BabyRaptor said:Yeah, because it's totally elitist and stupid to expect that a book you love not be totally rewritten for an obvious cash-in. How dare we?Tehlanna TPX said:I didn't take his statement as meaning that Legolas himself will be in the film so much as that we'll be seeing Orlando Bloom. But okay. I'm sure the elitists will freak out no matter what is done, so might as well go big or go home in this case?
Really, this is going a bit far. I get that he thinks Lord of the Rings was good. And it was. I'll be the first to admit that. But do we really have to totally rewrite the damn book?
Exactly this. Also, i'm pretty sure it was mentioned that Legolas fought in the Battle of Five Armies.Canid117 said:As I recall Bilbo and the Dwarves traveled through the forest that Legolas dad owns. This means he could show up in background or possibly even speak a few lines and still be very faithful to the book.Johnnyallstar said:Hopefully it's only a cameo style shot in Rivendell, with maybe a line or two. I just don't want him through the entire thing giving Thorin Oakenshield the Gimli role.
Ughh... It amazes me people have a problem with the Arwen thing. It was such an obvious necessity for the movie. Why? Because as written, she was a relatively important character, but one with very little page-time. That low page time would equate to low screen-time, and low screen-time usually means unimportant. Also, it's harder to have a lot of minor named characters in movies, because people can't flip back a few pages to remind themselves why they should care about this elf guy. So, Peter Jackson combined Arwen's character with several (relatively) minor elves, thus making her importance more apparent while simultaneously simplifying the log of minor characters for the casual viewer. And ultimately, it didn't truly change anything.BehattedWanderer said:In all seriousness, the liberties Jackson has taken haven't been that bad, although that whole Arwen thing still rings to be kind of annoying.
Subtle bragging FTWMonkfish Acc. said:Yeah pretty much every woman I know is going to drag me to see this movie now.Tom Goldman said:"Ten years ago, Orlando Bloom created an iconic character with his portrayal of Legolas"
Assuming they keep it to a cameo. If he just appears on screen, maybe says a few lines or something then I guess no problem. My problem comes in the likely idea that Legolas will play a much larger role than that due to the idea that Orlando Bloom 'sells well'..[B@lL15T1C said:.]Its not reall a big liberty, it makes huge sense that legolas was in mirkwood at the same time as bilbo. His dad ruled there, it was only 60 years before and he's an elf.keideki said:This confirms my fears that the whole Hobbit movie will be a sad sad sham. Damn you Peter Jackson, DAMN YOU STRAIT TO HELL!
On the other side of the coin, it might not be too bad, but I have a serious problem when movie makers take big liberties with the source materials like this. What they did with LoTR was acceptable but I really can't get behind this kind of change.
If there's one thing people on The Escapist are guaranteed to do is make corrections, that and correcting someone on Page 1 even though the thread is past 5 pages and the material has (most likely) already been fixed/informed/discussedJohnnyallstar said:Ah yes, you guys are right. I forgot about that since I haven't read The Hobbit in about 12 years... the way things slip right?
Screw them, I love Legolas and Orlando Bloom.Solstrana91 said:To be honest, I love Legolas, I'm more than happy to let artistic licence rear it's head this time round. Having said that, I do know several people who are gonna be mighty pissed off at this.