Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

The Hobbit Finally Starts Shooting 233

Posted by Soulskill
from the victory-after-all-i-suppose dept.
Tiger4 writes "Warner Bros. has announced that production has officially begun on Peter Jackson's movie adaptation of The Hobbit. Jackson even posted a couple of pictures of himself on one of the sets. This despite the strikes, bankruptcies, contract disputes, and legal actions that have swarmed Jackson and the project since his Lord of the Rings days. Admit it, secretly you've been dying to see this happen."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Hobbit Finally Starts Shooting

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21, 2011 @02:22PM (#35562438)

    But why the sudden turn to violence? Who even knew Hobbits had firearms?

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      The new Took had gotten a lot of campaign support from the Arnorian Rifle Association, so even a clearly "cracked" hobbit like Bilbo Baggins could get a gun.

    • But why the sudden turn to violence? Who even knew Hobbits had firearms?

      Same way it read to me. I'm imagining Bilbo climbing out of the well with a shotgun. "This! is my boomstick!"
      A hobbit with a 'tude? You know that's unheard of.

      • by bkpark (1253468)

        Same way it read to me. I'm imagining Bilbo climbing out of the well with a shotgun. "This! is my boomstick!"
        A hobbit with a 'tude? You know that's unheard of.

        This makes sense only if you ignore the italicization of The Hobbit.

        In usual convention, italicization indicates a movie or book title (among others), so if you read it as the book The Hobbit started shooting ... you have an overactive imagination.

        • by egamma (572162)

          Same way it read to me. I'm imagining Bilbo climbing out of the well with a shotgun. "This! is my boomstick!" A hobbit with a 'tude? You know that's unheard of.

          This makes sense only if you ignore the italicization of The Hobbit.

          In usual convention, italicization indicates a movie or book title (among others), so if you read it as the book The Hobbit started shooting ... you have an overactive imagination.

          Buzzkill. Also, on my iGoogle RSS feed, there is no formatting. So there!

      • An arrow of fire with an ever longer tail of smoky pume leapt forth from the shoulder of the hobbit, over the head of Legolas who had yet to fully draw his bow, the brilliant bolt curving into the sky at the winged fell beast, and smote it in the belly with a flash and roar. Vile and putrid entrails rained down upon the party. "I shot at him with the FIM-92 Stinger of Galadriel; I felled him from the sky!", boasted the hobbit. "He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?". Replied Gandalf, "On
    • by gad_zuki! (70830)

      Violence? In the book where an ancient and beautiful dragon is slayed for his treasure? Or where they endlessly kill goblins and wargs without remorse after stealing the treasure?

      • by Unkyjar (1148699)

        Dwarven treasure, it's just that the dragon was holding it for them for a little while. Honest.

        • For some reason this made me imagine a Hobbit/Friday crossover.

          Thorin: It's like its both of ours. We'll just keep it at my place.
          Dragon: (knocks him to the ground) It's my hoard, Bitch!

    • the hobbit was under the table, and could clearly see who was about to shoot first, and han wasn't about to get the jump on greedo, so the hobbit had to rectify the situation

    • by rossdee (243626)

      Who said anything about firearms? They had plenty of bows and arrows in Middle Earth, although you would not expect the same sort of accuracy from a Hobbit as you would from an Elf, or even a human.

      • Actually, hobbits are well known for the accuracy and make excellent bowmen. In the Scouring of the Shire, a good number of Saruman's goons get pretty well-ventilated finding that out (as does Saruman himself in the end, as a matter of fact).

        • by meloneg (101248)

          Um, are you thinking of Grima Wormtongue? Who stabs Saruman and then is slain by hobbit archers.

          • Aggh, you're right. Grima kills Saruman and *he's* the one who gets pincushioned. Somehow I managed to misremember.

    • by RevWaldo (1186281)
      This does prompt the question of why Middle Earth has fireworks but not firearms. Sure, the fireworks in LOTR are magical fireworks, but still...

