More Confirmed Cast!

Eldorion

Radagast: Sylvester McCoy
Galadriel: Cate Blanchett
Beorn: Mikael Persbrandt
Balin: Ken Stott
Drogo Baggins: Ryan Gage
Nori: Jed Brophy
Bifur: William Kircher

Noom

Beorn: Mikael Persbrandt
Fantastic, I hope he is good.

Odo Banks

You, of course, jest! Enough of your japes and jibes, Eldo!

I'm still a bit perplexed as to the casting of Drogo. Why is he in it? Frodo is 33 when Bilbo is 111 so Bilbo is 78 when Frodo is born and he's in his 50's when TH takes place. That's a big gap to bridge they somehow plan to include Frodo's birth and his parents death. And if they aren't doing that why include Drogo in TH at all? It's not like he got a mention in PJ's LotR's. For me the telling thing about that list is it contains 7 characters, out of which 3 do not feature at all in TH book.

Ringdrotten

Looks very good in my opinion, especially happy about Persbrandt as Beorn! Loved his performance in the Swedish TV series "Beck". He's also very good in a Norwegian movie that I've seen. Not sure about his English though, but I'm fine with an accent. I'm a bit puzzled by Drogo too though, what's he got to do with anything?

Eldorion

Other than McCoy and Blanchett I don't know of any of those actors (and only with regards to for McCoy). I'm as puzzled by the Drogo bit as everyone else. I'm holding out hope that they'll just include him in a few brief scenes as a framing sequence, but I'd still prefer he wasn't there to begin with. If they mess up the timeline to try to shoehorn Drogo into the main tale I'll be even more annoyed, though.

"Not sure about his English though, but I'm fine with an accent."- Ringdrotten Me too, in fact I thought Lotr should have had stronger regional accents. If had been me making it the Rohirrim would have sounded Norse, Gondorians Italian, hobbits from the westcountry and Breelanders from Leeds, and I'd have tried to find some obscure accents for the elves, just to further distinguish one region from the other.

Ringdrotten

I agree, Petty, I would have loved some distinction as well. There's a Norwegian translation of LotR that handles the difference in speech between different regions and peoples incredibly well, it's a shame you don't understand Norwegian because it really is a great translation

Mmmm I wonder how long it would take to learn Norwegian?

Ringdrotten

You'll be speaking it fluently in no time, a cheerful guy like you <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> Still very puzzled about this Drogo stuff though :? Other than that, the actors look their parts I think (so does Drogo), very happy with these actors. I only hope they'll do their characters justice in terms of acting!

The more I think about the inclusion of Drogo the more it makes me wonder what sort of film we are getting here. Is it TH or is it a preamble to PJ's LotR's? I can't really see any purpose in including Drogo just as Bilbo's relative or for a bit part at the films end but for the life of me I can't think how he can be used unless it includes the birth of Frodo and possibly even Drogo's death- a worrying thought as it doesn't fit with the sort of story TH is at all.

Odo Banks[b]

Gandalfs Beard

It's BOTH, but of COURSE it's going to be a preamble to LotR. But what's the point of crying about it? Not only will we get the Hobbit--WITH BEORN --but we will get the other background info that helps it segues neatly into the LotR films. I think it's a brilliant plan. :ugeek: :mrgreen:

I don't because PJ and Coven showed in LotR they can't write in Tolkien's style (grammatically or storytelling) if their life depended on it. The worst parts of the LotR films are the bits they made up. TH is going to be at least 50% made up- that doesn't bode well. It also misses the point that TH is a book with a particular feel and charm which will be stomped mercilessly into the ground by turning it into a full blown segue into LotR's. But it is good news Beorn is in. A small crumb of comfort.

Eldorion

The original plan was pretty much that, but now it will be some mash-up of [i:14x44bs4]The Hobbit[/i:14x44bs4] and whatever backstory information they decide to cram in to the story. Much as the idea of a bridge movie discouraged me, I would have preferred that to forcing all of that stuff into [i:14x44bs4]The Hobbit[/i:14x44bs4]. I don't think that trying to combine both of those into a single film is the best idea. Even assuming that they can pull off the bridge part, it's like mixing pizza and ice cream. Also, why are people surprised about the Beorn announcement? I thought it was clear from statements made quite some time ago that the film-makers had plans for him. :?

Tinuviel

I can't say I'm surprised about Drogo being in the movie, I'm expecting that since they're making 2 films they've created some wiggle room. And they have plenty of information from Unfinished Tales to use and warp like they did in LOTR. I have a feeling its not going to be like Harry Potter 7 where they really explained everything from the BOOK in the first part as much as they could. But I have this dark feeling that's just beginning to emerge that TH is going to bomb because PJ is trying to live up to LOTR.

