The Hobbit (merged thread) - Page 9

I completely agree with Ernest that the movie would need to stick to the theme of the book. The point is to follow Bilbo, not to follow the ring. Hell, since ridiculously long film titles are all the rage these days, I'd even title the movie: 'There and Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale', instead of 'The Hobbit'. One thing I would certainly not do is move in a direction where the film may as well be called: 'Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit'. That is where you seem to want to head, Jason.

In my previous post I acknowledge that The Hobbit came before The Lord of the Rings.

I also state:


And so it would remain in my film version of The Hobbit nothing changes that way. I agree it would be inappropriate for any character to suggest that Bilbo's ring is the One Ring. That gives away too much of LOTR. What does change is that the Necromancer is explained to be Sauron, we learn of his rise and his expulsion, and we get background from the White Council. That's all there is to it. In dual narrative form we can switch from one cliffhanger to another, maintaining the form of the latter two books.


Very true, though I would argue that Tolkien gave Gandalf a purpose to send Thorin on his quest when he created the story of Dol Guldur.

Sometimes I think you all have me dressing Bilbo in silver sequins backed by tuxedoed dwarves singing Hindi Sad Diamonds at the Imladris Drag Festival.

I do have to admit, that made me laugh. lol

I think there's too much of a tendancy to want to "change" The Hobbit to better fit LOTR.

I don't think that should be the case.

The Hobbit has its own charm and style and a more focused narrative.

I *like* the fact that in the Hobbit we get to see a Middle-Earth that's not all "doom-n-gloom", but told from a more innocent and wonderous point of view (which is Bilbo's POV).

I think weighing down the story with backstory would ruin the story's original charm and streamlined appeal. This is Bilbo's story and sometimes less is more.

I think of course, there has to be some things that tie the Hobbit and LOTR together, but I think that's more in tone. The Hobbit as a movie might have a slightly more "neutral" tone and perhaps a few references or "set ups" for LOTR movie afficandos, but that should be the extent of it.

As The Hobbit is quite episodic as a novel, a film version would work well presented in discreet episodes. This is probably why Mr. McKellen suggested a TV mini-series for the Hobbit story.

Could a TV mini-series justify the type of budget and undertaking necessary to do The Hobbit justice? I doubt it, but an episodic film release would. Two to three 90-120 minute episodes would provide ample time to cover the events of the book, as well as justify the requisite budget.

What is much more likely is a single 2.5 to 3 hour movie where a few cuts are made but the tone and spirit of the story remain intact.

David

Perhaps some of the issues Jason mentions should be done via a prologue and/or epilogue, with voice-over.

"As The Hobbit is quite episodic as a novel, a film version would work well presented in discreet episodes."

It's no more episodic than Fellowship of the Ring. If Jackson gets the rights, then his Hobbit will be a single movie - not a multi-part movie, not a TV series, but a single movie.

Personally I’ll be pleased if Jackson and co. can make a film that reminds me as much of the book, as the LOTR reminded me of those books.

Not a challenge Jason, but a film made along the lines you suggest would most likely not remind me of The Hobbit.

You guys are right in that CJRT (stingy and bitter bastard that he is) holds the rights to Unfinished Tales. However, some of those events are told in the entries to the Tale of Years in the appendices to the LOTR, so it's possible to add some of that in (without using the dialogue from Unfinished Tales).

I went over The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to see what was there. Appendix B in The Return of the King and page 263 of The Fellowship of the Ring refer to the Necromancer being Sauron, Gandalf meeting Thrain II in the dungeons of Dol Guldur where he receives the key of Erebor, the flight of Sauron to Mordor, Saruman overriding Gandalf and the beginning of his own search for the One Ring, Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree, and the attack of the White Council on Dol Guldur.

It's there. I don't see any reason the material couldn't be used. If Jackson et al were able to use the appendices from Lord of the Rings, then there is no reason they couldn't revist the material. This raises my hopes immeasurably. Now I just have to figure out a way to publicize it .

"It's there. I don't see any reason the material couldn't be used."

Because, for the umpteenth time, it has nothing to do with Bilbo Baggins. THAT'S the reason that continues to be expressed, and yet you pay no heed and continue to set yourself up for a giant disappointment. The charm of the book would be lost by throwing in all of this terciary backstory, turning the sweet adventure The Hobbit into an urgent, war-filled LOTR prequel.