      .
      • by peragrin (659227)

        well that and the chinese had fireworks and rockets for hundreds and hundreds of years before firearms came around.

    • by argStyopa (232550)

      I saw another website had said "Cameras finally roll on Hobbit"...maybe that's why he's ticked?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      2 words: gritty reboot

    • "... but pity stayed his hand. "It's a pity I've run out of bullets", thought Dildo..."

  • by JamesP (688957) on Monday March 21, 2011 @02:25PM (#35562490)

    Duck, you fools!!!

    Or better, don't duck, hobbits shoot at knee level

    • by Speare (84249)

      Or better, don't duck, hobbits shoot at knee level

      "It was pity that stayed his hand," Goodgulf said. "Yeah, pity I ran out of bullets!" Dildo added.

      -- Bored of the Rings (from memory, pardon if it's not accurate)

  • Okay I love Martin Freeman from The Office, but isn't he a little old for the role? I guess he is pretty short at least.

    And frankly, I still think this whole thing is going to fall apart at some point. Jackson and the studio have been at each other's throats for a long time. I sense a very unamicable parting of the ways coming pretty much any day, shooting or not.

  • by trollertron3000 (1940942) on Monday March 21, 2011 @02:27PM (#35562496)

    No secret needed. I want to see this film. It was my favorite of all the books and I'm dying to see their interpretation of Smaug.

    • Likewise, I really enjoyed The Hobbit. When I attempted LOTR I got bored near the end of the second book (well, "book" IV of VI I suppose), and never picked it up again. It's a far better paced story than LOTR.

      I think it's like the difference between Star Wars VI-VI and I-III. I-III try to be far too epic, and fail miserably. The first movies felt a lot more personal, and so did The Hobbit. Also, changing the ring from a simple invisibility charm to the "one ring to rule them all" felt like too much of a st

      • by blair1q (305137)

        Well, the difference between the Star Wars movies and those 3 pretenders is the change in writers and directors. Although if the change had been for the better, not the worse, we'd have a whole different take on the prequels.

        Whereas in this case, it's the same dude, and it may not be different enough to make it truly interesting.

      • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday March 21, 2011 @03:12PM (#35563102) Homepage

        Believe it or not The Hobbit was written as a kid's book and LOTR was written for adults.

        (LOTR has plenty of plot holes, you're supposed to enjoy the prose...)

        • I had heard that the Hobbit was written more of a kid's book, but I do feel it's a better story. I got kidn of bored in the LOTR films too. Which is difficult because everyone else in the world seemed to love them (that's possibly part of the reason I got so fed up with them, people wanting to re-watch them so much).

          Terry Pratchett books are excellent in the plot and prose/wordplay departments, yet they don't bog down in unnecessary detail as LOTR does. Besides, if I want to really appreciate prose for pros

      • by Dan667 (564390)
        space nascar does that to the first prequel star wars film. Not good though.
    • by Dracos (107777) on Monday March 21, 2011 @03:11PM (#35563080)

      I too am looking forward to seeing Smaug. I really hope they base Smaug's design on Tolkien's painting, and not the silly concept that Guillermo del Toro came up with [dehobbit.net].

      • by halivar (535827)

        You haven't seen it animated and CGI'd yet. It's just a concept scketch. It could still be bad-ass when fully rendered.

    • He will be replaced by Arwen instead. Also, Bilbo will not find the ring in Gollum's cave. Gandalf will hand it to him with the sword and say "Here, I got these for you."

      Sorry to spoil the surprise.

    • The firework at the finale of Bilbo's party in Fellowship of the Ring was supposed to be a mock Smaug so that may give a hint of what they have in mind.

      (Perhaps it was just the young age at which I first encountered it, but I still rank Bilbo's conversation with Smaug as one of the scariest scenes I've ever read)

  • I've secretly been dying to see this happen.

    • Risking a "me too" post, yes, I am too. I sat in the theatre crying during the opening scenes of Fellowship of the Ring. It was all too real, too much like what my imagination had done for it already. Getting Hobbit underway is a stroke of really good news that another well-loved tale will come to life for me again. Now, let's hope Jackson gets this thing in the can and out on the screens some time before I die.

