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

[JohnDG]

Damn: I'm going to have to re-listen. I could have sworn he stated that they decided not to have multiple glowing swords, as it would be too much like Star Wars. Sting was the only sword to glow in the films.

jdg

 

[PattyFraser]

I thought it was just another conscious choice decision made not to confuse the "Tolkien virgins." Like the fact that this was also Frodo's birthday as well as Bilbo's, and they didn't acknowledge that at all.

 

[Andy Sheets]

AICN's been doing their interview with Jackson all week and they finally got around to talking about The Hobbit. Jackson says no one's called him and he seems to have mixed feelings about doing it. It's a lot of work to take on after being running ragged so long but he also sounds like he could get up for if he could think about how to work it.

What struck me, though, is that a lot of his statements and off the cuff ideas seem tilted toward "getting the band back together", replicating the LOTR filming experience, instead of adapting the story. As short a book as it is, there's a lot of plot in The Hobbit and while I'm sure Viggo Mortenson's a neat dude, I'm not sure Jackson should be thinking about trying to squeeze in scenes of Aragorn "protecting the Shire" or some such just so they can work together again.

 

[PattyFraser]

Andy
I'd agree it wouldn't be a good idea to have "the old gang" back where it would be inappropriate, i.e. Viggo. He was just a young lad during the events of "The Hobbit". But I think Chris Lee, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett, the Sir Ians, Andy Serkis. Orlando and maybe JRD could fit in easily. Arwen was reputed to be in Lothlorien at that time frame, so she shouldn't be in there. And I think it would be counterproductive to have the other hobbits in there, much as I like them. Yes, there were other hobbits in The Shire at that time (maybe they could stick in the Gaffer) but of course the younger hobbits weren't around and should not be in it (not even as their own ancestors.)

I had thought it possible that Phil, Fran and PJ had a makeshift script already to hand, in anticipation of doing this project, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so it would still need a long period of adaptation, during a time period where it seems they are, although interested in The Hobbit, already mentally committed to, and excited about, other projects. Now, for the first time, I'm thinking someone else may actually end up doing this movie. And I'd worry for its success, cause many fans, myself included, are kind of wedded to PJ's vision of Middle-earth.

 

[Ricardo C]

Except for the fact that Saruman, Galadriel, and Gimli are all absent from the book.

If they try to turn The Hobbit into "LOTR: Episode I" by shoving the fan favorites into the script, it's gonna be a disappointment, because the story is not suited for that type of treatment. The Hobbit is a different animal, and should be treated as such.

 

[DavidPla]

Agreed. The film shouldn't focus on the rise of Sauron or even much on the ring at all. It should be about Bilbo and those dwarves trying to get their gold back.

 

[PattyFraser]

It would be a disappointment to you and many other fans, maybe. There are fans who are disappointed with the "Rings" adaptations, too.

But I know I don't need to remind you that there are other fans, many of them, and I am one, who would like to see this movie gently tweaked to be the prequel to LotR that story-wise it is, even if the tone is indeed different and it was originally not writen as a pre-quel to anything. I think Fran, Phillipa and PJ are clever enough to accomplish both. No, the actual discussions at the White Council are not "in the book". But we know it happened. I think it would not be a bad move to tell this story and include this part, since its inclusion would not even be the "stretch" of imagination that including Arwen coming to the rescue and not Glorfindel was. Or the bit where both Gollum and Frodo both fall off the cliff. There are many fans of the movies who have never read the books, and they would probably better relate to "The Hobbit" as a prequel, too, making it more marketable to do it this way.
I love "The Hobbit", but I don't feel it has to be completely child-like in the telling.
The differing paradigms to how this movie should be adapted will be many, I think.

 

[Ricardo C]

Unfortunately for them, only mine is right (And before this gets used against me, I guess I'll clarify it's just a joke)

 

[Chris Will]

Amen to that!!

 

[PattyFraser]

"I'm not going to argue which position has more fans on its side. Invoking the support of the masses says nothing of the quality of the argument."

Yoo-hoo, Richard. Reread my post. I mentioned nothing about either side having more fans. That's a pointless argument. I just reminded you that there is another side to this -and in fact hey, it may have as many members as you.
If (and right now it only looks like IF) this movie gets made, and by the Rings folks, we are all pretty much going to have to make some adjustments.

Yes, I think some things are left out for a reason. But I also know that when you move a book to the screen you may have to add dialogue that isn't there in order to move the story along or make it more widely understandable. I don't have a problem with it, or I'd never watch movies adapted from books, cause there's always something changed about it. But I've gotta admit Xena-Arwen , if it had happened, I wouldn't have been able to accept!

What could be best for the story is something that brings the non book readers in, develops the story, or fills in the gaps and answers questions that you'd know the answer to only if you saw the other movies or read the books. Like it or not, these stories are related. And what is most marketable (and they've got to make money) is what makes the most people understand it.

I know you were joking about that last statement. But I think none of us fans will get exactly what we want. Let's just hope "done right" translates to something we can all enjoy.

 

[JediFonger]

i'm a huge fan of LOTR (the book) and middle earth (sil, hob, bios of JRRT, letters, HOME all 12 volumes, UT, etc.). i had some qualms (sp?) about the minor choices they made for LOTR films... but remember, it's a different medium and not EVERYTHING can be transcoded (for you geeks) bit for bit. take harry potter, the first one. either way, i think the LOTR trilogy came out beautifully. it captured the essence, the heart/emotion, the themes of the entire story perfectly.

the thing with the hobbit is difficult. if it was upto me, it would happen one of two ways:
1. if the hobbit is to be different from PJ's vision of middle earth... and it is better than LOTR... then fans want the same director to re-adapt LOTR again (remember, the 3 long films only covered 1/2 the plot threads in the book).
2. if the hobbit is the in the same vein as PJ's vision... then why not have them do it? i suspect the studios are cautious and will wait for PJ and ink a deal somehow because the box office these days suck. and having a different director will upset the box office numbers.

just my 2 cents =).

