The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

Do you know if Christopher Tolkien watched the LOTR Trilogy, and if yes, what was is comments about it?

Thanks!

http://blogumentary.typepad.com/chuc...opher_tol.html

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/archive...p?t-13039.html

But Tolkien's biographer Michael White recently said he thought the author would have hated the film.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1697884.stm

[Morsoth]

Thanks Radagast,

I cannot understand that reaction from Christopher Tolkien.

I've read the books and yes, the movies are different (but better IMO). It's hard to understand Christopher Tolkien is not proud of the movies, as they are a true homage and made with respect toward J.R.R. Tolkien. I would be proud if a good well-made movies was made from my father's written work.

The LOTR trilogy are far from the movies adapted from Stephen King or Lovecraft books... They are big productions films made with a lot of care.

Anyway, I think he is the one that misses all the fun to enjoy something based on the world created by his father. He'll probably regret it later, when it'll be too late.

[Member-115369]

FYI there's a thread for debating the LOTR movies compared to the book, and this discussion would best fit there.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/movies/149...s-book-14.html

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

FYI there's a thread for debating the LOTR movies compared to the book, and this discussion would best fit there.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/movies/149...s-book-14.html

We're not discussing anything. A question was asked and I provided some links to help answer.

[Member-115369]

I was just pointing that thread out to him/her so he could move discussion there if he/she had further questions so this doesn't get bumped again with non-Hobbit movie related discussion.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

I cannot understand that reaction from Christopher Tolkien.

I've read the books and yes, the movies are different (but better IMO). It's hard to understand Christopher Tolkien is not proud of the movies, as they are a true homage and made with respect toward J.R.R. Tolkien. I would be proud if a good well-made movies was made from my father's written work.

The LOTR trilogy are far from the movies adapted from Stephen King or Lovecraft books... They are big productions films made with a lot of care.

Anyway, I think he is the one that misses all the fun to enjoy something based on the world created by his father. He'll probably regret it later, when it'll be too late.

I think the point that Christopher Tolkien and the experts and scholars are making is that the context of the book is lost by the movies in an effort to hold the attention of the movie-going public. Lord of the Rings is in effect a work of philosophy that has been very cleverly adapted into an adventure story by Tolkien. We could go into this in detail perhaps in another thread, but since the Hobbit is a children's story, the same level of scrutiny will most likely not apply.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Morsoth

Thanks Radagast,

I cannot understand that reaction from Christopher Tolkien.

I've read the books and yes, the movies are different (but better IMO). It's hard to understand Christopher Tolkien is not proud of the movies, as they are a true homage and made with respect toward J.R.R. Tolkien. I would be proud if a good well-made movies was made from my father's written work.

The LOTR trilogy are far from the movies adapted from Stephen King or Lovecraft books... They are big productions films made with a lot of care.

Anyway, I think he is the one that misses all the fun to enjoy something based on the world created by his father. He'll probably regret it later, when it'll be too late.

I understand it completely. He is guardian of his father's literary estate. Many people, myself included, think that many of the elements of the story that made it great were discarded or changed. And to add insult to injury one of the writers boasted that they wrote some parts of the story better than Tolkien. No they didn't.

I doubt that Christopher Tolkien will ever regret not preferring his father's works of genius over those of a Hollywood scriptwriter.

note: I know they are from NZ, but it is a figure of speech.

[LordCrumb]

any new production diaries out now? (and not the Peeder Jigson one)

[PS3-Playb3yond]

So, this will be a continuation from The Return of the King, right?

[LordCrumb]

^ funny guy

[PS3-Playb3yond]

Originally Posted by KaiGusto

^ funny guy

What's so funny?

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by PS3-Playb3yond

What's so funny?

If you're being serious, it's a prequel, not a sequel.

The Hobbit was written before LOTR and involves Bilbo finding the ring while on a quest with a group of dwarves to retake their treasure and mountain from a dragon.

