CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › MARTIN FREEMAN IS BILBO BAGGINS, AND THE WORLD REJOICES
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MARTIN FREEMAN IS BILBO BAGGINS, AND THE WORLD REJOICES - Page 2

post #51 of 117
10/22/10 at 6:49am
"The only fookin' reason I'm on this fookin' ring quest is I've got pay fookin' child support to my bitch ex-wife and her 3 fookin' brats!"
Reply
post #52 of 117
10/22/10 at 7:00am
Statement from New Line:


"Recent reports that the boycott of The Hobbit was lifted by unions a number of days ago and that Warner Bros asked to delay this announcement are false. It was not until last night that we received confirmation of the retractions from SAG, NZ Equity and AFTRA through press reports. We are still awaiting retractions from the other guilds. While we have been attempting to receive an unconditional retraction of the improper Do Not Work Orders for almost a month, NZ Equity/MEAA continued to demand, as a condition of the retractions, that we participate in union negotiations with the independent contractor performers, which negotiations are illegal in the opinion of the New Zealand Attorney General. We have refused to do so, and will continue to refuse to do so. The actions of these unions have caused us substantial damage and disruption and forced us to consider other filming locations for the first time. Alternative locations are still being considered."
Reply
post #53 of 117
10/22/10 at 7:17am
Bummer. Of course there are two sides to this, I'm sure NZ Equity believe they have their member's interests at heart, but they have totally lost the publicity war on this.

The more I think about it, the more I think both the union AND Jackson have taken the wrong approach to this. But from what I've seen in the press, the union chiefs are coming across as pretty incompetent, deciding to play hardball against a major studio. Fair enough if the actors wanted better contracts but there are certain realities to face here - business realities.

Apparently NZ prime minister John Key wants to discuss further tax breaks in order to sweeten the deal, but what a mess.
Reply
post #54 of 117
10/22/10 at 7:21am
Apparently the Daily Telegraph lied to me, which isn't too surprising. Couldn't care less about Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit but it's nice to see such geek glee without the usual caveats. It's also nice to see RD being vaguely positive about a new movie.
Reply
post #55 of 117
10/22/10 at 7:40am
Freeman is great casting, but an Ex-Eastender and the dude from Spooks as Dwarfs? That seems odd to me.

Still I still have some faith in Jackson so I'm sure he knows what he is doing.

However I have always prefered The Hobbitt to LOTR so this is the one he better not screw up.
Reply
post #56 of 117
10/22/10 at 7:52am
"Gutless fuck! Come and have a go at me Smaug, you lady-boy cunt!"
Reply
post #57 of 117
10/22/10 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
There were rumours of Michael Fassbender, David Tennent and James Nesbitt all being in talks - maybe Bard?
I could see any of those as the Elven King, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Serkis wasn't announced either but I'd be shocked if he, McKellen and people like Howard Shore aren't involved.
I think it's been a given they're involved, so why announce it again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post
I feel filming in NZ is just as, if not more important than this casting. What the hell, unions?
Like I've said before, The Hobbit travels through a lot of different territory than LOTR. Outside of the Shire, Rivendell and the Misty Mountain, it's all places we don't go to in LOTR. So a new shooting location really doesn't bother me too much.
Reply
post #58 of 117
10/22/10 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
It's also nice to see RD being vaguely positive about a new movie.
Christ Spike, where's this view that I'm negative about upcoming films coming from exactly?
Reply
post #59 of 117
10/22/10 at 8:40am
This news makes me so happy I just busted out the LOTR soundtrack to listen to while Playing CIV 2.

Which is actually strangely appropriate.
Reply
post #60 of 117
10/22/10 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
Freeman is great casting, but an Ex-Eastender and the dude from Spooks as Dwarfs? That seems odd to me.
Dominic Monaghan was the sidekick in Hetty Wainthrop Investigates. Jackson knows what he's doing.
Reply
post #61 of 117
10/22/10 at 9:11am
Let's just hope that this film doesn't end up as "mostly harmless" as another geeky property that Freeman was the star of...
Reply
post #62 of 117
10/22/10 at 9:38am
Seems like solid casting, so if they can ensure that it gets filmed in NZ I'll finally be ready to be optimistic about these films. NZ was like a character in itself in LOTR, and taking it anywhere else just reeks of compromise.
Reply
post #63 of 117
10/22/10 at 9:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
Seems like solid casting, so if they can ensure that it gets filmed in NZ I'll finally be ready to be optimistic about these films. NZ was like a character in itself in LOTR, and taking it anywhere else just reeks of compromise.
Lets not go nuts, outside of Hobbiton and Rivendell there aren't any locations that feature in both The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.