I tend to agree with Jason. Ernest, I would support your POV more if The Hobbit had been the first book filmed. It wasn't. So the release pattern of the books is irrelevent -- Jackson's MOVIE of The Hobbit is a SEQUEL to the Lord of the Rings films... and he will need to treat it accordingly.

I don't know about Dol Guildor, but I absolutely do think Jackson should at least make sure the audience knows that the Necromancer is Sauron and that Gloin is Gimli's father. Why would he not?

Tolkien got around the revisions he made to riddle game in The Hobbit by saying Bilbo had lied to Gandalf and the Dwarves and even in his own journal about how he obtained the ring, implying that the ring was working its evil on him already.



Not originally... but what does Gandalf say in FOTR, which I think is from the book? "Bilbo was meant to find the ring, in which case you also were meant to have it."

questions:
has New Line and MGM ever coproduced movies before? which right is deemed as more valubale, distibution or production? (although since you need both, does it really matter?) why isn't it as simple as 50/50? perhaps because New Line thinks they should get more out of the pie since they made the franchise what it is?

"So the release pattern of the books is irrelevent -- Jackson's MOVIE of The Hobbit is a SEQUEL to the Lord of the Rings films... and he will need to treat it accordingly."

Not if he has any intentions of being faithful to Tolkien's published book.

Well, Jackson did many things in the LOTR films that were not faithful to Tolkien's book.

I'm certainly not saying he should change anything about the PLOT, mind you. Like I said, I don't know about Dol Guldor or whatever the hell it's called. But I'm not at all against his throwing in a line or two to let the audience know who is who in relation to the trilogy.

Ernest, you've stated that, "books are not movies", I agree. That very assertion guarantees that the book MUST be different from the movie to be a good and successful movie.

Jackson has to create a believable and continuous world that will fit with The Lord of the Rings. I believe that creating that world, making the story more complete, with story arc from beginning to end (as a good story should)and more tightly integrated with The Lord of the Rings is what will make The Hobbit a good movie. Jackson's four Tolkien films will be taken as whole as the four books are. There are two different stories but each is an adjunct to a greater history that encompasses Middle Earth. We cannot get around that. Tolkien himself created events parallel to Bilbo's storyline to better explain that history and how the The Hobbit storyline is part of the overarcing storyline which begins with the Silmarillion and doesn't end until Gimli and Legolas sail to Valinor. The storyline of The Hobbit serves the history of Middle Earth; all the books do. Maybe it wasn't intended to do so when Tolkien first wrote it, but that's what he made it become. The history of Middle Earth is the main theme which is why they were written as romances (in the literary sense), not novels. To truly serve Tolkien is to bring as much of that history to life as possible.

The Hobbit does not exist independently of the world in which it exists. Bilbo doesn't either. To say that the events of Dol Guldur have nothing to do with Bilbo is ignoring that the story of Bilbo has an enormous impact on Middle Earth. Thorin & Co. only go to Erebor because Gandalf finds Thrain II and gets the key to the secret door. Gandalf leaves the company specifically to assist with the attack on Dol Guldur. In the book it's believable but in a movie Gandalf disappearing only to reappear later and say something to the effect, "I had other things to do" without any explanation, is a lame plot device.

Film is a medium that commands an explanation of every plot point lest the believability fail. A tight prequel or sequel is one that follows everything that was brought to light in the other episodes. The film must bond each reappearing character and each plot point, piece by piece, lest it become a clumsy exercise that loses believability. Film does not have the luxury of time that books do or the ability to fully narrate what the author wants to convey. Those things must happen through on-screen plot and characterization. Since sequels necessitate continuity and since film requires on-screen action to express plot, it is of the utmost narrative importance that The Hobbit, on film, explain exactly how it fits into the bigger picture.

