Your a bit late hear. We knew Orlando Bloom had been written into the script about a month ago. It was just about whether they could get Bloom's greedy ass on board to do it.
Peter Jackson Writes Legolas Into The Hobbit
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh crap. I surely hope this doesn't mean he'll get the lead in a movie again. I thought Bloom's disappearance from big budget films was a blessing.
I think it all depends if Jackson is doing it because he thinks it will genuinely enhance the story or if hes doing it purely to generate more cash and interest.
My first thought on reading it was "Wtf, Legolas wasn't in the Hobbit" but after some reflection I guess it could be kind of cool for the non-hardcore LOTR fans; those who havent read the books or even heard of LOTR before the films came out but never the less enjoyed the film series. Its kind of like seeing the marvel characters cross over in each other's respective films.
My first thought on reading it was "Wtf, Legolas wasn't in the Hobbit" but after some reflection I guess it could be kind of cool for the non-hardcore LOTR fans; those who havent read the books or even heard of LOTR before the films came out but never the less enjoyed the film series. Its kind of like seeing the marvel characters cross over in each other's respective films.
As long as he makes the dragon look awesome I don't care how many bags of money he wants to toss out of the window.
it will only be a cameo in mirkwood, like saud he can be party of elves that captures the dwarfs or can be have some cameo's besides his dad, but nothing more.
People like Orlando Bloom = More people watch the movie.keideki said:
More people watch the movie = Profit.
And profit is all that counts for big shot moive producers.
Its simple, money i what is most importanbt here so why go round making the hardcore fans happy when he can open up the audience and get more people to watch the movie + make more money as a result.
I know this is pointless because barely anyone seems to be reading the books or the comments, but lets try asking a different question regarding canon, shall we?
Wouldn't it be more innaccurate to have one of the King of Mirkwood's sons mysteriously absent, purely to calm the ragings of pseudo-quasi-hardcore-self entitled fanbois who think they know the books without reading them; and who, for some ridiculous reason think their hatred of Orlando Bloom is relevant to the story or the canon or anything, when it clearly isn't?
Wouldn't it be more innaccurate to have one of the King of Mirkwood's sons mysteriously absent, purely to calm the ragings of pseudo-quasi-hardcore-self entitled fanbois who think they know the books without reading them; and who, for some ridiculous reason think their hatred of Orlando Bloom is relevant to the story or the canon or anything, when it clearly isn't?
Meh, I read both books before they were cool, so allow me to say:
Why the hell shouldn't Legolas be there?
Yes, it is not mentioned in the book that he is there.
But it is resonable to assume that he hangs around in that forest with his folks. Where else is he going to be? Wall-Mart?
This is simply a matter of difference between the medium book and the medium film. When you discribe a scene in a book, like Bilbo walking past a crowd of elves, you don't need to mention that one of the annonymous crowd is actually Legolas, the prince-guy, even though it very well might be.
However, in a film, where everyone needs to have a face, it only makes sense to include Legolas, especially when you can bring another talented actor in on the gig.
Let me phrase it this way: Why exactly is it a bad thing to include him in the movie? Because it is not in the book? Why is that even an argument? Peter Jackson is not going to rewrite the book, the book is fine and will not change. He is not debating the book.
He is making a movie, his movie, and as with the Lord of the Rings Movies he is going to take some liberty in it. And as with the former movies, he will deliver a great movie, not just a screenplay of something you can read.
Seriously. I don't get why these selfproclaimed knights of literacy always are so determinate on the film being word for word like the book. If I want to get these words, I will read the book. If I watch a film, I want an enjoyable film. And frankly, stuff like Tom Bombadill just doesn't work the big screen.
Why the hell shouldn't Legolas be there?
Yes, it is not mentioned in the book that he is there.
But it is resonable to assume that he hangs around in that forest with his folks. Where else is he going to be? Wall-Mart?
This is simply a matter of difference between the medium book and the medium film. When you discribe a scene in a book, like Bilbo walking past a crowd of elves, you don't need to mention that one of the annonymous crowd is actually Legolas, the prince-guy, even though it very well might be.