    • It's pretty obvious PJ was just waiting for what he calls "The Right Price". /Apologies to Douglas Adams...

  • And apparently it's got Frodo, Legolas, Galadriel, and Sauruman in it...
    • Same actors?

      • Yessir.
        • I can understand Frodo - presumably Bilbo would have interacted with him in the Shire. but Legolas? Shouldn't he still be screwing around in Mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit?

          And the Lucky 13 never go to Lothlorien, so why would they see Galadriel? Same goes for Saruman.

          I'm not one of those LOTR critics who thinks Jackson screwed up by having too much Arwen in the trilogy, but this might be going a little far.

          • I'm pretty sure Frodo shouldn't even be born yet, but I guess it's not too much of a stretch that they could run into Legolas while in Mirkwood. The others are starting to get ridiculous though. I heard they're expanding on what Gandalf was doing while he was off away from the others (something to do with trying to keep Sauron from coming back?).
            • Well, since they're imprisoned in the home of the forest elves for a good while, that's not much of a stretch, even.

          • Except frodo wasn't born until Bilbo was 88 years old...Some 30 years after he came *back* from his adventures.

            Given the amount of rewriting he did the first time around, nothing would surprise me.

            • Pretty much. There were parts that it made sense to change (leaving out the side trip to the Old Forest, for example), but then there were parts which got changed for no real reason at all, and indeed destroyed key themes from the books. I liked the movies well enough in spite of this, but it was pretty egregious.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Actually, Frodo was born in 2968 and Bilbo left for his adventure 2941. Frodo shouldn't be in the movie at all, seeing as he wasn't born.

          • I can understand Frodo - presumably Bilbo would have interacted with him in the Shire. but Legolas? Shouldn't he still be screwing around in Mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit?

            And the Lucky 13 never go to Lothlorien, so why would they see Galadriel? Same goes for Saruman.

            I'm not one of those LOTR critics who thinks Jackson screwed up by having too much Arwen in the trilogy, but this might be going a little far.

            Totally agree with Gandalf's posting horse on this!

            The source material is excellent - take too much artistic license with a relatively concise story like the Hobbit, and you ruin it. If these characters are used in terms of setting up the narrative though; I.e. the whole story is told from Bilbo's perspective after the events of the Scouring of the Shire, then it would make some sense.

    • Re:Characters (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dracos (107777) on Monday March 21, 2011 @03:21PM (#35563236)

      Some corrections for you, off the top of my head:

      Elijah Wood (Frodo) is coming back to do some narration.

      Orlando Bloom (Legolas) is still negotiating over his appearance.

      Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Christopher Lee (Saruman), and Hugo Weaving (Elrond) are all returning, and of course Ian McKellan (Gandalf).

      • Gotcha. I could kind of see how they'd work in Galadriel and Sauruman but I was really confused as to what Elijah Wood was doing in there. Making a little more sense now.
      • by Genrou (600910)
        This sucks. Don't get me wrong, I loved how they portrayed their respective characters in the LOTR movie (except, maybe, Elijah Wood couldn't convince me as Frodo, but, then again, he could never convince me as any character in any movie). What I wanted to see was some diversity -- different people with different acting, different characterization. When I was younger, I would like the unified choice, but these days, I think that difference in portrayals could only enhance the appreciation of both the movie
  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Monday March 21, 2011 @02:33PM (#35562580)

    They got little baby legs
    And they stand so low
    You got to pick 'em up
    Just to say hello

    • by djdanlib (732853)

      Smeagol's got a song, too:

      "Because he's got a friend in himself"

    • by makubesu (1910402)

      Here grass is still growing, And leaves are yet swinging, The white water flowing, And elves are yet singing Come! Tra-la-la-lally! Come back to the Valley! The stars are far brighter Than gems without measure, The moon is far whiter Than silver in treasure: The fire is more shining On hearth in the gloaming Than gold won by mining, So why go a-roaming? O! Tra-la-la-lally Come back to the Valley.

