• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

LOTR, Hobbit geek-fest

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Muck

Muck

Enjoy Every Sandwich
LINK

Casting for the Hobbit...

ITARIL ? female, A woodland Elf, this character is one the Silvan Elves. The Silvan Elves are seen as more earthy and practical. Shorter than other elves, she is still quick and lithe and physically adept, being able to fight with both sword and bow. Showing promise as a fighter at a young age, ITARIL was chosen to train to become part of the Woodland King?s Guard. This is the only life she has ever expected to live, until she meets and secretly falls in love with a young ELF LORD. This role will require a wig and contact lenses to be worn. Some prosthetic make-up may also be required. LEAD. AGE: 17-27.
Click to expand...

Fuck you Peter Jackson. Fuck Hollywood's need to add a female love interest to every goddamn movie whether it's called for or not. And fuck you for not realizing that Orlando Bloom is already a chick in the first damn place.
 
Muck;1920306; said:
LINK

Casting for the Hobbit...
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the "Hobbit" project is rumored to be two movies, one encapsulating the text of The Hobbit, and another connecting that story with tLOTR trilogy (from Tolkien's other stories). So, it's possible that they're casting and shooting outside of the Hobbit text, and need to expand their cast.

With that, I'll go back to my D&D game...
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1920306; said:
LINK

Casting for the Hobbit...



Fuck you Peter Jackson. Fuck Hollywood's need to add a female love interest to every goddamn movie whether it's called for or not. And fuck you for not realizing that Orlando Bloom is already a chick in the first damn place.
Click to expand...
Saoirse.jpg
1121903140_resWedding.jpg
 
Upvote 0
MaliBuckeye;1920356; said:
It should be noted that the "Hobbit" project is rumored to be two movies, one encapsulating the text of The Hobbit, and another connecting that story with tLOTR trilogy (from Tolkien's other stories). So, it's possible that they're casting and shooting outside of the Hobbit text, and need to expand their cast.

With that, I'll go back to my D&D game...
Click to expand...

The rumors have bounced back & forth that they would do Hobbit as a self contained movie with the second being new material (probably revolving around the elves & white council throwing Sauron out of Mirkwood) or spreading the Hobbit out over both films with the filler added concurrently.

Personally if they do the latter I'll be all kinds of pissed. The Hobbit needs to be a self contained movie...if I leave the theater without getting to see Smaug in all his glory & the battle of five armies I'm going to be all kinds of pissed off.

Peter Jackson, give me a solid translation of the Hobbit and then you can fuck up the second film with extra giant bugs & green glowy ghosts to your heart's content.
 
Upvote 0
Muck;1920846; said:
The rumors have bounced back & forth that they would do Hobbit as a self contained movie with the second being new material (probably revolving around the elves & white council throwing Sauron out of Mirkwood) or spreading the Hobbit out over both films with the filler added concurrently.

Personally if they do the latter I'll be all kinds of pissed. The Hobbit needs to be a self contained movie...if I leave the theater without getting to see Smaug in all his glory & the battle of five armies I'm going to be all kinds of pissed off.

Peter Jackson, give me a solid translation of the Hobbit and then you can fuck up the second film with extra giant bugs & green glowy ghosts to your heart's content.
Click to expand...

The first Lord of the Rings movie was the worst piece of shit I've ever been unfortunate enough to see in a theater. I sat through two and a half hours and there wasn't a fucking ending. I'm holding off on the newest Harry Potter movie until the final one comes out this summer since Part 1 is never a good thing if Part 2 isn't out yet. I also don't see much of a quality difference between the theater and the blu-ray/50" plasma in my basement.
The only movie that I paid to go see last year was Inception. I think I'll make it to the theater a few more times this summer with Hangover2, Transformers, and the final Potter on my schedule. I'll catch everything else on blu-ray or DVD if it isn't blu-ray worthy. [/rant]
 
Upvote 0
Fellowship wasn't the worst of the movie trilogy. Jackson so utterly messed up The Two Towers and Return of the King that he should have been drawn and quartered on the spot. Failing to include Shelob/the Frodo cliffhanger at the end of TTT was criminally stupid, and completely unnecessary. F'ing with the whole Battle of the Pelennor Fields and the way the Dead were involved was beyond stupid as well.

Change for the sake of change, or to "put my stamp on it" are wholly unnecessary. Jackson screwed up so much of LotR that I could go on a ginormous rant, but then you'd all think I'm a nerd and I want to maintain my reputation of being a worldly and awesome guy, so I'll abstain. Suffice it to say that I was.... displeased with Jackson's version of the story.

I'm eager to see The Hobbit, but cautious.
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;1923386; said:
Fellowship wasn't the worst of the movie trilogy. Jackson so utterly messed up The Two Towers and Return of the King that he should have been drawn and quartered on the spot. Failing to include Shelob/the Frodo cliffhanger at the end of TTT was criminally stupid, and completely unnecessary. F'ing with the whole Battle of the Pelennor Fields and the way the Dead were involved was beyond stupid as well.

Change for the sake of change, or to "put my stamp on it" are wholly unnecessary. Jackson screwed up so much of LotR that I could go on a ginormous rant, but then you'd all think I'm a nerd and I want to maintain my reputation of being a worldly and awesome guy, so I'll abstain. Suffice it to say that I was.... displeased with Jackson's version of the story.

I'm eager to see The Hobbit, but cautious.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the complete skipping of "The Old Forest" from FOTR...
 
Upvote 0
Merih;1923393; said:
Don't forget the complete skipping of "The Old Forest" from FOTR...
Click to expand...

And The Scouring of the Shire. I don't even remember how Saruman bought it in the movie. I think I watched ROTK one time, at the theater. It's been on TNT a few times since, but why bother? It's schlock.

I've read the trilogy a good 15 times. Just finished it again about two months ago, in fact. Still brilliant after all these years. The Siege of Gondor and The Battle of the Pelennor Fields still gives me chills after all these years.
 
Upvote 0
Many have argued that the Scourging would have messed up the flow/timing of the movie, and while I agree, it seems like the Extended Version could have included it, at least briefly.

He had plenty of time to do more, but opted to drag out the battle scenes 3-10x longer than in the book.
 
Upvote 0
exhawg;1923281; said:
The first Lord of the Rings movie was the worst piece of shit I've ever been unfortunate enough to see in a theater. I sat through two and a half hours and there wasn't a fucking ending. I'm holding off on the newest Harry Potter movie until the final one comes out this summer since Part 1 is never a good thing if Part 2 isn't out yet. I also don't see much of a quality difference between the theater and the blu-ray/50" plasma in my basement.
The only movie that I paid to go see last year was Inception. I think I'll make it to the theater a few more times this summer with Hangover2, Transformers, and the final Potter on my schedule. I'll catch everything else on blu-ray or DVD if it isn't blu-ray worthy. [/rant]
Click to expand...
I never thought Harry Potter would be the more accurate movie series of the two. The 6th movie had some glaring omissions - no battle because "its redundant"? (Seriously? The series is filled with redundancy) - the missing funeral - but overall it was pretty true to the literature.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top