 

[Brian D H]

I disagree. I think that while the Studios would rather have PJ, they also believe that the name "Hobbit" with Ian McKelllan and the same look as the LOTR is enough to sell the film. And frankly they're right. While I want PJ, it's not like I'll skip it if someone else directs.

I'm sure the Studio has considered how much money they can save by hiring someone else. Also, they need to build on the momentum created by LOTR and they need Ian McKellan. Frankly that may be the more important consideration - McKellan isn't getting any younger. If they go ahead without PJ they save a little money and get McKellan back. If they wait for PJ it costs them more, they lose the momentum created by LOTR and McKellan may be dead by then. These prices may be too steep for PJ's name.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

That quote is basically my largest fear writ large. I am not purist, far from it. If that is PJ's direction with The Hobbit, to simply use JRRT's tale as a title and framework to make a prequel to LOTR with the exact same cast, then I'd prefer it not be made.

That's not what The Hobbit is. It *IS* a kid's book, a layered adventure story FOCUSING on Bilbo.

So my enthusiasm for this project is gone :frowning:
Chuck

 

[BrettGallman]

Yeah, I don't like where Jackson could be headed, either. The beauty of "The Hobbit" is that it isn't Lord of the Rings. It shows us what life was like before the War of the Ring, and shows one Hobbit's first adventure. Like Chuck says, it's Bilbo's tale. Not Gandalf's, not Sauron's, not Aragorn's. I don't mind Jackson actually showing Gandalf's meeting with the White Council, because I think that would be a nice nod towards the LOTR Trilogy without actually forcing The Hobbit into being LOTR: Episode I. Anything more than simple foreshadowing or nods would be too much. The scene with Gollum, Bilbo, and the ring would be more than enough, in my opinion, but Jackson seems intent on making sure people see this as a LOTR movie (if, in fact, he even directs it at all).

 

[Ricardo C]

I was prepared for the STUDIO to want to up the ante, since they probably fear the masses that loved the pretty boys of LOTR won't go along with a movie about just hairy, chubby hobbits and dwarves. Gotta get the all-important Legolas/Boromir slashfic-writing demographic, after all. And perhaps they also fear that the movie will be underwhelming following the intense, epic action of LOTR.

But LOTR-fying The Hobbit is not the solution.

I expected better from PJ. But I guess he really does belong to the "more is always better" school of filmmaking.

Dear Peej: There's no shame in making a kid's story, there's only shame in doing it badly.

 

[JediFonger]

they can use the same technology they used on XM3 . ian will look younger =). i don't think that would be an issue because even in the Hobbit, Gandalf was pretty old.

 

[Ricardo C]

That was already discussed. It would probably be too difficult and expensive, given how many shots of Bilbo there are bound to be. And the technique used in X3 seemed to be mainly used in fairly static shots, where Prof. X and Magneto didn't make any sudden movements, which would be an impossibility in The Hobbit.

Plus Sir Ian Holm is gonna be nearly 80 when the film gets made, the way things are going, and fit though he is, I don't think he'd be into making a big action picture.

 

[Tim Glover]

Color me disappointed if indeed true. Another moment of PJ and crew not trusting the actual source material. This occured some in LOTR.

Just do this film as it's written and you will be surprised in it's broad appeal. Please.

 

[Sam Favate]

Well, I hate to be so cynical about this, but any director looking at a big commercial project like this might be inclined to accept two pay days instead of one.

Still, I say make one great film, even if it's three hours long (which I think most of us will agree is more than the story requires). No one needs 5 or 6 hours to tell the story of The Hobbitt.

 

[Ben Osborne]

I'll be happy if these films expand on the book using material from The Lord of the Rings and Unfinished Tales. A straight adaptation of the Hobbit would be fine, however the supplemental information from Tolkien's other works relate the events of the Hobbit to the rest of his universe in interesting ways.

A strict adaptation of the Hobbit would not even link "The Necromancer" to Sauron. But don't you think the audience, having seen The Lord of the Rings and knowing who Sauron is, would be interested to know that connection, and even know what impact The Quest of Erebor had on Sauron's plans (something Tolkien discusses in detail in the Unfinished Tales).

People here should realize that some Tolkien fans, such as myself, would prefer an expanded "Quest of Erebor" movie to a strict adaptation of the Hobbit. I have no interest in the profits of a movie studio, so the accusation that money is the only reason that anyone would want to make two movies of the Hobbit doesn't hold water.

I find it ironic that people don't trust Jackson and crew to invent stuff that's outside of the text. I know that some plot points introduced into the Lord of the Rings movies were not welcome by everyone. There's plenty that Jackson added that I didn't like (I absolutely hate what he did to the Paths of the Dead). However, it's easy to forget the things that Jackson/Weta invented or embellished upon that were done well -- especially the visual/art direction aspects of the movie. I would point out the movie's prologue (esp. the Last Alliance scene) as an example of embellishment of the part of Jackson that worked extremely well.

In addition for things like the White Council, Gandalf in Dol Guldor, etc. would not require Jackson to invent new plot points. He would have to write the dialog, design the sets, etc., but he wouldn't have to invent things wholesale that Tolkien makes no mention of. If you're leery of Jackson writing new dialog not from the book, remember that plenty of dialog not from the book was written for The Lord of the Rings. No question that will be the case with the Hobbit as well, regardless of how strict an adaptation it is.