"We are respecting the structure established by Professor Tolkien because the order of the adventures in the Hobbit is well known...But we will be integrating Gandalf's comings and goings because he does disappear in the book quite often."

I think so. I hope so. At least that's the way we're approaching it...there is no way to have a dragon attack a town that's not scary...there is no way of maing giant spiders cocooning people so it would be gentle!"

We are not trying to make a quadrilogy or a pentology. We're trying to make two films that flow with those but that stand on their own completely. We want to avoid stuff that is not part of the DNA...but we don't want people to feel "We've seen this." Except where that familiarity is comforting, like Hobbiton or Rivendell."

"I think the Hobbit is a bit more colourful. And a bit more operatic. And whimsical."

"It has a little bit more flamboyance"

Thanks; even though interviews of this kind are usually relatively useless to gain new info as the interviewee is always so reluctant to give away spoilers, I did enjoy reading it.

So, is the second Hobbit movie going to be called The Hobbit 2, or a more clever title such as The Fall of the Necromancer?

perhaps they can call 1 of them 'There and back again'...? would be cool I guess^^
but nice article indeed (:

And Smaug took about a year to design and is different to any dragon ever made before. (Which we have heard before I think.)

I know someone working on that movie ill try and weasel some info out of 'em

Seriously, no, I'd like to hear what he knows.

introduce some stupid jar jar esque charecter

hardcorehibee84 wrote:
introduce some stupid jar jar esque charecter


Meesa Smaug-smaug Binks!