However, in a film, where everyone needs to have a face, it only makes sense to include Legolas, especially when you can bring another talented actor in on the gig.
Let me phrase it this way: Why exactly is it a bad thing to include him in the movie? Because it is not in the book? Why is that even an argument? Peter Jackson is not going to rewrite the book, the book is fine and will not change. He is not debating the book.
He is making a movie, his movie, and as with the Lord of the Rings Movies he is going to take some liberty in it. And as with the former movies, he will deliver a great movie, not just a screenplay of something you can read.
Seriously. I don't get why these selfproclaimed knights of literacy always are so determinate on the film being word for word like the book. If I want to get these words, I will read the book. If I watch a film, I want an enjoyable film. And frankly, stuff like Tom Bombadill just doesn't work the big screen.
Well, is that really a problem? Jackson proved with the Extended Editions of LotR that he knows how to handle a story. At least for me, everything important was in there and I was really glad Bombadil's gotten the boot. It's one, if not the only, person in books I can say I truly hated. Seeing Radagast would have been nice, but I see why he was left out.
Making Legolas appear emphasises a stronger connection between the two epics. That's allright with me, don't think he'll be in there for long anyway.
Making Legolas appear emphasises a stronger connection between the two epics. That's allright with me, don't think he'll be in there for long anyway.
well Aragorn was alive then, so Legolas would be. i dont think this will ruin the whole film, but might piss people off.SvenBTB said:
Just proves that movie will be shit. I hoped I saw the last of this idiot in the return of the king, Jesus..
It is all well and dandy to make things profit based like this, but I personally can't stand it when a creatively bankrupt director decides to "spice up" the wonderful story of a classic like the Hobbit by adding things that did not occur in the book. While I did not mind most of the added things in LoTR because for the most part it was just expansion on what was there in the subtext or taking away parts that while awesome in the book, might not have translated to the screen too well or did little to nothing in advancing the plot (The house of Tom Bombadil perhaps?) I can't approve of this kind of alteration. By your own logic Orlando Bloom should be in every movie, to increase profit of course.Mackinator said:
Yes he was. Read previous posts. Legolas was one of the princes of Mirkwood, and is mentioned several times in the book. Not by name, of course, but constantly present as the son of Thranduil. I even know this, and I haven't actually read all of the Hobbit. I just know those scenes.Fasckira said:
Yeah they are but they still are born at some point and have to mature (which is at 50 apparently) just thought it would be a cool idea ;Pthahat said:
Hmm now there is one to ponder ... how are Pete and Fran going to get around the fact that in the Hobbit the Wood Elves are actually gits. No more Laa dee Daaing how wonderful are we .. these Elves were nasty Xenophobic pieces of work . ( not up to regular Drow standard but not pleasant none the less).
From memory and it is a loooong time since I read the book ( about 15 yrs) I think Legolas is the son of the Wood Elf ruler in the Hobbit, so maybe there is some reason for his inclusion .. But he would be a young elf ( Orlando in a Nappy ??? ... maybe not quite that young but an amusing thought anyway).
Lets just hope that the big Elven Love in that LOTR films turned out to be is not carried over. Sure Elves are cool, but this movie is about oh lemme see a HOBBIT ( with a few wee dorfs thrown in for good measure).
Anyways I am looking forward to it .. Cast so far seems awesome ;0)
From memory and it is a loooong time since I read the book ( about 15 yrs) I think Legolas is the son of the Wood Elf ruler in the Hobbit, so maybe there is some reason for his inclusion .. But he would be a young elf ( Orlando in a Nappy ??? ... maybe not quite that young but an amusing thought anyway).
Lets just hope that the big Elven Love in that LOTR films turned out to be is not carried over. Sure Elves are cool, but this movie is about oh lemme see a HOBBIT ( with a few wee dorfs thrown in for good measure).
Anyways I am looking forward to it .. Cast so far seems awesome ;0)
From what I've heard from other sites and such, The Hobbit is supposed to be Bilbo having a flashback or something along the lines of that so I guess if they go with that and only show Legolas before the flashback, then it should follow pretty closely with the book. Also I love Legolas so I don't really care if Peter Jackson writes him into the movie.