Video Game Forums

...but Legolas isn't in the Hobbit. WTF.

Hobbit Casting News of the Day - TDW Geeks

Weren't they making two movies, combining the Hobbit with a bridge story?

He also plays a hobo in Fight for Your Right Revisited.

They have Hugo Weaving and Christopher Lee returning, so I'm pleased.

All right, to be fair, 'The Hobbit' does have a fairly lengthy setpiece in the palace of King Thranduil of Mirkwood, and Legolas is Thranduil's son. And it's generally agreed that Legolas is 139 years old at the time of LotR, which definitely took place less than a century after 'The Hobbit'. So it's not inconceivable Legolas would show up. Hopefully this is all that's happening, and the movie isn't just going to be 'The Hobbit, Plus Legolas'.

(EDIT--Geek status: confirmed.)

Interesting. And- I hope it'll be like what Boo predicted.

Booyakasha wrote:All right, to be fair, 'The Hobbit' does have a fairly lengthy setpiece in the palace of King Thranduil of Mirkwood, and Legolas is Thranduil's son. And it's generally agreed that Legolas is 139 years old at the time of LotR, which definitely took place less than a century after 'The Hobbit'. So it's not inconceivable Legolas would show up. Hopefully this is all that's happening, and the movie isn't just going to be 'The Hobbit, Plus Legolas'.

(EDIT--Geek status: confirmed.)

Exactly this. Legolas' presence is actually implied in The Hobbit, but Tolkien hadn't formed his character or name yet. It actually makes sense for Bloom to have at least on cameo there, and possibly a cameo as they bridge the series together. They've also added Frodo to the movie, even though he technically isn't born yet. But, I trust the decision Jackson is making to frame the movie and incorporate it into the series.

i think they should add tom bombadil to bridge the gaps between movies

ZeldaGirl wrote:Exactly this. Legolas' presence is actually implied in The Hobbit, but Jackson hadn't formed his character or name yet.

By Jackson you mean Tolkien, right?

^Lol, yup; I was typing really fast.

ZeldaGirl wrote: But, I trust the decision Jackson is making to frame the movie and incorporate it into the series.

Even after the hamfest of the third film's end? Not so sure, myself.

Third movie's ending would have been improved by the inclusion of the Scouring. I was actually kinda surprised they skipped over that, considering how perfectly it echoes the whole "everything's changing and you can never go home" theme they were driving at throughout the series. (Granted, the third movie is already a test of endurance, lengthwise---making it too much longer would drive some people away.)

watch the extended edition or go home

It's really, really long.

My family watches all 3 extendeds each Thanksgiving.

It's awesome.

We've done the all-three-extendeds a couple times at school with a friend's surround-sound system. It takes 12 hours, but it's fun.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

I heard that Saruman will be in this also.

Also, as heard before, The Hobbit will be split into two movies.

The titles: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" "The Hobbit: There and Back Again"

I was hoping that this would not be like Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was a munch more "fun" book, if I can make my terms understood, than the Lord of the Rings was. It also had the advantage of getting the story done faster, while Lord of the Rings is almost like a travelogue to Morder. Stretching it into two movies and adding so many twists seems to be too much.

I can see Saruman actually being necessary for the White Council's meetings in the Hobbit. The book itself has Gandalf doing all sorts of stuff in the background, in fact, all the important stuff happens in the background, so maybe the movie will have more of a focus on Gandalf than Bilbo. Like Aragon and Frodo were in the Lord of the Rings.

We really only need them to make Part 2 anyway. Part 1's already done.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Twice the ticket sales.