• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Triggerhappytel

Member
Edmond Dantès;113520868 said:
EqOCUEy.gif
Click to expand...

I've literally just started watching Sherlock, and this one is so brilliant :)
 
N

Number45

Member
Looking forward to watching this at the IMAX again, regardless of what I think of the film. DoS was my first IMAX film and it certainly looked amazing.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Philippa Boyens on the angst of adaptation

It is the eternal argument - which was better, the book or the film? Should you watch Lord of the Rings first, or read the books? What about Game of Thrones - will reading the books now just ruin the suspense, or will it add to the back story?

Should they even bother making the last Hunger Games into a film?

Since the first film reel flickered into life, it has been an issue to contend with. And in recent years, every second book seems to have been thrown into the widening vortex of film or television adaptation. You cannot go to the movies without running the risk of seeing one of your favourite characters ruined forever, or watching every plotline you love being torn apart for the sake of a speedier narrative. If you think it is tough being in the audience, imagine the pressure brought to bear on the screenwriter or director trying to bring a much-loved book to life - or on the author, forced to relinquish control on a piece of their work.

So what is the recipe for a successful film adaptation? And how do some directors get it so wrong?

Oscar-winning screenwriter Philippa Boyens admits she could not bear to read Lord of the Rings ever again.

Her once-favourite book, which she had already read eight times before agreeing to co-write the screenplays with Sir Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, will never be the same. She has dissected the actions of every dwarf, analysed each fight scene, gleaned minute details of every tree and rock and landscape.

"When you adapt it you kind of lose it forever, because you have a different knowledge of it now," Boyens says.

She is currently in the middle of post-production for the third instalment of the $500 million The Hobbit trilogy, her most recent work. The screenwriter says it is "hugely daunting" approaching a novel, especially one that has given rise to to as many passionate fans as the J R R Tolkien series.

While it was important to keep in mind how beloved the books were, it would be an error to let them dictate your every move, Boyens says.

"There's two ways of approaching it. One is to be fearful of putting a foot wrong, in which case you are dooming yourself to fail anyway. Fran [Walsh] always says by its very nature, taking a book and putting it on screen, you are changing it.

"Your adaptation is just your version of a piece of literature, a piece of work that you love as much as anyone else. You cannot take on the responsibility of making a definitive version of The Lord of the Rings, because you would fail."

The other way is to look for what drives the storytelling, and find ways of getting it across visually. With The Hobbit, this included creating an entire character that does not appear in the book. Tauriel, the fighting elf played by Canadian actor Evangeline Lilly, was designed to bring a "female energy" that was missing from the story, Boyens says.


"When Tolkien wrote the plot he was writing a children's story, he was not conceiving it as a film. He was writing against a visual landscape of his own creation . . . the way I like to think of it is that he did not write her into The Hobbit because he did not need to tell the story in that way - but we did.

"The female energy is great, and she's become one of the most popular characters in the film so I feel like we made the right choice there. It allowed younger women a way into the story, and it also leavened it because you can feel the blokiness of 13 dwarfs after a while."

While it is impossible to ask Tolkien what he thought, other authors have been blunt when it comes to critiquing film versions of their work. In 2009, writer Elizabeth Knox told the Dominion Post she lay in bed and cried for days after watching director Niki Caro's adaptation of her novel The Vintner's Luck. Knox said she was shocked and upset by how much it departed from her story.

"She took out what the book was actually about, and I was deeply surprised and deeply puzzled by it, because I do not know why she did it."

Reviewers echoed Knox's sentiments, with the Hollywood Reporter calling the film "an overblown work of amazing silliness".

Caro declined to be interviewed for this article.

Author Roald Dahl famously said the film version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was "crummy" and vowed never to allow its sequel.

Stephen King hated The Shining, the 1980 feature film written and directed by Stanley Kubrick, despite it arguably being among the greatest horror movies of all time.

But sometimes a screen adaptation not only lives up to the novel, but breathes new life into it. Sales of Witi Ihimaera's Whale Rider skyrocketed when Caro's adaptation of that book hit the big screen in 2002. Nowadays, it is being used as a textbook in English classes as far away as Kenya. But without Ihimaera's involvement, it is doubtful the film itself could have been made. He was associate producer of the project, and says it was important to him his story, a Maori story, was told in the right way.

"John [Barnett, executive producer] had the sense that Whale Rider could be an international film . . . a lot of hopes were riding on this project, so we had to get it right. And it was not easy; to make a film adaptation in New Zealand we had to take hold of that whale and push it all the way across the South Pacific, it felt like." It also meant smoothing over resistance to Caro, a Pakeha, telling a Maori story.

