There is a place called Bucklebury (or was it Buckleberry?) in LOTR. That's really cool. Do you know anything about the history of the place? I wonder if Tolkien's place was named after it, or if it was named in honor of Tolkien.

~Riella

Considering that Bucklebury was first recorded in the Doomsday Book (you know, the one from 1086) I would say that it was named a bit before Tolkien's time.

And to make this post have some relevancy, I will say that I finished my newly-annual summer re-reading of LotR, and I very much enjoyed it. There were definitely some passages that struck me as quite beautiful. Now at some point I hope to re-watch the films, but I'm not sure when that will be.

This looks interesting, and if it proves to be as the article says it will be—faithful to the book!—methinks I may greatly and appreciatively enjoy it. And, whoa, does this Fili ever look different from PJ's Fili. To my taste, this depiction of that dwarf is much more preferable.

Ooh! That does look like it has potential, Jo. Though I must say, I hope the narrator is different in the actual film. There's just something a bit off to me about his voice.

Ditto, st. That voice did not resonate properly with me either. Here's hoping there will be a more compelling and engaging replacement.

New Desolation of Smaug poster....
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/08 ... rt-poster/

What does everyone think? I think it's ok. It reminds me a lot of the VDT poster that I liked.

Yes, it does seem reminiscent of that poster, FK. I think it's probably the best they could have done to emphasize Smaug without revealing him in all his glory.

I think there might have been a VDT poster in a similar vein to this poster, and I recall liking that one. I like this one too. I like it for the simplicity -- it isn't crowded with pictuers of all the different characters. Yet it has depth, if someone looks close enough. (It took me a minute of staring to see what appears to be Bilbo in Smaug's eye!)

I appreciate the emphasis on Bilbo and Smaug, considering that a lot of other promotional material for this movie has focused on other characters like Tauriel. This poster could get a person (especially someone who hasn't read the book) wondering about the connection between Bilbo and Smaug, and what exactly Bilbo's role is going to be in the upcoming film. (After all, after seeing AUJ, I'd almost think that they might decide to put Thorin in Smaug's eye instead. )

The poster also doesn't show too much of Smaug. I still wish they hadn't shown so much of him in the trailer. That continues to surprise me that they showed nearly his entire head. If I hadn't seen that, then after viewing this poster I would be even more excited to see exactly what Smaug looks like.

Is this the one? I found that very effective ... as I find the new Hobbit poster as well. Yep, it took me a wee bit to see Bilbo reflected in Smaug's eye there especially when it was just the thumbnail, the first time I saw it. Pretty cool, yeah!

The new poster is nice. I like the colors.

I liked that fan-animated trailer. The drawings were far more detailed than I expected. I rather liked the narrator's voice: it sounds stiff and formal which does suit Thorin's character.

I really like the newest poster, now the question is which one will they display @ the cinema? I'm waiting for the day when I walk by and see it.

***
Not to be the bearer of bad thoughts, but have we ever taken into consideration that Tauriel may die? I'm all for it, personally. I mean, I quite like her for a non-cannon character, but I think it would help make it seem more connected to the previous LOTR films, where there is obvioulsy no mention of her. Any thoughts?

Not to be the bearer of bad thoughts, but have we ever taken into consideration that Tauriel may die?

I was thinking the same thing.

I see no reason to kill Tauriel off. There's enough death already in the Battle of Five Armies. As for her not appearing in LotR that's easy to explain. The only Mirkwood Elf who had a major role in both the books and movies was Legolas. Keeping that in mind, there's no need to come up with an explanation for why she didn't appear in the previous films because she was probably kind of busy defending Mirkwood.

I'm still withholding judgement on whether I like her or not until I see her do more than say cliche lines in a trailer.

Is this the one? I found that very effective ... as I find the new Hobbit poster as well. Yep, it took me a wee bit to see Bilbo reflected in Smaug's eye there especially when it was just the thumbnail, the first time I saw it. Pretty cool, yeah!

That's the one I was thinking of.

