Archive through December 27, 2007

Janny Wurts Chat Area: Movie/Television Chat: Movies: Archive through December 27, 2007
   By Hunter on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 06:26 pm: Edit Post

Found this on the site.

.The Hobbit WILL BE a two part film - but here is the new information - the second film will be influenced by the foundation of "The Silmarillion" and "The History of Middle-earth Series" (which is a 12 part series of books where JRR's son, Christopher Tolkien analyses JRR's old manuscripts; the manuscripts that ultimately led to become "The Silmarillion", "Lord of the Rings" and "Númenor" which is sort of like Atlantis). The second movie will ultimately lead us up to creation of The Fellowship in a graceful and logical fashion..."

Like anything, this is a rumour..

   By Meredith Lee Gray on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 08:30 pm: Edit Post

Yes, I was kind of wondering where the extra info would come from. I mean, Hobbit is shorter than any of the single "volumes" of LotR, which they managed to contain to one movie each.

And this book is a completely different tone and feel than LotR. Much lighter, and more playful, as Clansman said. Much more a 'children's' book than the trilogy (not to say that adults can't enjoy The Hobbit or children can't enjoy LotR).

I'll be curious to see how they may alter the film, because there was a lot less of most people's "favorite" Middle-earth elements (men, and Elves--though, there were some cool elf aspects, and the men at Lake-town) and a lot more Dwarf and Hobbit stuffs.

They definitely must have Ian McKellan back. One of the bright spots in the LotR casting, IMHO.

Who else is up for re-casting consideration? *trying to remember*

I do think Ian Holm is too old for Bilbo. I mean, they made him look alright in the FotR prologue, but can they keep it up for an entire film? I somehow doubt they will go that route, I think something more appealing to the fair-weather fandom will be cast--someone that the girls can sigh and moon over.

You've got Hugo Weaving as Elrond. Frankly I don't care if he doesn't come back. He was not my idea of Elrond at all. Hmph.

Andy Serkis as provider of Gollum's voice and movement.

You also have the opportunity for several cameos of children of Hobbit characters, whom I don't know if they were actually mentioned in the book, but they could "show up" nonetheless. Legolas at his father's Silvan elf hideout. Arwen at Rivendell. Frodo in the Shire (was he born? too young?) Gimli (was he specifically present during The Hobbit? gah, it's been too long).

The more I remember of that book, the more excited I become (until I recall that we're going to have to wait for at least 2 years, probably closer to 3 if they do their whole "Christmas-ish release date" thing again)! And if they're making two films, they darned well better not leave anything out!!


   By Clansman on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 11:38 am: Edit Post

Hugo Weaving as Elrond was horrible! Talk about a bitter old sour-puss. Not very elfish at all. Elrond was supposed to be wise, and I have never seen a wise person who is bitter. Can you imagine, having an eternal existence, and being bitter? Lame.

Frodo was not born when Bilbo went on his quest. Bilbo was about 50 or so when The Hobbit started. Then, Bilbo was 111 and Frodo was about 30 when the Long Expected Party occurred, and then 20 or so years passed before the four hobbits left the Shire on the Ring quest, uh, adventure, uh, thing. Remember, Bilbo turned 111 at the Party, and then in LOTR (both book and movie), he was about to pass the Old Took at age 130. The movie made it seem like it was a few months that passed, not a couple of decades, but it was never specific.

Any guesses on who will do Smaug's voice? It could be sly and slippery, or bass and thunder-filled, or a little of both. As I recall, Smaug was both ways. Maybe they'll just adapt John Rhys-Davies voice again, like they did for Treebeard.

Gimli was never in The Hobbit, only his father, Gloin. Maybe he'll be at the Battle of Five Armies?

   By Trys on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 12:12 pm: Edit Post

I don't think Hugo Weaving was bad as Elrond. I think the writing and directing of the character was bad and Weaving did the performance of which he was asked. I agree that he was overly bitter and did not act in a particularly wise way, either with the hobbits or, more specifically, his own daughter. I think Jackson and company portrayed him as being more human than elves are. A real shame.

   By Clansman on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 03:44 pm: Edit Post

That's a fair comment about Hugo Weaving. For all the great things Jackson did, he pulled a couple of really big screw-ups.

All-in-all, I can't complain about the overall quality of the movie LOTR. It must have been excessively difficult to adapt into a screenplay, and even with cutting out huge swaths of story, the movies were very long, even in the theatre release version, let alone the Director's extended versions.

I wondered how many ending scenes there could be in Return of the King.

   By Artemis on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 06:52 am: Edit Post

Don't think I could stand another one.
LoTR movie I mean.
The over-the-shoulder grimace (sorry, smile) from Frodo went on for too long.

Peter Jackson went way too far with King Kong.

Bah humbug.

