About Sylvester McCoy as Radagast (in The One Ring).

I thought the casting odd since in neither
TH or LoTR is Radagast a major character. It's nice he's in it. but I'd
rather he had a role from the book then (apparently) more PJ
meddling in plot and character manipulation.

There's a spate of Hobbit casting announcements, including the return of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and actors for Balin, Beorn, and Drogo Baggins (!). Of course it's no surprise to anyone that we'll be delving into off-screen action involving the White Council, but as far as I can remember this is the first indication we've had that we'll be getting at least a glimpse of Baggins family history too.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/12/cate...or-the-hobbit/

McKellen and Serkis are still not confirmed. Cue *raised eyebrow*.

Hmm. Will we get to see Primula push Drogo in the Brandywine? :rolleyes:

Thorin
 

Is it just me, or is the guy they picked to play Thorin Oakenshield WAY too young for they part?

Indeed. Some even say that Drogo reached out
and drug her down after him. :eek:

Cast announcement for The Hobbit MERGED with Hobbit Movie Progressing
 

Apparently Time Warner/New Line has made some new cast announcements:

The announcement was made jointly today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema, Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros. and Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.


http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/12/7...-mccoy-an.html

Much as I like Sylvester McCoy it seems like it's a typical PJ and Boyens
"creative" move to expand the character.

And can anyone else imagine Leggy leading waves of elves down the
sides of Erebor on skateboards to attack the goblins?

Still, Agent Elrond should be better cast to lead the White Council then in the movie FotR.

And personally, I still think it would be less of a distortion then other PJ moves
to age Aragorn about 10 years and have him with a tryst (quite chaste :) ) with Arwen
and participating in the attack on Dol Guldur.

I decided to merge skip's thread in with this one since Hobbit threads on similar subjects are starting to proliferate and this thread already had some discussion of recent casting news.

...and on the news of the return of Legolas in a role that's "more than just a cameo" -- *brrr*.

And so, a simple but well-told linear quasi-epic comedy is buried in indigestible fluff. Rather like a cat vomiting tinselly hairballs on Christmas Eve.

You are not, I felt the same upon the announcement for while I have no doubt that costume and makeup will transform him into Thorin, his style just doesn't say 'stern, gravelly dwarf', to me it says 'suave softly spoken regal spy who married Vicar of Dibley'.

Did you see him in "North and South"? He was a bit grim and stern in that ..and he is a real actor rather than a film star and loves the books so it could be worse...

Elijah Wood Signed on for The Hobbit
 

This surprised me at first...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...-on-for-Hobbit

But then reading the explanation as to how and why made me think that despite it's being outrageously non-canonical, it may not be too bad.

I haven't no. Heh, not giving him much credit am I. You are right, it could be worse.

Mhm you'd have to be pretty bitter to go on a rant about that.

Regarding Andy Serkis, I'd like to think PJ would have enough
directorial self-control to limit him to the riddle scene, and then
a brief appearance of him emerging from the mountains at
the end of Part II...but I have my doubts.

Am I allowed to be cynical and suggest that if they need to pad it out with artificially contrived scenes involving LOTR characters the story of the Hobbit could really have been told satisfactorily in one film and the division in to two is pot boiling? Either that or they fear that the main cast isn't sufficiently "box office" without some big Hollywood names...

It was an insurance scam, Drogo tied a brick around her leg, then he slipped and as he fell the brick smashed through the bottom of the boat....... it was then that Drogo realised he couldn't swim................. well that's what I heard, Peter Jackson told me so.

There are a couple of things currently worring me about this movie:

A.) Who in the world is Itaril and why is she currently top billed on IMDB? Is she going to be the token female character that movie seem to have to have these days? Apparently she's part of the King's guard and if she turns into a love interest for Legolas I am going to walk out of the Theater.:mad:

B.) Who is playing Bard? So far the answer is nobody even though filming starts next month.