...and the making of two major feature film blockbusters is a process of nothing but compromise.
Reply
post #64 of 117
10/22/10 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Lets not go nuts, outside of Hobbiton and Rivendell there aren't any locations that feature in both The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.

...and the making of two major feature film blockbusters is a process of nothing but compromise.
THIS. I know they've bantered about filming in Eastern Europe, which to me could actually work better in representing the dark forests of Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains.
Reply
post #65 of 117
10/22/10 at 10:16am
My knee jerk reaction is that they'd lose something major by not shooting in NZ, but teh truth is I don't really know anything practical about location shooting to back that up with. I'd be kind of interested in trying to follow the political machinations going on in NZ, but that all seems like far too much effort to parse, from where I'm sitting. So I'll just be happy at the cool looking cast of unknowns.
Reply
post #66 of 117
10/22/10 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Lets not go nuts, outside of Hobbiton and Rivendell there aren't any locations that feature in both The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.

...and the making of two major feature film blockbusters is a process of nothing but compromise.
Spoken like a true Australian ;-)
Reply
post #67 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:07am
Just wanted to chime in and say what delightful news this is. While my ultimate preference would have been to see Mr Holm return to the role, given MGM's insane budget troubles I guess it would have been unrealistic to expect they'd spend the extra money that would have required.

Aside from Mr Holm, I cannot think of finer casting than what we ultimately got. Freeman is imminently suited to the role, and is by indicators a perfect gentleman. I wish him and THE HOBBIT the best of luck.
Reply
post #68 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Just wanted to chime in and say what delightful news this is. While my ultimate preference would have been to see Mr Holm return to the role, given MGM's insane budget troubles I guess it would have been unrealistic to expect they'd spend the extra money that would have required.

Aside from Mr Holm, I cannot think of finer casting than what we ultimately got. Freeman is imminently suited to the role, and is from by indicators a perfect gentleman. I wish him and THE HOBBIT the best of luck.
My sentiments exactally, Kate. Holm's Bilbo was one of my favorite parts of Jackson's Ring Trilogy, and if we can't have him, Martin's the next best thing!
Reply
post #69 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:35am
I guess now the question is: how is PJ going to get around Gandalf telling Bilbo that he "hasn't aged a day" when Ian Holm is quite a bit older than Freeman.

Otherwise, the casting is perfect.
Reply
post #70 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Mike View Post
Spoken like a true Australian ;-)
Heh.

In all honesty tho, no one would be happier to see the film shot in NZ again than me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erik myers View Post
I guess now the question is: how is PJ going to get around Gandalf telling Bilbo that he "hasn't aged a day" when Ian Holm is quite a bit older than Freeman.
I'm sure he'll respect the audiences maturity enough to realise the same character is being played by two separate actors.
Reply
post #71 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:43am
He could very easily not been speaking literally, but rather surprised at the overall youthful appearance of a 111 year old Hobbit. Look how much he ages without the Ring from when he leaves the Shire till we see him again in Rivendale.

Now, here's the question. Is Jackson going to pull a Lucas on us and put Freeman in the prolouge to Fellowship, and should he?
Reply
post #72 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigam Retah View Post
Now, here's the question. Is Jackson going to pull a Lucas on us and put Freeman in the prolouge to Fellowship, and should he?
No and no.

Gods no.
Reply
post #73 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:47am
He hasn't aged a day since they last met. Not since the events of the Hobbit. Quite a bit of time has passed between The Hobbit and LOTR and Bilbo and Gandalf remained in contact throughout.
Reply
post #74 of 117
10/22/10 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigam Retah View Post
He could very easily not been speaking literally, but rather surprised at the overall youthful appearance of a 111 year old Hobbit. Look how much he ages without the Ring from when he leaves the Shire till we see him again in Rivendale. ?
Yes, but 30+ years had passed between those two scenes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigam Retah View Post
Now, here's the question. Is Jackson going to pull a Lucas on us and put Freeman in the prolouge to Fellowship, and should he?

1) I'd hope not
2) No! (IMHO)
Reply
post #75 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Yes, but 30+ years had passed between those two scenes.
In the book, but not in the movie.

Let's not try to go all Klingon forehead with this. It's simply two different actors, and that's all that needs be said.
Reply
post #76 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:01pm
Also, 99.99999999999999999999999ohmygodicantevencalculat ethenumber percent of the audience will have no memory of that line. Also also, Gandalf might have been being polite. He may think Bilbo looks like shit.