"There are some writers whose experiences with film have not been very good at all, and there are some books that have been made into movies which I do not think do justice to the books. It's kind of a dilemma, and I try to make it less of a dilemma by getting involved."

Writer Lloyd Jones was a script consultant on the film version of Mister Pip, but that was where his input ended. He says while it was "terrifying" watching Mister Pip for the first time, he loved what director Andrew Adamson had done with the film.

"Strangest of all, I think, was seeing the physical embodiment of characters," he says via email.

"Here they were in flesh and voice and clothed and sometimes not quite how I had imagined them. But that is how it is for any reader who in the course of reading creates for themselves the image of the character. It took me a moment to adjust to the idea of Hugh Laurie as Mr Watts, but only a moment. Now I cannot imagine Mr Watts looking or sounding any other way than Hugh's Mr Watts."

As hard as it might be then, maybe the answer for readers - and viewers - is to treat book and film as separate works of fiction. As Boyens says, if Lord of the Rings had been a flop, JRR Tolkien's works would have remained fantastic novels.

"Books are inviolate, you really cannot destroy them - if it's a great piece of literature it will be a great piece of literature forever."
Click to expand...
Link
 
S

StealthGoblin

Banned
Why does The Hobbit need a female energy? I think it says a lot about how she visualises her female audience. 'We need romance' 'We need a kick-ass female like in LOTR' 'We need the Spice Girls!'

I have yet to speak to anyone who has said that Tauriel is one of their favourite characters. By far the most positively spoke of character is Balin
 
A

Aaron

Member
The only interesting character is the elven king. Everyone else is within the bland range of acceptable attitudes. When one of your ostensibly good guys is more menacing than any of your villains, you probably have a problem.

Also, if they're going to throw in a female character, why are there no black characters?
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
no respect for the dwarves after that scene. regardless of how undercooked the characters were i was still rooting for them to get their home back but then with this scene it makes them look like a bunch of quitters.

why is bilbo the one with the most hope? you'd think maybe balin would be rallying these idiots to consider waiting.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
Discotheque said:
no respect for the dwarves after that scene. regardless of how undercooked the characters were i was still rooting for them to get their home back but then with this scene it makes them look like a bunch of quitters.

why is bilbo the one with the most hope? you'd think maybe balin would be rallying these idiots to consider waiting.
Click to expand...

It's to set up the fact that the Dwarves COME BACK AND DON'T GIVE UP like 20 seconds after giving up. Wow. What a reversal from a narrative low-point. Such drama. Much conflict.

Jackson and Boyens are genius screenwriters.

NEXT TIME ON THE HOBBIT!

Balin: "Bilbo! Wait! You forgot your sword!"
*Howard Shore low strums*
Bilbo: "No I didn't!" *Bilbo unsheathes sting*
*Howard shore dramatic reversal Irish flute*
Balin: "Oh..."
 
T

TitusGroan

Banned
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
TitusGroan said:
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
Click to expand...

Shhh.

She empowers a greater percentage of the female demographic to buy a ticket to the movie.
 
F

Finrod

Banned
I dont even have issues with them adding a female character. They just handled her so poorly. A female character does not mean you should also write her a romance story.

By far my favorite character was Thranduil. Lee Pace really outshined everyone in that role.
 
B

brandonh83

Banned
Discotheque said:
no respect for the dwarves after that scene. regardless of how undercooked the characters were i was still rooting for them to get their home back but then with this scene it makes them look like a bunch of quitters.
Click to expand...

Dwarves are dumb and they thought they had lost their chance. They dragged Bilbo along through some serious bullshit and he didn't want to think it was for nothing.
 
L

LurkerPrime

Member
It must be very daunting adapting an established work into a new medium. The balance between faithfulness to the source material and the desire to make a property more marketable must be a difficult thing to do, espcially when one needs to consider fan reaction against changes.

Even in the video game world, where they're simply updating old games within the same medium, things can go terribly wrong. A good example of this is the classic game X-Com: UFO Defense, which had both a marketable adaptation (The Bureau - XCOM: Declassified) and a faithful adaptation (XCOM: Enemy Unknown) developed concurrently. The former and latter adaptations had wildly different receptions by the gaming audience at large, and not in the way you might expect.

