, GORDO said:

2 movies for the hobbit?. fuck this. please nobody watch it.

 

what is wrong with that ??

you can READ the hobbit in the 2 hours a movie lasts. it is a short story. it's a cynical money grabbing move.

The Hobbit is not, by any means, a short story.

Ok short novel, good enough for you? you can still read it in 2 hours.

fuck the haters, i think this is going to be great! makes no sense to me why tolkien fans wouldn't welcome an adaptation of the hobbit, and directed by peter jackson no less.

also 3d isn't going anywhere, might as well embrace it.

  On 6/1/2011 at 6:06 PM, GORDO said:

Ok short novel, good enough for you? you can still read it in 2 hours.

Most films of books seem rushed or have to cut things out, even kids stories like Harry Potter. I don't think it's unreasonable, people seemed to like the LOTR films being dragged out anyway. Should a film be shorter than the time it takes to read the book? I'm not sure why that would make sense

It makes sense because descriptions and such are condensed into pictures. Not saying it should be a rule, but it's pretty obvious in this case that it's not a way to cut less from the story, they're actually adding foreign characters to it.

Seriously though, I wear glasses. When the fuck are they going to make 3D glasses that can fit over my glasses? Shit is simply impossible. It gives me a headache.

  On 6/1/2011 at 6:42 PM, thanks robert moses said:

Seriously though, I wear glasses. When the fuck are they going to make 3D glasses that can fit over my glasses? Shit is simply impossible. It gives me a headache.

Hah I got the same problem. I've trapped into watching 3D films for about 5 times now. What a pain in the arse to sit through.

The movies that use this 3D effect seem to be all really bad ones too. I think there's a connection.

  On 6/1/2011 at 6:06 PM, GORDO said:

you can still read it in 2 hours.

I seriously doubt this but even if you could, you would absorb very little making the whole performance completely pointless.

I think there is actually an awful lot that can be padded out from the book (mirkwood, battle of five armies, beorn etc)

and would benefit from more detail.... I think two films is a good idea.

lol it's a kid's story. find your copy of the hobbit, I bet you 5 watmm points that the type size is huge.

kids stories are not legitimate cinema !!

  On 5/31/2010 at 9:41 AM, vamos scorcho said:

Gilliam

Oh please no. Brazil and his Monty Python animations are his only great moments. I don't think he could do this.

He might've pulled off Harry Potter though.

  On 6/1/2011 at 7:10 PM, vincentvc said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 6:42 PM, thanks robert moses said:

Seriously though, I wear glasses. When the fuck are they going to make 3D glasses that can fit over my glasses? Shit is simply impossible. It gives me a headache.

 

Hah I got the same problem. I've trapped into watching 3D films for about 5 times now. What a pain in the arse to sit through.

The movies that use this 3D effect seem to be all really bad ones too. I think there's a connection.

*ahem*

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=3D+glasses+clip+on&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

  On 6/1/2011 at 7:35 PM, GORDO said:

lol it's a kid's story

i don't see it as a "kids story" really though, it's part of a bigger mythology. i'm sure tolkien himself would argue that the book is just one way of retelling an important series of events (within the middle earth mythology).

  On 6/1/2011 at 8:01 PM, Murveman said:

  On 5/31/2010 at 9:41 AM, vamos scorcho said:

Gilliam

Oh please no. Brazil and his Monty Python animations are his only great moments. I don't think he could do this.

 

He might've pulled off Harry Potter though.

 

  On 6/1/2011 at 7:10 PM, vincentvc said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 6:42 PM, thanks robert moses said:

Seriously though, I wear glasses. When the fuck are they going to make 3D glasses that can fit over my glasses? Shit is simply impossible. It gives me a headache.

 

Hah I got the same problem. I've trapped into watching 3D films for about 5 times now. What a pain in the arse to sit through.

The movies that use this 3D effect seem to be all really bad ones too. I think there's a connection.

*ahem*

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=3D+glasses+clip+on&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

Oh yeah, like I am going to go out and buy a fucking accessory for the MOVIES, when I am already paying a retarded amount for a ticket. Given the amount of nerds that go and see films, these things should be free. Regal can suck my dick.

  On 6/2/2011 at 12:03 AM, BCM said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 7:35 PM, GORDO said:

lol it's a kid's story

 

i don't see it as a "kids story" really though, it's part of a bigger mythology. i'm sure tolkien himself would argue that the book is just one way of retelling an important series of events (within the middle earth mythology).

you could say that about anything. but you can't argue against it being the lightest and shortest read in the series.

the hobbit was my favorite book as a child, and now it is being released as a film the same month that the world is purported to end. odd times.

i always thought they should have released the hobbit film first. i enjoyed the lotr story way the fuck more knowing the hobbit story so well beforehand. it establishes the mythos in a more digestible way before plunging you headfirst into the epic shit in lotr. i think they had it fucked from day 1 by starting with the fellowship.

  On 6/2/2011 at 6:22 AM, ieafs said:

  On 6/2/2011 at 12:42 AM, GORDO said:

  On 6/2/2011 at 12:03 AM, BCM said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 7:35 PM, GORDO said:

lol it's a kid's story

 

i don't see it as a "kids story" really though, it's part of a bigger mythology. i'm sure tolkien himself would argue that the book is just one way of retelling an important series of events (within the middle earth mythology).

 

 

you could say that about anything. but you can't argue against it being the lightest and shortest read in the series.

i think what BCM is trying to say is that, the hobbit book itself is told in a more naive way (it was written for his children after all), but there's no real reason that the film has to take that tone whatsover. i mean it's still part of the same middle earth chronology - just because the dwarves and stuff seem kind of silly and childish in the hobbit doesn't mean that they need to do that for the film. it's all part of the same chronology. ie. you could write LOTR like the silmarillion and take this sort of biblical 3rd person tone and still tell the same story

 

so yeah i'm sure it'll be adjusted in that way to fit with the initial LOTR trilogy.

that wasn't really the argument, they can use whatever tone they like but making 2 (two) full length movies out of that particular story is pushing it quite far don't you think? they should just go all out and pull out an "i robot". maybe even rename it to "the hobbit wizard of earthsea".

as I said, I believe there is plenty of material to warrant two films - there is so much that is just implied but not described in the book - especially the white council, gandalf's adventures in dol guldur, the journey to rivendell (dealt with very quickly in the hobbit, takes ages in LOTR) etc. tolkien wrote so much about middle earth, there will be plenty to make two films worthwhile - don't think of it as just a film/s of the book - it's two films telling of the events that happened around the time of the ring's resurfacing. just because it's called The Hobbit, doesn't mean it has to be an exact film of the book called The Hobbit.

it's a cash grab.

  On 6/2/2011 at 12:09 AM, thanks robert moses said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 8:01 PM, Murveman said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 7:10 PM, vincentvc said:

  On 6/1/2011 at 6:42 PM, thanks robert moses said:

Seriously though, I wear glasses. When the fuck are they going to make 3D glasses that can fit over my glasses? Shit is simply impossible. It gives me a headache.

 

Hah I got the same problem. I've trapped into watching 3D films for about 5 times now. What a pain in the arse to sit through.

The movies that use this 3D effect seem to be all really bad ones too. I think there's a connection.

*ahem*

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=3D+glasses+clip+on&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

 

Oh yeah, like I am going to go out and buy a fucking accessory for the MOVIES, when I am already paying a retarded amount for a ticket. Given the amount of nerds that go and see films, these things should be free. Regal can suck my dick.

Lol, calm down, sunshine.