I keep going back and forth on these movies. I was done with hobbits after the Return of the King. Then GdT was directing, and I figured I'd go see them. Then he was off, and I didn't need to go. But I really like Freeman. Nertz.
Reply
post #77 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:04pm
Nooo, guys! What are you doing? How are we going to pass the time until this comes out if we can't have multi-page threads complete with meltdowns, personal threats, reconciliations and romance if we can't debate over anything and everything?
Reply
post #78 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:12pm
Hey, I'm still willing to have a go-round over the whole two movie thing.
Reply
post #79 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:17pm
I'm just going to edit the two movies in to one after they are released.
Reply
post #80 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:21pm
Who gives a shit if we get two movies from one book? If the movies are good, what's the problem?
Reply
post #81 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Hey, I'm still willing to have a go-round over the whole two movie thing.
Well you won't get an argument from me, i'm with you on this.
Reply
post #82 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigam Retah View Post
Now, here's the question. Is Jackson going to pull a Lucas on us and put Freeman in the prolouge to Fellowship, and should he?
I'd much rather see him fix Gollum in FOTR before doing anything to Holm's performance.

Freeman is a good choice. But I am a little curious over the direction they're taking with the dwarves. I had always pictured them as older and imagined they'd get some burly veteran actors to fill out the roles (Cox, Winstone, Gleeson, Spall, etc). Very surprised to see them casting so young. I always pictured Thorin as an older Sean Connery type.

I also always imagined Bill Nighy as Thranduil (though he may be a bit old), but I'm glad he's still involved.

Saoirse Ronan? I'm having trouble recalling any female characters.
Reply
post #83 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:38pm
In regards to dwarf age... Remember how young they were casting for Aragorn at first (Stuart Townsend)? I'm glad Viggo stepped in instead.

I don't recognize any of those dwarf actors (I secretly hoped for the triumvirate from SEXY BEAST atleast), but this Bilbo casting?

Been pulling for it quite vocally for a while now. I'm ecstatic! It's perfect! Let's DO THIS!
Reply
post #84 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:45pm
What's the word on Hugo Weaving? Will he be reprising his role as Elrond?
Reply
post #85 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle

Who gives a shit if we get two movies from one book? If the movies are good, what's the problem?
For me at least, I want to be able to enjoy the story/movie in one sitting.

It is a tight complete story that needs only one movie. To make it two you are going to get a lot of bloat that will take away from that narrative.
Reply
post #86 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Let's not try to go all Klingon forehead with this. It's simply two different actors, and that's all that needs be said.
100% seconded. It's a movie, people.
Reply
post #87 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:53pm
Don't Jackson and Walsh deserve the benefit of the doubt? The only bloat in the LOTR was the extended version of RETURN OF THE KING. And it didn't ruin the movie.
Reply
post #88 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Hey, I'm still willing to have a go-round over the whole two movie thing.
Ok. My problem with two movies is that because The Hobbit is a pretty short book, they're going to add a lot of background stuff and move away from Tolkien's narrative. And in my opinion, the weakest moments of the LOTR trilogy were those that weren't written by Tolkien.

I don't have a major beef with it yet, but I worry having it in two parts will make people expect an epic on the scale of LOTR, and The Hobbit isn't that at all. Which then begs the question: what are they going to add in there, and will it work?
Reply
post #89 of 117
10/22/10 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShiftyEyes View Post
But I am a little curious over the direction they're taking with the dwarves. I had always pictured them as older and imagined they'd get some burly veteran actors to fill out the roles (Cox, Winstone, Gleeson, Spall, etc). Very surprised to see them casting so young. I always pictured him as an older Sean Connery type.
I did some checking, and Thorin was 195 at the time of The Hobbit. For perspective, Gimli was 139 at the time of LOTR, and Thorin's grandfather lived to 248 (and was killed rather than dying of old age). So it's safe to say Thorin's not that old as far as dwarves go. And anyway, there are such things as make-up and prosthetics.

Quote:
I also always imagined Bill Nighy as Thranduil (though he may be a bit old), but I'm glad he's still involved.
Nighy might actually be a sneaky-great pick for the voice of Smaug.
Reply
post #90 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:04pm
To repeat myself for the nth time: expanding The Hobbit to include all the business with Gandalf down south removes the emphasis from the title character, throwing the audience into a completely different POV and a story that makes the main story of The Hobbit pretty insignificant in comparison. "Well, we destroyed his current base, but Sauron, the supreme lord of evil in the world, got away. Now about this dragon treasure?" And part of the charm of The Hobbit is its smaller, more fairy tale-like scope that will likely suffer when blown up to OMG EPIC proportions.
Reply
post #91 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Mike View Post
Ok. My problem with two movies is that because The Hobbit is a pretty short book, they're going to add a lot of background stuff and move away from Tolkien's narrative. And in my opinion, the weakest moments of the LOTR trilogy were those that weren't written by Tolkien.