Though I suppose the Hobbit is a really unusual example of a literary-to-video adaptation, in that the one book was made into three distinct movies. The first movie (the only one I've seen) seemed sorta long and boring, while at the same time being overly spectacular when you consider what happened. I suppose this means the next two movies are going to be even more action-blockbuster-y...
 
L

Loxley

Member
Scullibundo said:
Of course.
Click to expand...

Much as I liked the film overall, that scene and the one where Tauriel makes gaga-eyes over being able to save Kili after grabbing the Kingsfoil out of Bofur's hands were the two moments I distinctly remembering sighing internally.

However, the book itself isn't 100% immune from the faults of that Durin's Day scene, at least in my opinion. Even though the book has the dwarves more set on reclaiming their treasure as opposed to their homeland, as soon as they finally reach the Lonely Mountain the first thing they do is send Bilbo in while they wait outside. You'd think after such a long journey the first thing they'd want to do is at least, you know, give it a quick look-see. Balin volunteers to go in "a bit of the way" with Bilbo (as he does in the film) but the others - including Thorin - stay behind. Even then, before ditching Bilbo, Balin doesn't offer any sage advice as he does in the film. He pretty much goes "Peace out, good luck." and leaves. I remember reading that and thinking "Really? You guys are just going to wait outside and twiddle your thumbs after all this? Okay....".

Of course, there is the overall difference in how the dwarves are portrayed between the book and the films. In the films they're far more ballsy and badass (despite Balin's claims to the contrary in Bag End in AUJ). The book explicitly states that dwarves aren't heroes and also not particularly reliable - save for Thorin & Co. when you need them to be. And to the film's credit, that moment where Thorin and Balin enter Erebor and are overcome with emotion was a nice touch. Hell, I think the chunk of the film from when the dwarves enter Erebor up to when the dragon chase begins is some of the best material between both AUJ and DOS (sans the Tauriel stuff :p).

TitusGroan said:
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
Click to expand...

Evangeline Lilly said in an interview last year that originally there was no love-connection between Tauriel and Kili, and that it was added during pick-ups. Which is to say that when there were only two films = no love story, but once it became three apparently Jackson & Co felt it was necessary. Although the blame likely lies more in Boyens' hands than Jackson's when it comes to how the Tauriel stuff was done. Jackson has said in the past that he tends to leave that material to Walsh and Boyens.
 
N

Nazgul_Hunter

Member
A straight adaptation of The Hobbit would've made for a good miniseries. As it stands, the stuff that they *have* filmed will probably make for a really good fan edit once all three movies are out. Looking forward to that actually.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.

Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
 
F

Finrod

Banned
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:
I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.

Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Click to expand...

Maybe then we would have gotten Glorfindel instead of Arwen.
Someone i also would have wanted to see on screen was Imrahil, and the knights of Dol Amroth. While i did not mind the way they included Arwen in the movies, certainly better than Tauriel, if removing her would have gotten us either of those things i would be happy with it.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Finrod said:
Maybe then we would have gotten Glorfindel instead of Arwen.
Someone i also would have wanted to see on screen was Imrahil, and the knights of Dol Amroth. While i did not mind the way they included Arwen in the movies, certainly better than Tauriel, if removing her would have gotten us either of those things i would be happy with it.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The inclusion of Imrahil and co would have resulted in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields been dealt with in a far better manner. That was once instance where eucatastrophe was wholly unnecessary.


Meet the man who remade Middle‑earth, an interview with John Howe

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/26/meet-the-man-who-remade-middle.html


Great credit to him, but one mustn't forget the contributions of Alan Lee and Ted Nasmith.
 
W

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
TitusGroan said:
What I don't understand is why would you put in a female character to offset the blokeyness of the story, only to make her a simpering wet cloth whose every action stems from the fact that she's in love with one of the main cast? It's not exactly empowering or 'Sisters doin' it for themselves!' to make your sole female character's every action dependent on her status as a love object.
Click to expand...

If you ignore the love-triangle stuff - as it was originally supposed to be - she is perfectly fine. A no-nonsense bad ass.

Not only is the love-triangle terrible, their hearts are clearly not in it.
 
C

Charles Foster Kane

Rosebud
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:
I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.

Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean, but I think it all comes down to execution. Not that Arwen was particularly remarkable, but Tauriel's inclusion is just more intrusive and out of place. That she is sometimes used to reference earlier films doesn't help.
 
J

jett

D-Member
Edmond Dantès;113595604 said:
Philippa Boyens on the angst of adaptation

Link
Click to expand...