C.) I'm not so sure about David Tennant as Thranduil. It just doesn't seem right to me.

Itaril is a variant of Idril - referencing her may be a sop to the purists... :S
Bard is an important role but there is masses you can do without him. While his scenes are very important they aren't numerous.

I think I agree with you on that one, however one only needs to read Lurtz for Itaril, it is Jackson and Bowens ego that they can somehow make Tolkiens story better, and like I have always said 'It's not what they leave out, it's what they put in that annoys the hell out of me'. Why invent something that is not there, when there is plenty there in the first place. I have many misgivings over these films, if Bard has not been cast... it is not beyond imagining that they will fuse the character to that of Beorn (I hope I'm wrong), their excuse ...... the public will be confused because of the similarity of the names. We suddenley have The Hobbit There or Thereabouts and The Quest of Errorbore released by OneWrong. com. I really do hope I'm wrong, I watched all the LOtR's Films at the cinema and for the most part enjoyed them, however with each one they took more and more liberties. I have three copies of each film, and I still watch them........................ I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they keep faith with the story Tolkien wrote and not what they think the public should watch.

Bit more cast news.
 

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/...bit-05-01-2011

One dwarf down already and no sign of Bard. :( Loved "Pushing Daisies" but still can't see Lee PAce as the elven king.. and weirdly he is younger than Orli. Depressingly there was an interview with Saucer Ronan inyesterday's MoS magazine that seems to confirm that it is a done deal. Hey ho - still time for it to be left on the cutting room floor like David Morrissey's in "Girl with a pearl earring".

What? They don't have an Elrond? Blasphemy!

Oh Lovely Hugo is returning ..I thought that was in the article... must havebeen another.

I thought we had Stuart Townsend as Bard.

Wasn't that TORN's April Fool? I might have to check with Herald of Mandos though.:p

Ah, they got me then. For a month. Drat it all. :rolleyes:

I shouldn't fret - it is plausible. PJ has been on a "jobs for the boys" programme bringing back the old guard. And he might feel it was some compensation for Aragorn not working out. Wouldn't be disastrous casting even if not my first choice. But a million times rather have him than the bug eyed Mary Sue.

Martin Freeman let slip backstage at the Bafta's (where he won best supporting actor for his role as John Watson) that his Sherlock co star, Benedict Cumberbatch has a role in The Hobbit.

Some theories have him as Voice of Smaug but he is lanky enough to play an elf ( - Galion or the Gaoler perhaps? Presuambly not Itaril....! Can't see him as Bard and since Stephen Fry (whose acting gets worse with time - wonderful as Jeeves dreadful in Gosford Park) is Master of Lake Town, I am struggling to think of many other options.. .

Stephen Fry? That's it these people are out to poison my (specific) existence

The only man on earth who can make Evelyn Waugh cosy (not a compliment)

Ang dear, I have felt that for some time - let alone the fact that if it is in 3D I wouldn't actually be able to watch it.... I didn't see Bright Young Things..

Azog...
 

Along with Stephen Fry's casting announcement was the mention of Conan Stevens, (currently playing Gregor Clegane - or “The Mountain that Rides,” - in HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” series) to play the part of "an orc called Azog."

This obviously implies that either we will be seeing more background hstory of the Dwarf/Orc wars, more Moria and possibly the Battle of Azanulbizar....or not! Wouldn't put it past the scriptwriters to make the Great Goblin Azog...:rolleyes:

It's interesting and revealing how this casting cycle has gone

The Lord of the Rings films - while I would say only the first two are particularly personally enjoyable for me, and they not as much as they might have been - were, in retrospect, quite respectable; visually impressive, quite well acted, script that avoided bathos more than it didn't and quoted quite a lot of Tolk, etc. And look at their cast. They were not a lattice of famous names arranged like a meta-joke. Most of them are famous now, but that's different

Because of this quite originally and insightfully cast series of films' very success, though, the Hobbit is proving exactly the opposite; its cast seems to read like one of those hilarious dream teams created by someone like me on a site like this - a collection of colossally famous, shoehorned in half remembered dramatic walking cliches; the product of a bloke somewhere working on autopilot, not an artist looking for talent

Am beginning to wonder if the magnitude of The Hobbit's disastrousness is actually a conspiracy to shore up the lasting reputation of the trilogy...

