New Line Cinema has announced part of the cast of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, confirming Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins in the two-movie adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s famed fantasy novel.
“Despite the various rumors and speculation surrounding this role, there has only ever been one Bilbo Baggins for us,” Jackson said in the press release. “There are a few times in your career when you come across an actor who you know was born to play a role, but that was the case as soon as I met Martin. He is intelligent, funny, surprising and brave — exactly like Bilbo, and I feel incredibly proud to be able to announce that he is our Hobbit.”
Freeman (The Office, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) will be joined by a company of dwarves composed, in part, of: Richard Armitage (MI-5, Captain America: The First Avenger) as Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the dwarves; Aiden Turner (Being Human) and Rob Kazinsky (EastEnders) as Thorin’s nephews Kili and Fili; Graham McTavish (Secretariat, 24) as Dwalin; John Callen (Power Rangers Jungle Fury) as Oin; Stephen Hunter (All Saints) as Bombur; Mark Hadlow (King Kong) as Dori; and Peter Hambleton (The Strip) as Gloin.
That’s only eight dwarves, so expect five more names to fill out Thorin’s company. The press release also doesn’t mention Ian McKellan and Andy Serkis, who are expected to reprise their Lord of the Rings roles as Gandalf and Gollum. Absent, too, is Hugo Weaving as Elrond, as well as characters like Beorn and Bard the Bowman. Presumably we’ll see more announcements in the weeks to come.
Casting, however, may be the least of The Hobbit‘s worries Although the $400-million project finally received a greenlight last week, Warner Bros. is still threatening to move production out of New Zealand following a union boycott.
Published in 1937, The Hobbit follows the home-loving halfling Bilbo Baggins, who joins a band of dwarves in a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain and its fabled treasure from the dragon Smaug.
The two films are set to begin production in February for release in December 2012 and December 2013.
I was reading The Hobbit yesterday and I'm struggling to see how they're going to make this a two parter. It's a very slight book and there's no appendix to help them pad out aspects of the story this time.
I also think the goblin fight (just before Bilbo encounters Gollum) is in danger of being a rehash of Fellowship's Moria sequence.
I will of course watch it, although without the poxy 3D glasses if at all possible.
Flashman wrote:I was reading The Hobbit yesterday and I'm struggling to see how they're going to make this a two parter. It's a very slight book and there's no appendix to help them pad out aspects of the story this time.
I also think the goblin fight (just before Bilbo encounters Gollum) is in danger of being a rehash of Fellowship's Moria sequence.
I will of course watch it, although without the poxy 3D glasses if at all possible.
Oh and thumbs up for Martin Freeman.
From what I read, there will be large chunks of 'behind the scenes' prequel stuff going on as well, as the necromancer does his thing in the woods and various forces fight secret wars in the build up to the return of Sauron to Mordor.
Fair enough, but I think it would have worked better as a single 2-3 hour film with a big arse battle (five armies, Woo Hoo!) at the end. The only thing of any relevance to Lord of the Rings is the Gandalf, Gollum and The One Ring and the story covers those quite nicely.
I wouldn't mind some kind of Necromancer subplot (he is mentioned in the text by Gandalf as something else that he is attending to).
I do like him as an actor, but a trip to see Mr Holm wouldn't hurt. Freeman tends to play glum and downtrodden and whilst there points in Bilbo's adventure when he is certainly glum and downtrodden, there are other occassions when he is lively and outspoken. I had trouble envisaging Freeman speaking some of the lines when I was reading yesterday, not so Ian Holm.
Also if it moves to the Uk it will be because of the Union strike. Which means no Ian Mckellan or Hugo Weaving.
I tell ya there is so much money that Jackson helped to pump into the NZ economy those unions are crazy to try and shut The Hobbit down. Greedy Ingrates.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I were to split the book into 2 movies I would end the first right before they go into mirkwood.
This would allow them to really do justice to all the little things that make the hobbit such a great book.
The rumor was that Part 1 would end with Smaugs slaying, with the second part dealing with the Dwarves defense of the treasure and the battle of five armies.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I were to split the book into 2 movies I would end the first right before they go into mirkwood.
This would allow them to really do justice to all the little things that make the hobbit such a great book.
The rumor was that Part 1 would end with Smaugs slaying, with the second part dealing with the Dwarves defense of the treasure and the battle of five armies.
GG
That would be fantastic.
I love the casting for Bilbo. Poor Mr. Baggins never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I were to split the book into 2 movies I would end the first right before they go into mirkwood.
This would allow them to really do justice to all the little things that make the hobbit such a great book.
The rumor was that Part 1 would end with Smaugs slaying, with the second part dealing with the Dwarves defense of the treasure and the battle of five armies.
GG
I think thats kind of dumb, I mean there isn't that much that happens after Smaug's death, just one big o battle and then its over...
Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I were to split the book into 2 movies I would end the first right before they go into mirkwood.
This would allow them to really do justice to all the little things that make the hobbit such a great book.
The rumor was that Part 1 would end with Smaugs slaying, with the second part dealing with the Dwarves defense of the treasure and the battle of five armies.
GG
I think thats kind of dumb, I mean there isn't that much that happens after Smaug's death, just one big o battle and then its over...
That's what I was thinking. If that's how they are going to do it most of the second film will be the screenwriters work not Tolkeins.
I'm not going to moan about it but I personally believe the only reason this film has been split into two parts is to get more money out of it. They know it will be a hit as it's off the back of the LOTR films so they want as much as they can get. The Hobbit is not a long book.
I think they are using the events between the hobbit and LOTR as the basis for the 2nd book. I can't think of anything else. Its a little bit troubling.
whatwhat wrote:
.... most of the second film will be the screenwriters work not Tolkeins.
.
I don't think that has ever been hidden. DelToro/Jackson have always said that they were going beyond the Hobbit, and explore other aspects of Tolkiens appendices. This is why the necromancer is supposed to be a large part of this, whether in 1st or 2nd film. I personally am looking forward to getting to see more of the Tolkien universe.
generalgrog wrote:I tell ya there is so much money that Jackson helped to pump into the NZ economy those unions are crazy to try and shut The Hobbit down. Greedy Ingrates.GG
Apparently NZ unions are as idiotic and self destructive as the ones in the US.
whatwhat wrote:
.... most of the second film will be the screenwriters work not Tolkeins.
.
I don't think that has ever been hidden. DelToro/Jackson have always said that they were going beyond the Hobbit, and explore other aspects of Tolkiens appendices. This is why the necromancer is supposed to be a large part of this, whether in 1st or 2nd film. I personally am looking forward to getting to see more of the Tolkien universe.
GG
If they are doing the White Council vs Souron aka The Necromancer they're probably going to have to replace christopher lee as Saruman. Unless they CGI the zimoframe out afterwards.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Was I the only one who immediately though "B.J. Novak" when I saw "the guy from the office?"
I assumed Rainn Wilson. Then I read it was Martin Freeman and thought: "What? There's no one by that name in The Office."
generalgrog wrote:
Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I were to split the book into 2 movies I would end the first right before they go into mirkwood.
This would allow them to really do justice to all the little things that make the hobbit such a great book.
The rumor was that Part 1 would end with Smaugs slaying, with the second part dealing with the Dwarves defense of the treasure and the battle of five armies.
GG
That would be... terrible. I like the anti-climax at the battle of five armies. Plus, by continuing the whole story to deal with Dol Guldur is bad for 2 reasons: 1) It's not Tolkien, it's gonna be hack writers. 2) Other than Gandalf, the main characters aren't really center stage in this plot. So, you know Bilbo is going to be taking a side trip down through Mirkwood.
But, let's be honest. I'm going to see this in theaters 2-3 times, and buy the DVD and watch it at least a half dozen more. Then, buy the extended versions of the DVDs when they come out a few months later...
... I know he's been this way for a few years now, but I still cannot get used to Peter Jackson looking quite so thin.
Thanx for the link. I find this quite amazing. The process of trying to get this film made has visibly aged PJ. He looks haggard from the stress. First there was the fight with the tolkien estate, then the film studio going under..now this?
Also whats up with the cat fight between the aussies and kiwis here? Is there some bad blood between you guys?
Flashman wrote:Fair enough, but I think it would have worked better as a single 2-3 hour film with a big arse battle (five armies, Woo Hoo!) at the end. The only thing of any relevance to Lord of the Rings is the Gandalf, Gollum and The One Ring and the story covers those quite nicely.
I wouldn't mind some kind of Necromancer subplot (he is mentioned in the text by Gandalf as something else that he is attending to).
The necromancer mentioned in The Hobbit IS Sauron.
A simple Google search will solve all your problems, my friend. Believe me, I doublechecked before I posted any corrections, even though I was sure I was right. The Hobbit came first, and so Tolkein supposedly didn't have the whole story fleshed out at that point.
Its all about greed, i find it funny that all these screaming handwringing liberals call everyone else "greedy" when they are the most ridiculously greedy people in the world.
If i was Jackson i'd just do one straight away, feth the fething fethers.
Not that he is going to get any joy over here, the Labour loving lefty loafers are just as bad, and sadly Thatcher is too old to come back and crush them under her boot heels.
If you dont like your job or your wage, then feth off and find another job. Why do employers allow these greedy self serving scumbags to hold them to ransom?
Modquisition on. This post has been delted. Posts directly attacking other Dakka posters will not be tolerated as violating rule #1. Future posts of this nature will lead to your suspension.
mattyrm wrote:I just watched that video.. goddamn unions.
Its all about greed, i find it funny that all these screaming handwringing liberals call everyone else "greedy" when they are the most ridiculously greedy people in the world.
If i was Jackson i'd just do one straight away, feth the fething fethers.
Not that he is going to get any joy over here, the Labour loving lefty loafers are just as bad, and sadly Thatcher is too old to come back and crush them under her boot heels.
If you dont like your job or your wage, then feth off and find another job. Why do employers allow these greedy self serving scumbags to hold them to ransom?
Because the people united will never be defeated.
Back on topic, what about my idea concerning the right place to split the book?
It's apparently NOT a kiwi union that's doing the interfering, it's an AUSSIE union doing it - and that is what has PJs little kiwi nose all bent out of shape.
The union wants him to do a collective agreement with ALL of the actors (something he can't do under NZ law).
The production company are threatening to take it to the same studios where the potter films were done.
Not that I care. The LOTR movies bored me to death and I didn't like the hobbit either (as a book). I preferred Asimov and Heinlein as a kid (and still do).
mattyrm wrote:I just watched that video.. goddamn unions.
Its all about greed, i find it funny that all these screaming handwringing liberals call everyone else "greedy" when they are the most ridiculously greedy people in the world.
If i was Jackson i'd just do one straight away, feth the fething fethers.
Not that he is going to get any joy over here, the Labour loving lefty loafers are just as bad, and sadly Thatcher is too old to come back and crush them under her boot heels.
If you dont like your job or your wage, then feth off and find another job. Why do employers allow these greedy self serving scumbags to hold them to ransom?
Because the people united will never be defeated.
Back on topic, what about my idea concerning the right place to split the book?
I'm not sure about Lake Town, but I last read the book 3+ years ago, so I'm not sure. It would need to end after a solid plot point, preferrably something climatic that will force people to watch the second.
Bilbo springs the dwarves from the Elf King's dungeon and gets them to Lake Town.
They quickly spruce themselves up and announce themselves as important Dwarf lords come to reclaim the Kingdom under the Lonely Mountain. Basically they manage to overawe the Lake Towners and get support for their expedition up the lake.
That seems like a reasonably good point to end part one and sets up the start of part two.
generalgrog wrote:By the way I just finished reading "The Hobbit" to my 7 year old, and he loved it.
GG
That is by far the best way to be introduced to Middle Earth.
He especially loved the singing parts.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Spoiler:
Bilbo springs the dwarves from the Elf King's dungeon and gets them to Lake Town.
They quickly spruce themselves up and announce themselves as important Dwarf lords come to reclaim the Kingdom under the Lonely Mountain. Basically they manage to overawe the Lake Towners and get support for their expedition up the lake.
That seems like a reasonably good point to end part one and sets up the start of part two.
Here is the problem as I see it KK. The films ending needs to have a great battle of some sort. The whole purpose of the adventure is to get smaugs treasure. It makes the most sense to end the film with the dwarves+ hobbit, at the very least accomplishing the task of getting to the lonely mountain. And having bilbo encounter smaug. There is no way the first movie should leave out smaug. The dragon is going to be one of the main selling points of the film. Even though the book only has about 10% of story AFTER smaug dies.
My introduction was my father playing the 4 LP record version, as performed by Nicol Williamson (Merlin in Excaliber, if you've seen that movie) to us as children, then later reading the book for myself at about 7 I think.
I got into the Hobbit kinda late, but i first of all read the wonderful Graphic Novel version illustrated by Alan Lee, i think i was about 13?
I then picked up the actual book, and the LOTR followed, so.. its a great book, and probably one of the reasons many of us got into fantasy in the first place.
I actually think that getting captured by the elves just after the fight with the spiders is a good break point. We thus end Part 1 with a cliffhanger following a reasonable dust up. And Part 2 begins with Bilbo springing the Dwarves from the Elves' dungeons.
Breaking at Lake Town would leave not a lot happening for the first part of the second film and there would be far too much to jam into Part 1. Having read the book properly now, I agree that narratively, it needs to be two films.
Yeah I know someone who I am not going to tell you who is going to work for the hobbit. But I can tell you last week he got his Australian passport out and He is going to new zealand as a crewman. And at least 5 months ago he got a "OMG WE NEED YOU, Thing from Peter Jackson."
But I can tell you he is a good friend.
In related news, James Nesbitt has joined the cast as Bofur. Another Irishman into the mix. I wonder if everyone will be able to keep their accents like Billy Boyd in LOTR
The 45-year-old actor, best known for roles in television dramas Cold Feet, Murphy's Law and Jekyll, will play the dwarf Bofur in Peter Jackson's two-film adaptation of the classic J.R.R. Tolkien novel.
In a statement, Jackson said: "James's charm, warmth and wit are legendary as is his range as an actor in both comedic and dramatic roles. We feel very lucky to be able to welcome him as one of our cast."
Bofur is described as a "disarmingly forthright, funny and occasionally brave dwarf", and accompanies Bilbo and Thorin on the Quest of Erebor in the original book.
It was also announced that newcomer Adam Brown has been cast as fellow dwarf Ori. Jackson commented: "Adam is a wonderfully expressive actor and has a unique screen presence. I look forward to seeing him bring Ori to life."
Nesbitt and Brown join a number of other actors who have previously been confirmed for the project, including Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner and Rob Kazinsky. Sylvester McCoy has also declared his involvement.
After a string of well-publicised union disputes, Warner Bros last week agreed a deal to shoot the movies in New Zealand. The films are expected to hit cinemas in December 2012 and December 2013.
Lord Of The Rings composer Howard Shore has confirmed that that he will return to score Peter Jackson's The Hobbit.
Shore told The Province that he has been discussing reuniting with Jackson for the two-part Hobbit adaptation since 2002.
"It looks like finally it's going to be happening," he said. "I'll be working on it for the next three years - it's going to consume a lot of my time and work now."
Shore composed the music for Jackson's fantasy trilogy - winning Oscars for Fellowship Of The Ring and Return Of The King - and worked with the director on King Kong before leaving over creative differences.
Sir Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis have signed up to reprise their Lord of the Rings roles in The Hobbit, it has been revealed.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, McKellen has finally agreed to return as Gandalf for Peter Jackson's upcoming two-parter, while Deadline has also confirmed that Serkis will appear once more as Gollum.
Both characters feature in the original J.R.R. Tolkien novel - although Gandalf's role stretches across the book, whereas Gollum's involvement is confined to one chapter.
The pair join a number of Lord of the Rings cast members thought to be returning for the Warner Bros picture, including Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom and Cate Blanchett.
The Hobbit is due to start filming in New Zealand on February 14, and will be released in cinemas in December 2012 and December 2013.
When I first saw 'M_______ Freeman', I immediately thought of good ol' Morgan (for reasons unknown); my mind then somewhat wandered to his lesser known counterpart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8X4rST4YvY
I couldnt agree more Frazz. He actually gave a bit of a homosexual flavor to Frodo. I mean seriously Frodo was a big sissy the entire time. If it werent for Sam, everyone would of failed and Sauron would of won. Simple as that
Medium of Death wrote:Thinking about it, you think Sauron would have posted a guard at the entrance of mount doom...
Also i'm really quite peeved that James Nesbitt is going to be in this, he annoys the gak out of me.
That's what I don't get. How do you stop two hobbits dropping a ring into a volcano? Lock the damn door.
But, that was the point. Sauron couldn't even conceive of the possibility that they would actively want to destroy the Ring. He was working off the assumption that they would use it as a weapon, not sneak it into his lands to destroy it. As such, there was no need to put a guard on a volcano.
Avatar 720 wrote:I also didn't get why the gate was opened to Aragorn + his small-ass army remnants:
Aragorn: "Let the lord of the Black Land come forth! Let justice be done upon him!"
Mouth of Sauron: "... No!"
Aragorn: *sad face*
That also makes sense when you think about it from Sauron's perspective. He has an overwhelming force right there against this small group of soldiers. He's under the assumption that the leader of this group has the Ring and is relying on it to win. But, Sauron knows that Aragorn is relatively new to the Ring's powers and hasn't had time to truly master them. So, he hopes to strike fast and quick, annihilate this small army, and take the Ring for himself.
It makes sense, and would totally have worked had Aragorn actually had the Ring.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I am a bit of a LotR fanboy (was that clear?). But, the Eagles explanation is always a bit of a stretch. I could quote a few explanations, but they make about as much sense as the Kessel Run actually being measured in distance rather than time...
Most pf the forces of Mordor had been emptied out to attack Gondor as -- thanks to a certain Hobbit picking up a Palantir -- Sauron believed that was where the ring was. There were some guards/forced left in Mordor, but they aren't especially well organised and fight amongst themselves.
As for the eagles thing : fellbeasts, especially when ridden by Nazgul eat them for breakfast. And don't forget you have huge flocks of Creban ( sp ?) patrolling over the area looking for anyone carrying the ring, so when they see the eagles one decent volley of arrows and it's game over.
I still hold that a simple lock on the door would've solved all the problems. Maybe even just close the door, as it looked far too heavy for two exhausted hobbits to even budge.
It's an active volcano. Any door you close up there is just gonna get melted at some point anyway. They had to keep rebuilding the path up to the door because it was always getting destroyed.
reds8n wrote: Most pf the forces of Mordor had been emptied out to attack Gondor as -- thanks to a certain Hobbit picking up a Palantir -- Sauron believed that was where the ring was. There were some guards/forced left in Mordor, but they aren't especially well organised and fight amongst themselves.
As for the eagles thing : fellbeasts, especially when ridden by Nazgul eat them for breakfast. And don't forget you have huge flocks of Creban ( sp ?) patrolling over the area looking for anyone carrying the ring, so when they see the eagles one decent volley of arrows and it's game over.
Eagles fly higher than arrows. By the time the graboids or whatever (Oh crap its worms under the ground!) go tell the nazgul about the Eagles, the Eagles have dive bombed the ring (remember the Eagles would be flying faster and higher). Again, game over. Plus, didn't the elven machine shoot one fell beast down with an arrow in FOTR? You have to show where they are tough guys if wussy boy can take one out from across a river.
But, that was the point. Sauron couldn't even conceive of the possibility that they would actively want to destroy the Ring. He was working off the assumption that they would use it as a weapon, not sneak it into his lands to destroy it. As such, there was no need to put a guard on a volcano.
Almost true, destroying the ring is a valid proposition but Sauron dismissed it because he knew the ring. Anyone in possession of it would be unable to destroy it due to its corrupting nature. Saurons only oversight wasn't the destruction of the ring but regarding the selfless but strong willed nature of hobbits. Only a hobbit could have succeeded in the ring quest, even Gandalf would have succumbed quickly to its temptation, something Gandalf himself knew full well when he refused the ring point blank.
Yes the west would want to destroy the ring, but no it could not be done. The options remaining were to use it, bury it, throw it in the sea or send it to Valinor. The former was a threat depending on who usurped him. Evil would triumph but it is of no value to Sauron if the evil was not himself. The second and third options made it an army fight, option four is the real worry.
The Council of Elrond revealed that the Valar would not get involved, it is not known if Sauron knew this. I think not or he would have struck sooner. Sauron feared one fate other than losing the ring to one capable of wielding it, that was a returnof the War of wrath. If the Valalr and Vanyar marched on Middle Earth as they did against his master Sauron had the sense to sue for peace. To conquer middle earth he would need to avoid such a calamity by acting slowly.
Methinks the Valar refused to get involved either to shelter the ring or mass an army because Eru-Iluvatar himself stayed their hands. Someone, most likely Eru had pre-ordained as the victory at the hands of the shirefolk, Gandalf himself thought Bilbo was guided to the ring by destiny. This is reinforced by Sam's uncharacteristic actions in the battle with Shelob, he was obeying a much greater power and avenging ancient acts of darkness with elven 'curses' and light.
Grakmar wrote:
That also makes sense when you think about it from Sauron's perspective. He has an overwhelming force right there against this small group of soldiers. He's under the assumption that the leader of this group has the Ring and is relying on it to win. But, Sauron knows that Aragorn is relatively new to the Ring's powers and hasn't had time to truly master them. So, he hopes to strike fast and quick, annihilate this small army, and take the Ring for himself.
It makes sense, and would totally have worked had Aragorn actually had the Ring.
What made the battle risky was that if Aragorn fell Gandalf might out of desperate need wield the Ring, and he did have the power to wield it. The hammer blow needed to be swift hence an flanking ambush with the Olog Hai and the presense of all remaining Nazgul.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and I am a bit of a LotR fanboy (was that clear?). But, the Eagles explanation is always a bit of a stretch. I could quote a few explanations, but they make about as much sense as the Kessel Run actually being measured in distance rather than time...
Facing Saurons gaze while carrying the ring is pretty much fatal. Frodo was nearly done for when Sauron looked in his direction and her was not looking at him just at the region. anything on an eagle would have been stared down, even if you could take it the eagle couldnt. Being reduced to a quivering heap while flying over high mountains and carrying passengers comes under the heading of Bad News.
And certainly not beyond the range of the spells cast by Nazgul riding on Fellbeasts.
By the time the graboids or whatever (Oh crap its worms under the ground!)
+1 kudos for the reference : to clarify I meant the huge massive flocks of evil birds (... *sighs*...) from the 1st film.
go tell the nazgul about the Eagles, the Eagles have dive bombed the ring (remember the Eagles would be flying faster and higher). Again, game over. Plus, didn't the elven machine shoot one fell beast down with an arrow in FOTR? You have to show where they are tough guys if wussy boy can take one out from across a river.
... To the best of my recollection we don't see any Fellbeasts in the Fellowship... I certainly don't recall Legolas -- because you're worth it ! -- shooting one. One gets beheaded by the power of plot device/spending a lot of Might points in ROTK.
And certainly not beyond the range of the spells cast by Nazgul riding on Fellbeasts.
Where does it say that?
By the time the graboids or whatever (Oh crap its worms under the ground!)
+1 kudos for the reference : to clarify I meant the huge massive flocks of evil birds (... *sighs*...) from the 1st film.
go tell the nazgul about the Eagles, the Eagles have dive bombed the ring (remember the Eagles would be flying faster and higher). Again, game over. Plus, didn't the elven machine shoot one fell beast down with an arrow in FOTR? You have to show where they are tough guys if wussy boy can take one out from across a river.
... To the best of my recollection we don't see any Fellbeasts in the Fellowship... I certainly don't recall Legolas -- because you're worth it ! -- shooting one. One gets beheaded by the power of plot device/spending a lot of Might points in ROTK.
Towards the end. Legolas the elven machine gun spots something along the far bank and takes a shot into the air. Its towards the end but before the Uruk Hai make off with the English countryfolk, er hobbits.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Facing Saurons gaze while carrying the ring is pretty much fatal. Frodo was nearly done for when Sauron looked in his direction and her was not looking at him just at the region. anything on an eagle would have been stared down, even if you could take it the eagle couldnt. Being reduced to a quivering heap while flying over high mountains and carrying passengers comes under the heading of Bad News.
Ugh.. I just lost the last scrap of interest I had in this movie. That bloke is gak, have yet to see a single thing with him that isn't boring, plain bad or even annoying.
We don't have anything as mundane as a "climate".