The events that take place during The Hobbit, including the White Council and the events at Dol Guldur are faithful to Tolkien's vision. The added plot points, the change in Bilbo's accession of the ring, his lying to Gandalf, and the contents of Appendix B in The Lord of the Rings are his final vision of that piece of history. To remain faithful to Tolkien means being faithful to the history of Middle Earth and the characters he's created. Jackson has not been faithful to the books as written, as it would have been impossible and introduced some corny elements that take being in the midst of reading to relate to the story. Bombadil on screen would have not worked at all unless he was significantly changed. You can argue that the Arwen storyline was in the book but he purposely supplanted Glorfindel for no other reason than to introduce her. Within the film it works, though it's completely contrived. As I have not suggested anything that is not in the canon means my vision is faithful as well as being more complete and better integrated with the films that follow than the book could do on its own. It also allows for some really awesome screen events that, in the proven hands of Jackson and WETA, will keep audiences happy as well as serve a plot point for events to follow in the next films.

If I'm disappointed by the results then I am. I'm sincerely touched by your concern for my expectations but I do realize it's just a movie. I'll live. I have to say also that you do not, unless you have some inside information, know just what it is Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens have planned. I don't think even they do at this point, but if you do please tell us! I will, however, do my best to let them know why I think my vision of The Hobbit will the best one.

Well, we're at swordpoints over this, so I'll let it go. I really don't care -- if they make a screwball version of the Hobbit with all this terciary dark Sauron junk, that's their right, I guess. The rest of us who wish for a quality adaptation of the book Tolkien actually wrote -- not the gaping laborious mythology Tolkien invented years afterwards -- will just have to deal with it.

I think another problem is if you divide the Hobbit into two films is you get into over-saturation territory IMO.

Right now, with *casual* movie-goers, the LOTR trilogy holds a lot of sway, but the general public (not Tolkien's existing fanbase) is fickle and I think two movies just for the Hobbit is overkill.

Surely, I don't think swordpoints. I enjoy debating things like this. If I go on too long then I apologize but I really want to be sure I'm expressing exactly what I intend and that others understand it. I've enjoyed our debate and you, and others have made me think about some things I didn't before... and that's what good debates do. There's nothing personal about it even if I've come to appreciate your sig .

Pete, that's a good point but I say leave 'em with cliffhangers. If it's as tight and thrilling as I believe it can be, then a second film would be more than welcome. Since it'll be a few years, Tolkien-fatigue won't be as much of a concern as it could be if it was to come out this winter.

Well, I've ignored this thread, thinking it was just a discussion about the legal issues between MGM and NL - now I discover there was all this conflict going on. Man, have I been missing out.

Anyway, personally, I would like some reference to the events that Gandalf followed. I think to a degree they need to be followed - because otherwise you have Gandalf coming along for a while, then running off somewhere for a while, then turning up later, and saying "Oh, we just fought Sauron". That is what you get in the book (OK, Sauron is actually called The Necromancer in the book, but that will change). It's not that satisfying, to be honest - it basically seems like they're writing Gandalf out just to make things difficult for the dwarves and to force Bilbo to become the hero. Now, by including material about the attack on Sauron from the LOTR Appendices, not only does it provide a stronger connection to LOTR (and provide an excuse for appearances for Saruman and Galadriel), it explains why it was so improtant that he leave the party. And you could probably cover that ground in 10 or 15 minutes. No need for a huge Helms Deep-style battle for this attack, because we have the Battle of the Five Armies coming up. It wouldn't destroy the balance of the film, which should definitely be on Bilbo, it would just make make Gandalf's actions more understandable.

That said, I truast PJ to do whatever should be done. And there's two years to go before he even thinks about The Hobbit - plenty of time to argue these points.

A friend of mine sent me this article from one of our local newspapers.

I totally see the points of views that both Jason and Ernest are coming from and both are completely legitimate and valid.

Personally speaking, I hope PJ does include the tertiary stories of Dol Goldur and what not.

I enjoyed reading the Hobbit very much, and would not change one thing in the book (okay, maybe less songs ) but it also launched me into reading LoTR and then a lot of Tolkien's other works and collected notes.

So the film version of the Hobbit that I want to see is sort of a part-adaptation, but also part-expansion of the whole Middle Earth story.

I can completely understand those who want a faithful adaptation of the book, and I wouldn't be disappointed at all with that result. But I certainly wouldn't mind if PJ and company were able to put some more of the "epic" stuff in there to make the movie of The Hobbit to be a true part of the LoTR movie series. I do understand that the book was more an intimate one-man's-journey affair, but the movie can be a bit different in order to fit more with the scheme of what's already on film.

He started inveting it before The Hobbit, be developed it after The Hobbit. At the beginning, The Hobbit wasn't really part of the whole mythology. Actually, the earliest editions of the book have a different story about the acqusistion of the ring. i.e. Gollum gave it of his own free will. As we know now, this doesn't fit, so he changed it.

It was Braindead for me. That movie was the reason I got a laserdisc player since lasers were cheaper than rental VHS. I loved the LOTR but I want to see an ORIGINAL Peter Jackson film sometime soon.


-Ian

My problem is that--if we cut away from Bilbo and the Dwarves to follow Gandalf--won't that essentially make Bilbo and the Dwarves mission/journey seem pretty small in comparison? I mean, Gandalf and the elves are FIGHTING SAURON HIMSELF. We cut away from the dwarves fighting a dragon to get their dough back, to a direct confrontation with Sauron, and then cut back to fighting a dragon for money?

Going in-depth into the Sauron confrontation at Dol Guldur might serve to completely undermine the rest of movie's progression.

I dunno. I DO know that Jackson and I think Boyens have said that adapting the Hobbit would actually be HARDER than adapting any book from LOTR.

Robert, although as I said before I wouldn't mind seeing the extra footage, I do think you have a great point with regards to all the "epic" other stuff potentially diminishing Bilbo's quest (which after all is the whole point of the book).

I do think if they had made The Hobbit first, they definitely should have stayed true to the book (to the extent possible). Unfortunately "the cat's out of the bag" so to speak, since the LoTR movies are finished (and the E.E. expands even more on the world). I think any "mass" audience (i.e. people who aren't as familiar or have never read The Hobbit) would expect something epic-y because they would see it less as a prequel and more as an addendum to the story of Middle Earth.

Ben, you make some good points, but stop and think for a sec about regular audiences watching this. They're not gonna know that Smaug is more of a threat than Sauron himself is. People just got done watching one of the bigger cinematic achievements of all time, and the title character of that film series IS SAURON. Audiences are going to hear that Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel are going to actually be FIGHTING this thing, in the middle of the Hobbit, we're going to see it--and then happily go back to the dragon guarding the gold?

I don't think they'll go for it. Audiences will know what Sauron is and how important he is--they're not going to like only dealing with him for 2 minutes like the attack on Isengard, and they're not going to like being told this money-hungry dragon is actually more important than Sauron. They're familiar with dragons. They're familiar with Sauron. They know one carries more weight than the other, and it's not the overgrown snake that Lancelot fought in those other stories.

It's going to set the audience up for disappointment the whole way around. If they finally get into the idea of Bilbo going on this quest, investing in Bilbo, they're not going to want to cut away--until you tell them that it's Gandalf and Elrond kicking Sauron's ass. But THEN they'll be disappointed because they mop him up real quickly. And THEN they'll be even more disappointed because not only has the big baddie been dispatched pretty quickly, now they have to go back to this story about the hobbit and the dragon.

I don't see audiences being too pleased by that. Better to have Gandalf hurry away quickly, come back and ominously hint at something, give audiences JUST enough to guess that he had to deal with something of Sauron's doing. That way you don't lose focus of Bilbo's journey, and you don't lose the audience by teasing them with some sort of big epic battle between good and evil and showing them 5 minutes of a fairly one sided fight.

It's a rough tightrope to walk.

All I know is....

The animation of Smaug could be cooler than any of the beasts in the LORT movies. The only monster in the first series that could possibly compare with Smaug the Magnificent is the Balrog, and it's so cloaked in shadows that you don't get a really good look at it.

Smaug has the potential to be the most awesome computer generated monster ever. And he's going to have plenty of screen time and lots of lines. The only onscreen dragon that can compare is the evil witch in "Sleeping Beautiy" who is pretty horrible.

The Battle of five armies will be awesome.

I want to see the Goblin King also.

Man, a bunch of little (compared to Shelob) spiders.

Somehow they could work Legolas into the Mirkwood scene. The Mirkwood sequence would give LOTR some much needed background into the enmity between dwarves and elves.