Lolz at the story missing a nebulous female energy. Lawrence of Arabia, one of the greatest movies of all time, does not have or need a female energy. Fuck this bullshit way of thinking. Clearly, they chose the wrong screenwriter.
 
J

Jacob

Member
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:
I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.

Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Click to expand...

I think people responded positively to the inclusion of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen (in modified form, of course) because Aragorn had been made the main character for most of the film trilogy. He's very much a supporting character in the book and as such we get very little insight into his emotions or history. But since he was so much more prominent in the films, we needed to see more of him. (Not that he needed to be more prominent, but that's the road Jackson and Co. chose to take.)

I agree that the lack of genuine Tolkienian material to work with hurts the Tauriel subplot (the worst moments in all of the films tend to be when the screenwriters had to make up stuff on their own), but she's much less central to the narrative than Arwen and feels far more tacked-on. While her canonical status vis-a-vis the book may not be that different from Arwen, her role in the film is since none of the characters in the love triangle could be construed as main characters in these films.
 
C

Curufinwe

Member
I don't see why it's called a love triangle like Legolas is Sawyer and Kili is Jack. Legolas seems to treat her like a sister, and she seems interested in saving Kili's life, not having a relationship with him.

I only saw the movie once six mon ths ago but that's what I recall. Maybe the EE will make things more obvious.
 
L

Loxley

Member
Curufinwe said:
I don't see why it's called a love triangle like Legolas is Sawyer and Kili is Jack. Legolas seems to treat her like a sister, and she seems interested in saving Kili's life, not having a relationship with him.

I only saw the movie once six mon ths ago but that's what I recall. Maybe the EE will make things more obvious.
Click to expand...

Thranduil states that Legolas is very fond of Tauriel (the contextual implication being that he's got a "thing" for her), but Tauriel gives the impression that Legolas has pretty much been Friendzoned. Kili comes off as the kind of guy who would bang anything that moves, and while Tauriel seems like she's got some weird attraction to him, her hesitance to respond when Kili gives his cringe-inducing line about love near the end leads me to believe we're got going to see the "love triangle" progress much further. That said, I'm still pretty much counting on
Kili and Tauriel dying next to each other at the Battle of Five Armies.

Man, even typing that sentence out I felt like was writing some weird shipping fan-fiction. I need to go take a shower.
 
A

Aaron

Member
Turiel is just an empty character without the love triangle. She has some very mild racism to push against, but even that doesn't inform her character. She's very shallow, and brings nothing to the movie but another CG effect to fight other CG effects.

Loxley said:
However, the book itself isn't 100% immune from the faults of that Durin's Day scene, at least in my opinion. Even though the book has the dwarves more set on reclaiming their treasure as opposed to their homeland, as soon as they finally reach the Lonely Mountain the first thing they do is send Bilbo in while they wait outside. You'd think after such a long journey the first thing they'd want to do is at least, you know, give it a quick look-see. Balin volunteers to go in "a bit of the way" with Bilbo (as he does in the film) but the others - including Thorin - stay behind. Even then, before ditching Bilbo, Balin doesn't offer any sage advice as he does in the film. He pretty much goes "Peace out, good luck." and leaves. I remember reading that and thinking "Really? You guys are just going to wait outside and twiddle your thumbs after all this? Okay...."
Click to expand...
This isn't a fault in the book, because in the book the dwarves are assholes. It's clear leading up to that moment that they're going to leave Bilbo to face the dragon alone, justifying it in their own heads that this is the job he's being paid quite handsomely to do. They also have no concept of the actual danger involved. It would have been out of character for them to be more concerned, or even leave any parting advice. Bilbo is the burglar after all. Dwarves aren't going to teach him to burgle.
 
L

Loxley

Member
Weta posted another preview image of their upcoming book The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Chronicles – Cloaks and Daggers, this time featuring Daniel Reeve's calligraphic work.

hhEWMOf.jpg
Click to expand...

Aaron said:
This isn't a fault in the book, because in the book the dwarves are assholes. It's clear leading up to that moment that they're going to leave Bilbo to face the dragon alone, justifying it in their own heads that this is the job he's being paid quite handsomely to do. They also have no concept of the actual danger involved. It would have been out of character for them to be more concerned, or even leave any parting advice. Bilbo is the burglar after all. Dwarves aren't going to teach him to burgle.
Click to expand...