Eldorion

Interestingly, PJ and Co. (as licensees of Saul Zaentz) have only the legal right to use material found in [i:1k95kcee]The Hobbit[/i:1k95kcee] and [i:1k95kcee]The Lord of the Rings[/i:1k95kcee]. Film rights to Tolkien's other works were never sold. Whether or not that will be practically enforced, however, is unclear. The film-makers knowingly took inspiration from [i:1k95kcee]The Silmarillion[/i:1k95kcee] before, though to be fair, there is a good deal of overlap between that and the LOTR Appendices. I've had a similar fear to Tin's, though I don't think the films will be bombs by any standard. Still, it feels like PJ is trying to make another epic fantasy film series, and that really isn't what [i:1k95kcee]The Hobbit[/i:1k95kcee] is. Besides, after the ground-shaking events of LOTR, [i:1k95kcee]The Hobbit[/i:1k95kcee] is going to appear rather lightweight. In the grand scheme of the epic battles it's a minor (if significant) set-up to what comes later. It's as the personal story of Bilbo that the book really shines. So, with so much emphasis shifted to other elements I suspect the film will appear simply as 'LOTR Lite' and be compared negatively to the first three films.

Even if they do use all the available outside material huge chunks of important stuff is still very, very vague. All we know of the WC and the Necromancer largely boils down to a few variations on the line "The Necromancer was driven from Mirkwood." Given the only time we've really seen members of the WC act aggressively was Gandalf fighting Saruman (a scene in which PJ typically turned some of Tolkien's best most dramatic cut and thrust dialogue into two old men fighting with sticks! And this when the actors in question are Christopher Lee and Ian Mckellen stalwarts of the stage that's a disgracful misuse of talent and source material) what 'treats' will he give us for 'driving out the Necromancer'? Flying wizards? Matrix meets LotR's? Fireballs from fingertips? Someone dangling off a ledge? No they proved unremittingly in LotR that when they take a small line like that and 'fill it out' it is a disaster. At least half of this film is shaping up to be such a disaster. PJ has no restraint and I state again the Coven cannot write in Tolkiens style and the stuff they make up jars terribly with the genuine article. As it does in LotR when Frodo picks Gollum over Sam. I fear we can expect far more of this 'dramatizing' ie making up stuff that doesn't fit or make sense outside of its own context of unrealistic heightened drama. Where in all this is the simple tale of a hobbit going on a big adventure and encountering the beautiful and the terrible, opening his eyes and mind to what's around him and demonstrating the innate courage that resides in all people of good heart?

Odo Banks

This is one of the wonderful things about the Necromancer in the book - the mere hint tantalizes the imagination. This movie (including the 3D business) is going to be worse than even I imagined! In fact, the movie indeed sounds like it will rob us of the use of my very [i:1g0v83vi]imagination[/i:1g0v83vi] for everything will be put front and center with no or suggestions to encourage it. (On top of this, the pro-creationism, of course, will be done badly as well - you're right as usual Mr Tyrant). Pandering to the "American" (shallow) mind is a tragic thing - tragic.

I have a problem with showing the WC driving the Necromancer from Mirkwood. Galadriel for example in LotR seems to be able to keep the darkness still about Dol Guldur at bay by using the power of the elven ring and her ethereal elvishess- what Sam calls elf magic. Its intangible, its the power of her will competing with the will of Sauron. But its not exactly filmable that. And as Odo says best left to the imagination. So I cannot see how it will not descend into farce if they try to film it. Galadriel fighting with a sword? Or firing magic about? How are they going to do it? More I think about it worse it gets.

Ringdrotten

I can see that there are many pits to fall into regarding the WC stuff, but if they do manage to pull it off it'll probably be epic cinema, regardless of what's in the book or not. As long as they do the Necromancer (if they show him at all) and Dol Guldur justice and avoid making Galadriel and others look silly, it'll be great. We already have the book with its great story that can never be touched by anyone, why not experiment a little when making a movie of it? After all, if you don't like the movie, you can always ask Petty to upload his "no-WC"-edit for you, as I'm sure there will be one

Eldorian

We already have the book with its great story that can never be touched by anyone, why not experiment a little when making a movie of it?[/quote:2970dd43] A couple of reasons. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> First, because PJ and Co. are claiming to adapt [i:2970dd43]The Hobbit[/i:2970dd43], so if they're to be honest about it they should do that instead of trying to make a prequel to PJ's films. Second, because, book on the shelf or otherwise, PJ's films will be the primary version of Middle-earth for millions of people around the world. His changes to LOTR have already resulted in a muddled vision once, so I see no reason to encourage that even further. That said, at the end of the day it's just a movie, so it doesn't really matter. I'd get over being annoyed.

Ringdrotten

Can't say I don't understand you Purists. I even feel your pain - crabbity me! I sort of feel the same disappointment when I see the Harry Potter films. But I feel different about LotR - I guess I have more faith in Jackson (it's possible <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />) than the various HP directors. I'm sure he'll do a great job with the Hobbit too, and if he doesn't, I'll eat my hat

Do you want salt with that?

Eldorion

the difference between adding epic stuff to LOTR and adding epic stuff to The Hobbit is that LOTR is already an epic, so you're not really going against the grain of the book. With The Hobbit not only would it be an addition, it would be contrary to the style of the original. That's why I mind more when it comes to The Hobbit. 8-)