Not to be the bearer of bad thoughts, but have we ever taken into consideration that Tauriel may die? I'm all for it, personally. I mean, I quite like her for a non-cannon character, but I think it would help make it seem more connected to the previous LOTR films, where there is obvioulsy no mention of her. Any thoughts?

From what I've seen so far of Tauriel, I'm not fond of her. She seems rather cliche. However, daughter of the King makes a very good point about withholding judgment on her until we see her do more.

As to whether she should die -- at first, I thought I wouldn't mind this so much, seeing that as I just said, I'm not very fond of her character. But depending on how her death scene would be written (such as when it would end up occurring -- probably the Bo5A), it's possible that it would end up taking away from

. Considering the fact that Tauriel is non-canon, now I find myself hoping that she really doesn't die!

Besides, I also recall a rumor saying that Radagast might die. Even if I dislike what has been done with his character (I'm not really certain what to think), I hope that he doesn't die. Would either Radagast or Tauriel dying really play any vital part in the story? I doubt it.

So, has anyone else seen this yet? It is an article that I found on TORN which discusses why the changes in The Hobbit movie could actually be a good thing.

Besides, I also recall a rumor saying that Radagast might die. Even if I dislike what has been done with his character (I'm not really certain what to think), I hope that he doesn't die. Would either Radagast or Tauriel dying really play any vital part in the story? I doubt it.

Radagast shouldn't die - even in movie LotR Gandalf mentions him, doesn't he? He must be alive then, Peter Jackson cannot kill him off. In book LotR he actually plays a part (although only told in retrospect), in the movie he's never seen, but I'm sure he's mentioned.

So, has anyone else seen this yet? It is an article that I found on TORN which discusses why the changes in The Hobbit movie could actually be a good thing.

Thanks for the link! I hadn't seen it before. It's an interesting article.
It's easy to forget that many movie-goers need a proper introduction to the characters, they don't go "Oh, that's Balin, we will see his tomb in the next movie" - they need more time to get to know him and to feel connected to him.

And let's face it, Tolkien doesn't do much to have the reader get to know the Dwarves in The Hobbit. It's a children's book, a fairytale, and the publishers didn't want it to be too big and too wordy. There's a bunch of Dwarves, they've got funny names, one of them is very fat and another is the leader, and that's about it.

Peter Jackson's Dwarves are much more memorable.

Interesting article. I understand most of his points but there are a few I just don't agree with.

1. The writer leaves very little room for criticism of the films. Okay, yeah, you can justify making the changes to the story for the screen, but that doesn't mean that book enthusiasts should not be allowed to criticize the changes. I can dislike the movie without being a "book purist".

2. This part:

The Thorin Oakenshield of the book hardly comes across as a great leader given his inability to treat anyone with dignity and respect. Had Richard Armitage been asked to play Thorin exactly like the character in the book people would have hated him for destroying the character; instead, he brought Thorin to life and probably portrayed Thorin closer to how Tolkien imagined a great descendant of Durin’s Line than most people see in the literary story.

Thorin not being a great leader was extremely important in the book. He never would have made it to the Lonely Mountain without Gandalf and Bilbo. Book!Thorin is rash, inexperienced, and too self-confident. That's one of the reasons

is so poignant. He finally learned what true leadership looked like. Movie!Thorin by contrast still feels like an Aragorn stand-in to me.

And let's face it, Tolkien doesn't do much to have the reader get to know the Dwarves in The Hobbit. It's a children's book, a fairytale, and the publishers didn't want it to be too big and too wordy. There's a bunch of Dwarves, they've got funny names, one of them is very fat and another is the leader, and that's about it.

Peter Jackson's Dwarves are much more memorable.

I don't know about more memorable (it's hard to forget a wandering minstrel band with multi-colored beards and hoods ), but certainly more distinguishable. I do like that Jackson expanded the Dwarves' personalities a bit. I think that was necessary. Still doesn't change the fact that the story should be more about Bilbo than "the Dwarves reclaiming their homeland" (Book!Dwarves always struck me as being a bit more concerned about reclaiming gold than anything else).