Mabye some good news for Hobbits!! (1 Viewer)

[Ricardo C]

Ben, a couple comments:


When the dialogue stays true to the source material, there is no problem. When it contradicts the source, or goes off into completely new directions, then there is one. And guess which type Jackson and Co. have shown themselves to favor more.

 

[Brian D H]

Sorry, you'll have to add me to the disappointed list. I love LOTR, but I was really looking forward to that "child's tale" - a simple, 1-movie adventure that I could watch in less than 3 hours (probably closer to 2 in the theatrical version) with my kids.

As it stands it will be years before I'll be showing LOTR to my 4-year-old. I was hoping that the Hobbit WOULD be more of a family movie. (Even if I thought my daughter was ready for the LOTR, I know she'd never sit through the 9-12 hour running time.) We're reading The Hobbit right now with her at bed-time and I know that she'd love THAT movie, but an expanded version would not only go over her head it would pull the focus off Bilbo - and that's the focus of "The Hobbit". It's not the ring, it's not all of Middle Earth, it's simply Bilbo - that's why the title is... "The Hobbit".

 

[JediFonger]

on a semi-related noted, chris tolkien (son of and the executor of The Tolkien Estate) has announced that "The Children of Húrin" will be published next spring. he's been working on it for the past 30 years... it better be good! . i don't think he's as good a philologist as his father. =).

 

[Sean Bryan]

Ah, but the fact that he did that says, well...something. The way I see it, if Tolkien himself went back to The Hobbit to make it fit better with The Lord of the Rings then a precedent has already been set for trying to make the two stories work together as part of a larger piece.

In my opinion, the "lighter tone" of The Hobbit comes from the Narrator and the nature of the story itself. I think it is fair to assume that the Narrator will not be part of a film adaptation, so part of that "children story tone" will be gone just because of that alone.

The story itself is a much more straight forward adventure story which should of course be lighter in tone than the epic drama of The Lord of the Rings. But the two films (The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) should still easily fit together as part of a larger whole.

And remember, Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings was not simply JRR Tolkien's book on film. It was a film adaptation of a novel with omissions, additions and alterations (for better or worse depending on individual opinions) made by the film director whose motivation was to make the best film he could (based on his sensibilities and opinions) with the material he was adapting.

The Hobbit will of course also be a adaptation, not the novel on screen. Whether Peter Jackson does it or someone else does, you have to expect that there are going to be omissions, additions, and alterations to the story based on various demands (running time, etc...) and personal opinions (what the film maker feels works best for the movie, etc...).

And in the world of literature, yes The Hobbit came first and The Lord of the Rings was intended as the follow-up (though it became much more than that). But in the world of the movies, The Lord of the Rings came first and the Hobbit will always be looked at as a "prequel".

That all being said, I see nothing wrong with them making this movie "fit" with "The Lord of the Rings".

Frankly, I don't see that that they have to do any major "gymnastics" to make it so. As I said, much of the lighter, children's story tone was achieved by how the story was being "told to the reader by the Narrator" anyway. So since that is almost certain to not be part of the film, the "tone" will almost by default be less "children's story" and more "fantasy adventure tale" without changing anything of the story.

Keep in mind, most all of the stuff in The Shire with the Hobbits in the early part of the Fellowship of the Ring (movie) had a feel to it that I think fits right in with The Hobbit.

Dwarves were more comical in The Hobbit than in The Lord of the Rings? Yep, but then again when it came time for War in The Hobbit they "serioused up" enough. Plus, in the movie(s) of The Lord of the Rings, Gimli was used of comic relief quite a bit (something not everyone was happy with). So the "less serious" dwarves in The Hobbit aren't all that different in tone than the Gimli portrayed in the LOTR films anyway.

Gandalf should be the same (The Grey, not the White) in character and tone.

Bilbo should be the same in character and tone.

Elrond should be the same in character and tone.

As has been said above, stuff with Laketown, the Battle of Five armies and ending (deaths of several principal dwarve characters) isn't all "children's story" in tone anyway.

So I just don't see the big deal here. It will and should be somewhat different from the LOTR movie(s) because of the story itself. And the tone of the whole won't be as melancholy because of the story itself. It will be more of a fun adventure because the the story itself. But it should certainly feel as if it is part of the same universe/world and part of a "larger whole" without being any more "disrespectful" to the original novel than frankly any film adaptation would probably be anyway. It won't be as "children's booky" because it loses the Narrator story telling of the book and in the world of movies IS a "prequel" to a largely successful PG-13 fantasy adventure epic.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Of course, the only way they should do any more of the Tale of Aragorn Arwen would be if they went with a two films. I think that could be interesting for the "Hobbit/Lord the Rings total package", but it still would be much more of a stretch putting it in the Hobbit since neither Aragorn or Arwen figure into that story. It would probably be best for an extended edition addition if done or if PJ really did want to "beef it up" with additional Tolkien stuff.

