Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We've sen Gandalf, Saruman & Radagast, but it's mentioned in the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that there were 2 other Wizards. I wonder; does anyone here think we will see the other 2 Wizards in any either of the next 2 Hobbit film's? Yes! I know they're not in the book, but neither was Radagast, but they still put him in the first film. And it appears like they're going to show us where Gandalf wen off to as well as the dwarfs quest. Do you reckon we;ll get to see them? I hope we do!

No. I don't think they actually have rights to those characters.

The other two never make an appearance in any of Tolkien's works. I think an appendix even mentions that they disappeared and no one knows up happened to them.

This article is going to provide you with more than enough advice about Internet marketing. Here, you are going to find well-proven advice that is broad enough to apply to anybody, but will also be beneficial to you specifically. Read on to see how you can improve your marketing techniques.

www.arm2teeth.com

Like The Rover said, they don't have the rights (which is probably the reason for Gandalf not remembering their names...). In addition, it's geographically and historically too surreal even for PJ: the two were lost in the far east, and have been suggested to have fallen under Sauron's spell. Their situation is just not comparable to Radagast's.

Originally posted by Exabyte
Like The Rover said, they don't have the rights (which is probably the reason for Gandalf not remembering their names...).

The degree to which that is true -- or, rather, how far their rights extend -- is highly interesting to me. The not-remembering-their-names part could be due to the fact that Tolkien flip-flopped on that, too.

No, their names are given as Allatar and Pallandor as their Maia names although they have no middle earth names in westron or elvish. Gandalfs identity as a Maia is secret which may be why he claimed to have forgotten their names. You wont see them in any films though as Exabyte is right, they ended up in the far east past mordor and I dont think even Tolkien decided absolutely what had become of them.

Originally posted by The Rover
No. I don't think they actually have rights to those characters. Cant they just make up wizards and throw them in there ?

They made up a bunch of other shit for this trilogy, they can definitely do that.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
They made up a bunch of other shit for this trilogy, they can definitely do that. I don't mind it one bit as the movies always differ from the books.

I don't mind when a book is so big and detailed that you have cut stuff just to be able to fit in to a movie, especially when it's a trilogy--movie per book. But I do mind when one children's book is too small to be stretched in to a trilogy, so they have to needlessly change things and introduce forced scenes for the sake of padding/fan service.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't mind when a book is so big and detailed that you have cut stuff just to be able to fit in to a movie, especially when it's a trilogy--movie per book. But I do mind when one children's book is too small to be stretched in to a trilogy, so they have to needlessly change things and introduce forced scenes for the sake of padding/fan service. I don't since the movie has to differ from the books but to each his own.

It doesn't need to be exactly the same. But it also doesn't need to be stretched thin in to three films for the sake of bailing out New Line Cinema's multi-billion dollar debt. It's one, small, children's novel about a midget that's being pulled in to an epic, grandiose, trilogy. The Hobbit was never any of that, and it's film incarnation--in an attempt to be both those things--is suffering for it. The film felt forced and contrived, and this is why.

It's not bad because it's different from the book (so was LotR, and it was f*cking awesome), it's bad despite being different from the book. ("Bad" may be a little harsh, but the sentiment stands).

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It doesn't need to be exactly the same. But it also doesn't need to be stretched thin in to three films for the sake of bailing out New Line Cinema's multi-billion dollar debt. It's one, small, children's novel about a midget that's being pulled in to an epic, grandiose, trilogy. The Hobbit was never any of that, and it's film incarnation--in an attempt to be both those things--is suffering for it. The film felt forced and contrived, and this is why.

It's not bad because it's different from the book (so was LotR, and it was f*cking awesome), it's bad despite being different from the book. ("Bad" may be a little harsh, but the sentiment stands). I enjoyed it very much so. Opinions vary as do ours.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't mind when a book is so big and detailed that you have cut stuff just to be able to fit in to a movie, especially when it's a trilogy--movie per book. But I do mind when one children's book is too small to be stretched in to a trilogy, so they have to needlessly change things and introduce forced scenes for the sake of padding/fan service.
But the fact is that if thwey had done it the way Tolkian had originally written it, fans of the LOTR film trilogy (who haven't read the Hobbit book) would go into it excpecting another erpic LOTR movie, but end up with just a kds story about a Hobbit on an adventure. The added stuff has more relavence to TLOTR so it makes the Hobbit fit in better with TLOTR. Also, the extra scene's, etc added character development. There was hardly any of that for the dwarfs (with the exception of Thorin) in the book. Anyway, wasn't most of the stuff that they added still written by Tolkian? Wasn't it from the Unfinished Tales or something? So it's not like he just added a load of random stuff that wasn't even written by Tolian.

Being epic isn't a bad thing, and using pre-existing Tolkien lore isn't a bad thing. Per se.


They 1.) stretched a small story too long, and 2.) tried to recapture the LotR's epic grandiosity in a story that was neither epic nor grandiose. So that means the running time had to be padded with lore, strife and drama had to be concocted between the characters, a handsome main character had to compete for screen time with the actual main character, and the dark, serious tones had to be juxtaposed against a core simpleness--it wasn't a good contrast.

"Changes" are okay. "Different interpretations" are okay. But if those changes and interpretations aren't executed properly, you end up with The Hobbit. Much of the film felt forced--the Rivendell scene and anything to do with Thorin especially. I was cringing way too much at this film. All the nods to the lore felt like watching a bad Family Guy episode where they explain the reference--just to make sure you got it. And the drama--with Thorin in particular--felt so goddamn contrived and unnecessary. All for the sake of creating pointless drama that the overall story and Bilbo--you know, THE HOBBIT--doesn't require.

There were two blue ones, but they were sent off elsewhere.