As I said, it was only my opinion. I agree with the bolded completely, but it doesn't change the fact that the first time through that part of the book bothered me for the reasons I mentioned. It actually used to be a bigger nit-pick than it is now. The fact that the film managed to give me the same eye-rolling feeling I had when I read through that part the book (in a bad way), it sort of brought back the initial dislike I had for it to begin with.
 
T

TitusGroan

Banned
Loxley said:
As I said, it was only my opinion. I agree with the bolded completely, but it doesn't change the fact that the first time through that part of the book bothered me for the reasons I mentioned. It actually used to be a bigger nit-pick than it is now. The fact that the film managed to give me the same eye-rolling feeling I had when I read through that part the book (in a bad way), it sort of brought back the initial dislike I had for it to begin with.
Click to expand...

I believe I said this earlier in the thread, but what scene apart is that in the book, the Dwarves are by that point well aware that Bilbo has a ring of invisibility. He was forced by circumstance to reveal it to them during the spider attack. not only that, but they had several first hand experiences of just how truly effective it is. Not only did he securely lead an entire nest of spiders away on his own using the ring, he previously snuck directly into the middle of the Dwarf group and revealed himself without any of them seeing. By the time they get to the Mountain, they know that when he wears the Ring, he's pretty much undetectable.

Add to that again that, unlike the film, by this point in the novel Bilbo has time and again displayed real leadership and initiative. Where DOS shows his prominent scenes to be more akin to Three Stooges bungling, in the book he successfully co-ordinates a counter-attack in Mirkwood, then spends no small amount of time learning the layout of the Elf halls in order to effect a rather impressive jailbreak.

The Dwarves know he's a bad-ass. But here's the thing: Bilbo still calls them out , and the narrator still comments on the fact, that they're sending him in first. Which really is the key difference. Bilbo tells them that he already thinks he's earned his share, and Tolkien comments on the more calculating nature of Dwarves, but at the very least when he does go down the tunnel, we're in no doubt that he's as well equipped as any of the Dwarves (and likely a good deal moreso) to deal with whatever happens next.
 
T

TitusGroan

Banned
Edmond Dantès;113623030 said:
I wonder how people would feel if the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen has been omitted from the Lord of the Rings trilogy as per the novel, where it was only alluded to in the narrative, but never really touched upon. Only in the appendices did Tolkien feel the need to include it. A narrative cord of insignificant value elevated at the expense of other cords that certainly would have improved The Return of the King. Arwen added nothing of real note to the films, certainly far less than the established female characters of Galadriel and Eowyn.

Tauriel is no worse than her, and what separates them is the failure of the scriptwriters. This time they didn't have a Tolkien source to fall back on, hence a derivative of something that already felt tacked on in the predecessor trilogy.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the failure of the writers is the very thing that makes Tauriel worse than Arwen. Liv Tyler may not have had a huge amount to do in the LOTR films, but she at least pulled the role off with grace, and her character was responsible for some key actions (the reforging of Narsil, for instance, much as I hate how they changed that from the book). Tauriel is just a Mary Sue with nothing to her actions beyond "Loves Kili/Friendzoned Legolas"
 
W

WanderingWind

Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Arwen served a purpose in the extended cut of the movies, at the very least. The scene with her and the aged Aragorn showed the real cost of her decision and the very real difference between the elves and humans. It was a microcosm of the greater changes that were going to happen in Middle Earth, no matter what.

Tauriel is just Spice Girls-level grrrrrl power kicked up to 12 with absolutely no redeeming quality and signifies nothing more than the start of another dull, overly long action sequence.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Having seen Gladiator live in concert, the more I would like Lisa Gerrard to finish off the trilogy. Her vocals are supreme, and her language almost as pleasant to the ears as Quenya.
 
A

Altazor

Member
Edmond Dantès;113925754 said:
Having seen Gladiator live in concert, the more I would like Lisa Gerrard to finish off the trilogy. Her vocals are supreme, and her language almost as pleasant to the ears as Quenya.
Click to expand...

Lisa has a beautiful voice. I'd love for her to be in the last movie, but I think they'll go for another male vocalist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What's the consensus on The Hobbit trilogy these days?
2
80
3K
Griffon replied
  • Locked
Rumor: God of War trilogy remaster in the works
2 3
148
9K
Majormaxxx replied
According to Bioware project director, Mass Effect 5 will be made by the original Mass Effect Trilogy veterans
News Game Dev 2
83
3K
violence replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Pre orders for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Legends of the Zone Trilogy have gone live in Japan
Rumor
37
2K
amigastar replied
Top Bottom