Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
Wait -- what if he meant his summer?
Jackson you tricky fiend!
Well, in his summer we'll get the actual film, so not much point in the trailer...
Benedict Cumberbatch interview in Radiotimes. So it appears that Richard Armitage is not the only one whose childhood fantasies were filled with images of pale, enchanted gold, and of long-forgotten treasures laying beneath the Lonely Mountain.
It's heartwarming to know that the film is in such good hands. Not that the latecomers to the tale are any less welcome, of course (to wit, Viggo's excellent turn as Aragorn), but it just gives the filming process an additionnal touch of magic, to know that for some it's the fulfillment of old dreams.
*sighs* I have to wonder at the insistence for a Aragorn cameo when, at this point in the timeline, he'd be a small child or at best a pre-pubescent lad if PJ felt like mucking with the timeliness further. You'd think he would've hinted at it by showing this sole human lad at Imladris for no good reason whatsoever if only to make us wonder if that's who we think it is.
As much as I love Viggo as Aragorn, I don't want him in the Hobbit. At the best, have a teenage human boy run around Imladris in the background, as a nod to the books fans, but I don't think there's any need for the adult Aragorn to appear.
Yes, if Jackson had adhered religiously to the book timeline, Aragorn would be ten years old at the time of The Hobbit. However, Jackson eliminated the seventeen-year time gap between Bilbo's party and "The Shadow of the Past", so that would put Aragorn in his late twenties. Can Viggo play a twenty-seven-year-old convincingly?
With lots of make-up and/or *shudders* CG-assisted de-aging. And we know how *well* that works.
Again, no. No. And NO.
Actually, I would think that the seventeen year gap was compressed to between six months to a year, rather than being eliminated entirely. Remember, it appeared Gandalf was gone for some time before returning to the Shire since he visited Minas Trith, which is a considerable distance to travel and I don't think he had Shadowfax then. He was also looking for Gollum.
Right, that's actually why I used the phrase "in his late twenties" at first, instead of being more specific.
You have remember peejay doesn't actually give a toss about the time line (or the books, really) whatsoever. If he wants Aragorn in, he will be in.
They managed to make Viggo look fairly youngish in that dream sequence from TTT:
Granted, he's now ten years older, but I suppose that with the proper makeup (and no beard) they might make him look appropriately 25-ish, or at least 30-ish. Also, taking into account the fact that he told Eowyn in the TTT EE that he was really 87 years old, if the timeline between the LOTR and Hobbit trilogies is about 60 years, it would be feasible. As a final remark, they might also show him in a vaguely intertrilogy setting, when he goes to seek out Gollum and hands him to the Mirkwood Elves, bridging the time gap at the end of TABA, hinting at the upcoming War of the Ring and giving the reason for Legolas's presence at the Council of Elrond.
That dream sequence in TTT was supposed to take place within FOTR's timeframe (just after the Council), so I'm not sure why he would look any younger than he does in the rest of the trilogy.
You make it sound reasonable, almost attractive, Lauré... ...but no... no. I'd be happier in the long term if he simply didn't show up. Even though I'd secretly be excited about seeing Viggo play Aragorn again, I know I'd regret it afterwards.
If WETA can't convincingly make Christopher Lee look 80, I wouldn't trust them with Viggo.
I thought old Bilbo and Saruman were just fine.
That's fine. I thought they both looked pretty bad, but Saruman's airbrushed face was much more of an eyesore out of the two.
It looks better on BR/DVD than it did a hundred feet tall in the theater. None of the people I watched it on home vid with -- who had not seen the movie in theaters -- even batted an eye at Saruman's smooth cheeks, and these are critical cienastes here. In short, the effect holds up better on the small screen.
This! I've been imagining an "intertrilogy" sequence at the end of Hobbit 3 since the third film was announced. Loose ends and all that. Aragorn would fit right in there.
Maybe Aragorn is a time traveling Doctor Who?
It's The Doctor.
Or a Gallifreyan/Time Lord, if you don't mean the specific person.
No I mean Dr. Whom.
I think someone somewhere (maybe in this very thread!) semi-convinced me that the 17-year gap didn't happen in PJ's FOTR.. But I maintain it's ambiguous enough -- hobbits age slowly, etc. -- that we can imagine we blinked between Gandalf's leaving and Gandalf's return, and 17 years whizzed by.
Frankly I thought the gap was kinda silly when I read FOTR way back when. A year or two, maybe, but 17? That's just poor storytelling, IMO.
Adding a 7 onto an already arbitrary number is poor storytelling? How do you mean?
I'm just sayin', why have a gap at all? One year is much more reasonable a time for all the same events to take place; the trip to Minis Tirith, the hunt for Gollum. Anything longer is too long really, and stretches credulity. What does Frodo do during all that time? If I were him I'd have forgotten about the Ring. It's better flow if it all happens close together. I find it hard enough to believe that the events shown in the film lasted a year. But I like how the film does it, making it all seem more condensed.