I guess it all comes down to which way they decide to go with the film adaptation. If they really want to go for a two film epic, then they certainly could delve more into the Appendices and bring in Saurman, Galadriel and Gandalf at dol guldur expelling "the necromancer"/Sauron and the earlier part of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, etc...

If they are doing a single film, then that stuff is way unnecessary because they have lots of story to get in from the book proper. But the "catch a glimpse of Aragorn and/or Legolas if you look quick enough" cameo would still work fine.

About PJ's comments. I find it kind of odd. I wouldn't have looked at King Kong as being any more of a complex or dramatic story than The Hobbit. If he could do KK then I don't see how he would have any concerns about doing a single film adaptation of The Hobbit as a fun fantasy adventure that ties to his larger work (LOTR) without any head scratching. But I'd also be happy to see things fleshed out.

I guess I'm a little split. On the one hand, I love Tolkien's works and would love to see more of his "larger story" find it's way to film. Since it is extremely unlikely that The Silmarillian or Unfinished Tales will be adapted anytime in the foreseeable future, an "expanded Hobbit" would be a good opportunity to get some of this material on film (at least stuff that has been in the Appendices of the LOTR). On the other hand, it would be nice to have a straight forward adventure tale in one sitting.

But keep in mind that all he's doing now is kicking around ideas and starting (potentially) the creative process. I remember a long interview with him (at AICN, I believe) about his plans for LOTR before he really got going with it, and many of those early ideas didn't go exactly as "kicked around" at that time. He spoke about how when the films were all done, he might want to go back and film lots of additional stuff for an extended edition. Stuff like Gandalf looking for Gollum and Aragorn's capture of Gollum, etc... But as we know it turned out that the actual theatrical films were longer than he thought they'd be earlier on and the extended editions were made much sooner than he had thought earlier. And these EEs were made from stuff from the primary film shoot, not stuff that they went back and filmed later (not talking about the planed pick-ups or the few effect shots filmed specifically for the EEs). So at this early stage, it is way too soon to know how his plans will really shape up if he can actually go forward with this.

And considering what a "Lord of the Rings" film could have been and what PJ impressively managed to deliver not once but three times. He still gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

 

[Richard Kim]

According to MGM:


Here's the link:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1160269092

 

[JediFonger]

ah well, as long as they expand the singing, i'll be OK .

 

[Sean Bryan]

So, has the legal stuff been worked out between NLC and MGM then? Sounds like they are treating it "matter-of-factly" that it will be a joint production.

Sounds more and more likely that this film is going to be made.

Cool.

 

[Brian D H]

I think I have a solution that would please everyone (not that anyone at the Studio is listening to me). Why not go ahead and do two movies and collect the two paychecks; but instead of "Hobbit Part 1" and "Hobbit Part 2", make "The Hobbit" and then "Quest of Erebor"?

The problem with integrating the Quest of Erebor plot into the Hobbit is that it takes the focus off Bilbo, which makes the title rather meaningless. But if "The Hobbit" were one movie and "Quest of Erebor" a kind of interquel second movie you'd solve all kinds of problems. The first movie would still be a stand-alone story that shows what Middle-Earth was before the war; and the second movie wouldn't even need Bilbo to appear since it would focus on Gandalf and the Necromancer. Of course Peter Jackson could then edit the two back together for a 5 hour special DVD and collect an even bigger paycheck.

What do you think?

 

[Ben Osborne]

I think that would yield some interesting results Brian. It would produce some "narrative interlace" that was in the Two Towers book (but not in the movie due to the way Jackson combined the two narratives). I think it would be kind of neat for Gandalf's disappearance in the first movie be explained in the second movie. And if the second movie started out with Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree, where they talk about their plans for Bilbo, it would be a way of explaining the significance of the events in the first movie in the larger scheme of things. That being said, I don't know if there would be quite enough extra-Hobbit material to work in a standalone film.

 

[Brian D H]

Oh, sure there is.

If PJ can edit enough material out of the 3 LOTR movies to later increase them by over two hours total (Theatrical versions vs Extended editions); then surely he can find enough material implied in The Hobbit and written in Unfinished Tales to total at least 2 hours.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the second movie "The Quest of Erebor" (or whatever it's called) ran almost 3 hours. (Heck, lets not forget how long his version of King Kong was when the original was, what?, 80 minutes? And King Kong, whatever your opinion of it, isn't much more than 80 minutes worth of actual plot.)

Hmmm... What else COULD he call the second movie?
"The Quest of Erebor"
"That Wayward Wizard"
"So that's Where 'G' Went!"
"Lord of the Rings: Attack of the Necromancer: Episode I"

EDIT:

 

[PattyFraser]

I'm thinking the first one would be The Hobbit: The Quest of Erebor, and the second The Hobbit: There and Back Again.