I don't have a major beef with it yet, but I worry having it in two parts will make people expect an epic on the scale of LOTR, and The Hobbit isn't that at all. Which then begs the question: what are they going to add in there, and will it work?
I wish I didn't agree with this. Overall, I think Jackson and co. did an amazing job of condensing the original books into 1 movie each. I'm not sure how it will work the other way around.

I think I'd be happy if the entire second move was an insanely epic 3 hour battle of the five armies, though.
Reply
post #92 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:08pm
Or, more succinctly:

Fellowship of the Ring: 398 pages, one movie
Two Towers: 327 pages, one movie
Return of the King: 412 pages, one movie
The Hobbit: 310 pages, two movies?
Reply
post #93 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
To repeat myself for the nth time: expanding The Hobbit to include all the business with Gandalf down south removes the emphasis from the title character, throwing the audience into a completely different POV and a story that makes the main story of The Hobbit pretty insignificant in comparison. "Well, we destroyed his current base, but Sauron, the supreme lord of evil in the world, got away. Now about this dragon treasure?" And part of the charm of The Hobbit is its smaller, more fairy tale-like scope that will likely suffer when blown up to OMG EPIC proportions.
How do you know for sure it won't work? You haven't read the script. They did a bang up job of adapting the LOTR.

I'm curious as too how they will do it, but not worried. Lets not get too negative this early!
Reply
post #94 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
To repeat myself for the nth time: expanding The Hobbit to include all the business with Gandalf down south removes the emphasis from the title character, throwing the audience into a completely different POV and a story that makes the main story of The Hobbit pretty insignificant in comparison. "Well, we destroyed his current base, but Sauron, the supreme lord of evil in the world, got away. Now about this dragon treasure?" And part of the charm of The Hobbit is its smaller, more fairy tale-like scope that will likely suffer when blown up to OMG EPIC proportions.
Now we're talking.

Tolkien himself retconned the shit out of The Hobbit in order to bring it more in line with LOTR.

And besides that, the whole Aragorn/Arwen romance amounted to a few passages in the books up until the end, bolstered only by a few pages in the appendices. Jackson and co. made it a pretty big part of the movies and they turned out fine. Tolkien wanted The Hobbit to be a part of the whole War Of The Ring storyline and these movies showing the White Counsil vs. Dol Guldur fight will help do this.

EDIT: Thread for the whole one book two movies debate.
Reply
post #95 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
In the book, but not in the movie.
.
As I recall, the movies never really address the issue of how much time has or has not passed. The movie leaves it up to you if you want to believe it's been that long.
Reply
post #96 of 117
10/22/10 at 1:39pm
I've created a thread here to discuss the two movie issue so we don't bog this thread down with it.
Reply
post #97 of 117
10/22/10 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay f View Post
For me at least, I want to be able to enjoy the story/movie in one sitting.

It is a tight complete story that needs only one movie. To make it two you are going to get a lot of bloat that will take away from that narrative.
But if it turns out to be two equally great movies, then what's the big deal? I love the book, but I'm willing to give some creative license to Jackson. He's earned it.
Reply
post #98 of 117
10/22/10 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I've created a thread here to discuss the two movie issue so we don't bog this thread down with it.
Absolutely. Well I've said my piece on the matter - I'll just finish by saying that I'd prefer quality over quantity in this case.

I do agree with Bluelouboyle in that I am prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt however. Although I have issues with his output post-LOTR, seeing the way he and Richard Taylor have been handling this debacle in NZ has assured me that these guys still love this stuff with a passion, even after 10 years. Should be interesting.
Reply
post #99 of 117
10/22/10 at 9:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
And besides that, the whole Aragorn/Arwen romance amounted to a few passages in the books up until the end, bolstered only by a few pages in the appendices. Jackson and co. made it a pretty big part of the movies and they turned out fine.

Your opinion, good sir. But I was irked to hell by the casting for Arwen. Everytime she showed up on screen I was all, "Mooooooooooooo!"

There's something about her face in the LotR films, at least, that struck me as particularly bovine.
Reply
post #100 of 117
10/22/10 at 9:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward_Woman View Post
There's something about her face in the LotR films, at least, that struck me as particularly bovine.
Nah, Liv looks like a Gelfling.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › MARTIN FREEMAN IS BILBO BAGGINS, AND THE WORLD REJOICES