DELETED_74993

The reason why we'll see Legolas etc is that they're using these films as a not only aportrayal of The Hobbit, but also as a bridge between events in The Hobbit and events in LOTR. Should be awesome :D
 
I'd take an educated guess that the movie starts with Bilbo retelling the story of The Hobbit to Frodo, and then the movie will cut away to the main story of the Hobbit, which is all just a flashback, and then at the end of Part 2, it cuts back to Bilbo and Frodo, as Bilbo finishes his story.

There you go, The Hobbit + Bookends for LOTR.
 
Jed Shields said:
The reason why we'll see Legolas etc is that they're using these films as a not only aportrayal of The Hobbit, but also as a bridge between events in The Hobbit and events in LOTR. Should be awesome :D
Click to expand...

what youre saying isnt really making any sense. these films will be the hobbit, simply the hobbit, there is no need for a 'bridge' between the events, they naturally follow each other, the ring plays a large part in the hobbit from the middle onwards, fellowship of the ring continues the story of the ring, what bridge do you think they will need to explain this?
 
finga said:
what youre saying isnt really making any sense. these films will be the hobbit, simply the hobbit, there is no need for a 'bridge' between the events, they naturally follow each other, the ring plays a large part in the hobbit from the middle onwards, fellowship of the ring continues the story of the ring, what bridge do you think they will need to explain this?
Click to expand...

From an adaptation point of view it doesn't really make sense but from a monetary point of view it means they get to make an extra film.

If Jackson manages to pull the rabbit from the hat again for these two films then I will be very happy but right now it's looking like it could all be a bit too messy. I also haven't been too impressed with his work in the interim so that also doesn't bolster confidence.
 
Antar Bolaeisk said:
From an adaptation point of view it doesn't really make sense but from a monetary point of view it means they get to make an extra film.

If Jackson manages to pull the rabbit from the hat again for these two films then I will be very happy but right now it's looking like it could all be a bit too messy. I also haven't been too impressed with his work in the interim so that also doesn't bolster confidence.
Click to expand...

are you saying you believe the story to be wrapped up in the first film and then the second film to be an extra unnecessary movie between the 2 books?

I should imagine the first film will end with the escape from the goblins and gollum and then the 2nd film ending with the battle of 5 armies, I personally wouldnt want them to try to fit the hobbit into 1 film. so to me 2 films makes great sense
 
I think it will be the Hobbit over two films but with more stuff added in (Gandalf, white council, necromancer, Dol Guldur etc) and perhaps a bit more at the end, possibly even Aragorn hunting Gollum and giving him to the elves.
 
whhKA.jpg.png

JED BROPHY as Nori, ADAM BROWN as Ori and MARK HADLOW as Dori in New Line Cinema’s and MGM's fantasy adventure THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
Photo by James Fisher.
 
I honestly don't think Frodo will be in the movie any more than a cameo roll as others have said,

They have some pretty freaky folk who live LOTR looking at time lines and side stories etc (or they did with the LOTR)

I doubt something as obvious as Frodo wouldn't be alive at the time would be missed.

It's the fact this is being done over two films that worries me the most. If you can fit each of the books (well the trilogy of books) into one film surely you can fit the hobbit into one film quite easily? Never mind though, Should still be good. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom