At long last, prinicpal shooting for the Hobbit is over, and a weary world sighs in relief

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Sauce

Defying mass protests, illnesses, and an Earth that sought to set him ablaze or shake him off like a particularly hirsute tick, Peter Jackson confirmed that he has officially completed principal photography on The Hobbit, a mere four months before the first film is due to hit theaters. Jackson is now ready to enter the cutting room and begin honing that footage into the sleek, streamlined, two-part, probably six-plus-hour finished product, the tedium of the editing process occasionally alleviated by Jackson casting a few more dwarves, just for fun. "We made it!" Jackson exclaimed in making his announcement, shortly before being mauled by a bear.

**DIDM**

wow

you can really see what being a HUGE Hollyweird director will do to you

to

apparently it is healthy for you, but it gives you grey hair

**KingCracker**

Well to be fair, he started shooting the first LOTR in 2000? That was 12 years ago.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, not bad for a little scruffy guy.

**generalgrog**

DIDM wrote:wow

you can really see what being a HUGE Hollyweird director will do to you

to

apparently it is healthy for you, but it gives you grey hair

I'm pretty sure he had the bypass surgery.

Anyway...I loved all three LOTR movies (even though there were parts that I didn't like). Can't wait to see these two. I read The Hobbit to my son over a few months as his bed time stories a few years ago, and he is looking forward to the movie as well.

GG

**Ouze**

It's nice to see this finally got finished. I wasn't a fan of the LOTR franchise but many of my friends certainly are.

**Dreadwinter**

There were mass protests? I have been excited about this since it was announced. Can we already pre order movie tickets?

**BolingbrokeIV**

The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

**GalacticDefender**

Glorioski wrote:The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

And your point is that Tolkien did not write literary masterpieces because he wasn't Shakespeare?

Why were there so many protests anyway? A lot of the filming was done in New Zealand, wasn't it?

**AduroT**

The sheep that run everything over there weren't given their proper compensation.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, the Wool Lobby and the Lanolin Mafia both need to get paid off. Otherwise, baaaaaad things happen

**JohnnoM**

I, for one, am not to sure about these new movies, particularly the casting of the dwarfs. Dwarfs are mean't to be short, stocky, grumpy looking with long beards. Not these newbs:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/F%C3%ADli_and_K%C3%ADli

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bofur

**Hordini**

Great news! I'm pumped to see the first film in December! I really want to see how his interpretation of the dwarves plays out on screen.

**Tibbsy**

I have a friend I went to school with who worked as a lighting rigger on these films...

I can't wait to see them personally, I loved the LOTR films and have high hopes for these as well...

**Kovnik Obama**

Glorioski wrote:The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

Can we nominate this for the Most Silly Post of the Year category?

The Hobbit was my first book. I bet it was the same for a metric crapload of other people. I learned more about life from Bilbo's adventure then from reading the Bible (the Bible doesn't tell you how to deal with trolls and forest spiders, for starters). Coupled with LOTR, I cannot think of any other book that have had such a profound significance in Fantasy (and other genre as well) in the last century.

**Doctadeth**

Meldonya estelnye i periandarion namara!

(my friends, I hope the hobbit is good... (In elvish)

**Deathshead420**

I, for one, am not to sure about these new movies, particularly the casting of the dwarfs. Dwarfs are mean't to be short, stocky, grumpy looking with long beards. Not these newbs:

John Rhys-Davies was 6' 1"
I thought he did a good job as a Dwarf.

**generalgrog**

JohnnoM wrote:I, for one, am not to sure about these new movies, particularly the casting of the dwarfs. Dwarfs are mean't to be short, stocky, grumpy looking with long beards. Not these newbs:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/F%C3%ADli_and_K%C3%ADli

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bofur

I think the reason why they went with these "stylized" dwarves is so that you can pick them out and more instantly recognize them from other dwarves. Can you imagine having to figure out who each dwarve is, if they all looked like gimli?

GG

**Goliath**

generalgrog wrote:
JohnnoM wrote:I, for one, am not to sure about these new movies, particularly the casting of the dwarfs. Dwarfs are mean't to be short, stocky, grumpy looking with long beards. Not these newbs:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/F%C3%ADli_and_K%C3%ADli

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bofur

I think the reason why they went with these "stylized" dwarves is so that you can pick them out and more instantly recognize them from other dwarves. Can you imagine having to figure out who each dwarve is, if they all looked like gimli?

GG

Those two are supposed to be the younger of the group as well, so maybe dwarves get stockier as they get older or something?

**rodgers37**

Glorioski wrote:The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

So you've said that, what if I say I think Shakespeare is overrated and Tolkien is a literary genius?
To be honest, I would much rather read/watch/listen to Tolkien's work than Shakespeare. And its a film, I don't think films set out to make 'fun books' as you so crudely call it appear to be literary masterpieces. For a start, films do not copy books, they evolve.

Fine if you don't like The Hobbit and/or Tolkien, but not quite sure why you think comparing him to Shakespeare is relevant. Two completely different style of writers, in completely different eras. And i'm sure many prefer Tolkien to Shakespeare.

**GalacticDefender**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Glorioski wrote:The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

Can we nominate this for the Most Silly Post of the Year category?

The Hobbit was my first book. I bet it was the same for a metric crapload of other people. I learned more about life from Bilbo's adventure then from reading the Bible (the Bible doesn't tell you how to deal with trolls and forest spiders, for starters). Coupled with LOTR, I cannot think of any other book that have had such a profound significance in Fantasy (and other genre as well) in the last century.

Yeah I was tempted to use the "not sure if trolling" meme when I saw that post

I would much rather read Tolkien than Shakespeare. (and yes, I HAVE read both)

**CT GAMER**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Glorioski wrote:The Hobbit was a fun book...but, that's all. I have no doubt this production will try to make it out to be a literary masterpiece which somehow resonates as a tale of humanity. Like the last two LOTR films did. It's Tolkien not Shakespeare ffs.

Can we nominate this for the Most Silly Post of the Year category?

The Hobbit was my first book. I bet it was the same for a metric crapload of other people. I learned more about life from Bilbo's adventure then from reading the Bible (the Bible doesn't tell you how to deal with trolls and forest spiders, for starters). Coupled with LOTR, I cannot think of any other book that have had such a profound significance in Fantasy (and other genre as well) in the last century.

Not to mention that if we are being truely honest Shakespeare is boring as all feth and most of the people who spout on about him are pretentious twits...

**BolingbrokeIV**

Shakespeare's prologue's are more profound than Tolkiens books. I'm all for a bit of fun at the cinema by the way, which is what I should be having watching an LOTR film. Not slow drawn out fading in and out bollocks. I liked the first film. I liked the books. The last two films trued to be something they weren't.

I will go and see this film. But I have the feeling it's going to try and make the audience cry when bilbo is about to get eaten by the trolls rather than smile like you would if you read the scene in the book. Going on past record.

**GalacticDefender**

Half of Shakespeare's work seems to be made up of subtle and not so subtle sex jokes.

Though Hamlet and Mcbeth are some pretty badass works. I'll give you that.

LOTR is just... in a class of it's own. Really, I'd say he was more talented than Shakespeare in many respects, certainly when it comes to setting a scene, which is something Shakespeare generally just... didn't do at all.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, Shakespeare wrote plays. Plays are not meant to be read, they are kinda lame when its read and not acted.

Tolkien wrote literature. He wrote up multiple languages, one of them is both spoken and written. A complete language is a massive accomplishment.

I would go so far as to say Tolkien is comperable to Plato and Aristotle. Shakespeare was some, potentially fictional, person who wrote some political satire, raunchy, and some rather odd plays. I would compare him to a modern screen writer. Not exactly something to be held in awe by others.

**BolingbrokeIV**

GalacticDefender wrote:Half of Shakespeare's work seems to be made up of subtle and not so subtle sex jokes.

Though Hamlet and Mcbeth are some pretty badass works. I'll give you that.

LOTR is just... in a class of it's own. Really, I'd say he was more talented than Shakespeare in many respects, certainly when it comes to setting a scene, which is something Shakespeare generally just... didn't do at all.

If your'e taking about Tolkien's descriptive writing which he was renowned for then you should probably note shakespeare was a playwright. If your talking about setting a scene within the story then you are talking bollocks.

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Shakespeare wrote plays. Plays are not meant to be read, they are kinda lame when its read and not acted.

Tolkien wrote literature. He wrote up multiple languages, one of them is both spoken and written. A complete language is a massive accomplishment.

I would go so far as to say Tolkien is comperable to Plato and Aristotle. Shakespeare was some, potentially fictional, person who wrote some political satire, raunchy, and some rather odd plays. I would compare him to a modern screen writer. Not exactly something to be held in awe by others.

Right, Aristotle. The guy who single-handedly set biology back 1000 years by saying maggots came from nowhere. Is that comparison perhaps alluding to how you believe there were once short barefooted hill people living on earth?

**snurl**

I think these films will be great. The only way to really screw it up would be to make the story into an animated musical.

**BolingbrokeIV**

They'll do that and they'll have Enya singing the soundtrack.

**Grey Templar**

Glorioski wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, Shakespeare wrote plays. Plays are not meant to be read, they are kinda lame when its read and not acted.

Tolkien wrote literature. He wrote up multiple languages, one of them is both spoken and written. A complete language is a massive accomplishment.

I would go so far as to say Tolkien is comperable to Plato and Aristotle. Shakespeare was some, potentially fictional, person who wrote some political satire, raunchy, and some rather odd plays. I would compare him to a modern screen writer. Not exactly something to be held in awe by others.

Right, Aristotle. The guy who single-handedly set biology back 1000 years by saying maggots came from nowhere. Is that comparison perhaps alluding to how you believe there were once short barefooted hill people living on earth?

What?

I meant as a writer.

And from a technical standpoint, Aristotle was not wrong in saying maggots came from nowhere. With their level of technology they had no way of determining that flys laid eggs on stuff that hatched into maggots. It was what they could observe, give the guys a break.

**BolingbrokeIV**

Grey Templar wrote:And from a technical standpoint, Aristotle was not wrong in saying maggots came from nowhere. With their level of technology they had no way of determining that flys laid eggs on stuff that hatched into maggots. It was what they could observe, give the guys a break.

Wow, very wrong. All Aristotle had to do was put his raw meat in a sealed container and compare it to raw meat in an open container and he would have known he was wrong. It's the same experiment which Francesco Redi did to prove his theories wrong almost two millennia later.