I can't for instance see it being anything like as good as Game of Thrones mentioned just above - and given their respective literary starting points that's quite shocking. Note Game of Thrones is also mostly relatively new blood in its casting

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this. :eek:

That's the fad right now and it allows them to charge more money to pad their box office results, so...

I am in complete agreement with Ang that The Hobbit(s) is seeming more and more like somebody's out of control ego project that is going to be utterly ghastly in every way.

While I probably still will go see it when it comes out, I will probably go only looking forward to the prospect of deriding it and ripping it to shreds at every opportunity.

I am in complete disagreement with Ang regarding the literary starting points as I think the Song of Ice and Fire series is quite good and well-written. I am looking forward to the next book in the series coming out later this year. So there! :p

I don't feel strongly enough about my catty point above to defend it against such a luminary (cf werewolf I) as you Kuru; I haven't read the Martin books, I merely lazily doubt that they're in Tolkien's league/feel Anglo prejudice. And I must say the TV series has given me an enormous amount of enjoyment (maybe so much more than the LOTR films because I don't have the constant sense of a beloved artefact being messed with?) so I will happily pay fealty

Tough luck on astigmatics who will be feeling queasy long before the hamming starts

I hope I luminate for more than that as that was one week in a summer a long time ago now.

I do heartily endorse reading the books. I've not been able to see the series yet, although I intend to when I can, but its my understanding that in the main it follows the book...as faithfully as can be expected from a television version of a book (although there are the inevitable strange bits...like the absurd armor of the Westermen...but I digress).

The books themselves are quite good. They are not like Tolkien and they are certainly not for younger readers but they are well written and an enjoyable read. They do look quite thick and intimidating, I grant, but one flies through reading them much faster than would be supposed.

I also apologize for my hilarious typo in your name earlier. I would say that my brain was on autopilot this morning...but given the execrable nature of that typo it looks more like I was just asleep at the wheel.

And tough luck for all of us who will get headaches from the ill-fitting things. If ever there was a movie trend I wish would go away it is this sudden intoxication with 3-D they all seem to have come down with.

It was a complete nightmare trying to find something age appropriate and astigmatic friendly to take godson too last half term. Given that there was a near simultaeneous 3d showing of the same film, and our screenwas packed I think there are a good number of people who have problems with it.

Oh an Kuru dear you are always a source of light :D

No matter what anyway says, there is an inherent cost to add 3-D to a film, and because of this added cost, filmmakers can no longer look at filming a scene in relation to the best impact for the actors, but rather, the greatest 3-D impact. Therefore, you get more single shots of arrows whistling through air or axes flying end over end, and less of the individual actors (and their acting).

I would prefer if the technology could just go away.

I think overall that any emphasis on actual acting has given way to considerations of the visuals. After all, I daresay the majority of moviegoers these days don't want anything really thought-provoking or meaningful, as much as pretty explosions and emotional payoffs one can see coming a mile away. Or at least that's the perception of many movie makers. The addition of 3-D only exacerbates the problem, as you say. I see the 3-D thing as a gimmick, and one that will only serve to cheapen The Hobbit in general and make it look like just another 'blockbuster'.

Fangirl alert: From TheOneRing.net:

So does he date a Laketown girl or an elf for romantic interests? :rolleyes:

I wouldn't put it past them to have Legolas leaping from the pinnacle of Erebor onto Smaug's back, sticking a dagger in his eye, and sliding down his tail to land safely on the ground. Then he'll quip "Even the biggest worms have their gummy parts". ;)