      We're keeping that part in right?

    • by Unkyjar (1148699)

      I wonder if he'll be accompanied by Glen Yarbrough. That horrible song from the Rankin version that now is nostalgic.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1XzrhXay4w [youtube.com]

    • by Genrou (600910)
      No, no. This one [youtube.com] is already done. Nimoy is rumoured to play Smaug, anyway. Wouldn't it be nice if Smaug sang this when he is having his talkings with Bilbo?
  • ...filmed in 3D

  • Surprise! Not. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TopSpin (753) on Monday March 21, 2011 @02:46PM (#35562738) Journal

    At least for some of us. [slashdot.org] No matter what obstacle emerges it will still get made. The Hobbit is probably worth more than $2 billion. Tolkiens, unions, ulcers, whatever; ultimately the various and sundry stake holders want their cut and for that to happen it must appear in the theater, and they all know it.

  • by Obfuscant (592200) on Monday March 21, 2011 @02:51PM (#35562778)
    Did anyone else just finish reading the story about the Dutch guy tweeting aircraft data for the attacks on Libya and assume that this story was about Qadafi's response?
  • Admit it, secretly you've been dying to see this happen.

    Not really. I was crazy about LOTR, that was an epic novel that clearly could be turned into an equally epic movie (and yes, it was a single, 11 hours long movie, that just happened to be split in 3 parts). The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a much lighter and simpler tale; a delicious novel, sure, but not one that seems especially suited to be turned into a movie of the same kind.

  • Despite all the problems, there was too much guaranteed money to be made to not get this project finished. This movie could stink like an ostrich fart and still make a billion dollars in merchandise alone.
  • by blair1q (305137) on Monday March 21, 2011 @03:05PM (#35562990) Journal

    LOTR was okay. The remake will no doubt be better (except for the inevitable downgrade in the Arwen department).

    But there were like 18 hours of it. Left me somewhat burnt out.

    Unless Jackson has significantly altered his style I'm not sure The Hobbit will feel like anything new.

  • for those not in the know, they are stretching out the hobbit to two movies, by delving into gandalf sparring with the necromancer (sauron), mentioned in the book only briefly

    http://forum.thehobbit-movie.com/viewtopic.php?p=1929&sid=5d7ebd0d347992d45e1ae7b312077fb6 [thehobbit-movie.com]

  • Personally I've always liked The Hobbit far more than the LotR trilogy. A much more compact and enjoyable tale - once you could get past the opening jammed full of what are hobbits, 13 dwarves all with names, and what's that wizard doing in all of this? I do realize that this is sacrilege comparable to saying that I likes PC's more than Apples.
  • by Shivetya (243324) on Monday March 21, 2011 @03:22PM (#35563266) Homepage Journal

    There are two major encounters which can completely blow the film. The obvious is Smaug. I haven't seen a good dragon since Dragonslayer. The second is the spiders in the woods. I am not overly worried about the Worgs meeting on the hilltop but the Eagles may be a bit more an issue. The story in The Hobbit is more fantastic from the non humanoid side than LOTR was. So it opens itself to more chances to be bad.

    As for where they break the story, probably after the Spiders and having the dwarves doing their barrel ride, else after the trolls. I am not really sure where a good break is with this book but those the two major events before getting to the Lonely Mountain.

  • Do I assume NZ is recovered by its major earthquake/quake?

  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Monday March 21, 2011 @03:26PM (#35563312) Homepage

    I hope Leonard Nimoy gets a cameo in the movie, and a reprise musical number. He'd make a great elf, with the pointy ears and all.

  • Those pictures are obvious fakes: everyone knows Peter Jackson only ever wears shorts!
  • Seriously! It did! The Hobbit is sitting on my DVD shelf right now... oh you mean they're making a version that ISN'T animated? Well how on earth is The Hobbit supposed to keep my attention for a few hours without constant breaking in to song?

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.

Working...