   By Meredith Lee Gray on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 03:20 pm: Edit Post

I had to leave the theatre during the "bug scene" in King Kong. Too much for me. But I'm not good with bugs anyhow. I do appreciate an all-out, no-holds-barred, visual feast of an epic movie like that. I just didn't like THAT one particularly.

But don't forget Artemis, he's only executive producer of these new films--not director. So don't give up all hope.

But, if it's the last few days in December, that means that a lot of movies are being released for Oscar/SAG/GG consideration. Nothing like finding out that a particular movie has however-many nominations before you ever even see it.

Grandma and I went to Sweeney Todd on Friday. We're both fans of the play--she moreso than I (I think because she showed me the old Angela Lansbury/Len Cariou video when I was, like, 11 or 12, which was way too young to begin to appreciate it, IMO--it probably left me more traumatized and confused than anything). The movie version was strong, overall. Helena Bonham Carter gave the weakest performance I think (not that it was BAD, per se, but just not that strong--her singing was a little too forced and deliberate). Johnny Depp was great, though a little too dark the entire way through I thought--Sweeney was not so dark and forbidding at the beginning of the play (~His voice was soft, his manner mild.
He seldom laughed but he often smiled.~). But I thought he gave a more than adequate vocal performance! Alan Rickman was fine, the same as he always is in his creepy villain roles. But he too impressed me with his vocal abilities (not that he has to sing too much, but "Pretty Women" is one of my fav songs). The girl who played Johanna has a really lovely voice, and I would like to have heard more of her, but most all of her songs are cut. I really recommend the movie if you enjoy the play and if you're over the age of 17 at least. If you don't have any idea who/what Sweeney Todd is, you should really research it before you decide to go--because otherwise you may be unpleasantly surprised.

The next day mom and I went to National Treasure: Book of Secrets. For a completely different type of movie! I didn't like the first one when I first saw it in theaters, but the more I would watch the DVD, the more fond I became of it. So I was really looking forward to the sequel. I was just hoping they didn't overdo themselves to the point of absurdity (since the trailers have mentioned things like breaking into Buckingham Palace, kidnapping the President, secret books that have secrets about Area 51 and the JFK assassination... all a bit much). I'm not the kind of person who goes into a movie prepared to locate every plot loophole and flaw. I just go along for the ride. So I really really enjoyed this movie. I think it's better than the first. I laughed quite a bit (especially during the aforementioned Buckingham Palace sequence). I also recommend this movie as a good popcorn fun flick.


   By DarthJazy on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 11:21 am: Edit Post

Havent seen sweeny todd yet wasn't in mood for that type of movie when i was tired after xmas. I did see National Treasure and that was great.


Mer any ideas on whats on page 47? I know that number is often found in many things through out history but what do you think was on it? what ever it is we know its life altering.

While i haven't yet had a chance to see it I can't wait to see the new AVP and the new alien woot.

I am Legend was a good flick if you can forget about that its a remake and take it for what it is. I think this movie had too much hype going in and so dissapointed a lot of people much like Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix.

   By Meredith Lee Gray on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 03:04 pm: Edit Post

LOL, I want to see AVP too! I have a feeling I may miss it in theaters and have to wait for DVD though. I loved the first AVP--but this one seems to have reverted back more to the suspense/horror feel of the original Aliens, rather than the action movie of AVP.

I wanted to see I Am Legend, too. I read the plot of the book on Wikipedia, but otherwise am not familiar with the book/prev movie, so maybe I can enjoy it.

National Treasure SPOILERS
National Treasure SPOILERS
National Treasure SPOILERS

I'm pretty sure that no one knows what was on page 47 at this point. It's almost certainly just a hook for the next movie. There's been a lot of speculation regarding Area 51, because the number "51" can be seen on that page, and the Roswell crash happened in 1947... Maybe, but that really doesn't seem like the type of adventure this franchise has been built on, so I kind of hope not. We want treasure, not alien conspiracies. Someone else also suggested that the moviemakers themselves haven't decided what's on that page yet, and they will just make it say whatever the plot for the next film needs, which also seems entirely likely to me.

But, otherwise, no. There's no right/wrong answer now, or it would have been everywhere by now. Just speculation. :-)

   By DarthJazy on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 04:16 pm: Edit Post

National Treasure SPOILERS
National Treasure SPOILERS
National Treasure SPOILERS
National Treasure SPOILERS
National Treasure SPOILERS

From what I have read most people think it will concern the Fountain of Youth. This would fit where the current movies are including the 4th pirates movie. I have been trying to think of what other major mysteries or events in american history and the only one that comes to mind outside the masons and the Lost City of Gold is the fountain of youth. Another guess is it will have something to do with the Mayans and why their calander ends after 2012. Do you know of any other Gold Treasure or myths from the Americas?