Sauron was in it--but off page in the novel--as Gandalf and the rest of the white council (the other wizards etc.) expel his spirit--called the Necromancer at that time--from Mirkwood while Bilbo and the dwarves are on their journey. While that's only alluded to in the novel, it will likely feature prominently in the movies to better link them up with the LOTR trilogy.

[PS3-Playb3yond]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

If you're being serious, it's a prequel, not a sequel.

The Hobbit was written before LOTR and involves Bilbo finding the ring while on a quest with a group of dwarves to retake their treasure and mountain from a dragon.

Sauron was in it--but off page in the novel--as Gandalf and the rest of the white council (the other wizards etc.) expel his spirit--called the Necromancer at that time--from Mirkwood while Bilbo and the dwarves are on their journey. While that's only alluded to in the novel, it will likely feature prominently in the movies to better link them up with the LOTR trilogy.

I see. Thanks for the explanation man! IMDB lists Frodo also being in it so I assumed it was a continuation.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by PS3-Playb3yond

I see. Thanks for the explanation man! IMDB lists Frodo also being in it so I assumed it was a continuation.

Frodo is in it, but it's only for bookending the movies. At least as far as we know. I don't think he can possibly be in it anymore than that.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

If you're being serious, it's a prequel, not a sequel.

The Hobbit was written before LOTR and involves Bilbo finding the ring while on a quest with a group of dwarves to retake their treasure and mountain from a dragon.

Sauron was in it--but off page in the novel--as Gandalf and the rest of the white council (the other wizards etc.) expel his spirit--called the Necromancer at that time--from Mirkwood while Bilbo and the dwarves are on their journey. While that's only alluded to in the novel, it will likely feature prominently in the movies to better link them up with the LOTR trilogy.

That's where you're incorrect. The Hobbit films should be considered precursors to The Lord of the Rings since the books follow the published order, NOT prequels.
So War in the North is looking quite good and I'm hoping there'll be an engaging video game(s) for The Hobbit films. Less mentioned about Sierras The Hobbit game, the better.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Frodo is in it, but it's only for bookending the movies. At least as far as we know. I don't think he can possibly be in it anymore than that.

I think that's an awful idea, and one that i feel was crowbarred in at the insistance of the studio to try and get more movie Lord Of the Rings fans to see it rather than have the film 100% stand-alone. Probably also counts for the likely cameo appearance of Legolas as well.

Bearing in mind that The Hobbit was written as a childrens adventure, is anyone concerned that some of the more 'silly' elements from the book are going to be ditched? The Singing, the talking Wargs, Trolls and Spiders, Birds and other animals? I personally don't have a problem with that, but if Jackson is trying to keep a tone more similar to his previous trilogy, i could imagine that the first thing he would do is get rid of a fair amount of the talking animals.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

I think that's an awful idea, and one that i feel was crowbarred in at the insistance of the studio to try and get more movie Lord Of the Rings fans to see it rather than have the film 100% stand-alone. Probably also counts for the likely cameo appearance of Legolas as well.

Bearing in mind that The Hobbit was written as a childrens adventure, is anyone concerned that some of the more 'silly' elements from the book are going to be ditched? The Singing, the talking Wargs, Trolls and Spiders, Birds and other animals? I personally don't have a problem with that, but if Jackson is trying to keep a tone more similar to his previous trilogy, i could imagine that the first thing he would do is get rid of a fair amount of the talking animals.

I don't see any problem with the movies starting and ending with Bilbo telling his story to Frodo. Fits with him writing his book, and is an easy way to link the movies directly to the LOTR films.

I also have no problem with tone changes. I care more about the movies working as a good lead into Jackson's LOTR movies than I do getting a spot on adaptation of the book. I don't expect it to be as dark as LOTR by anymeans since this wasn't as dark a period in middle earth history. But I hope they cut some of the "silliness" focus a good bit on the White Council expelling Sauron from Mirkwood etc.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

I think that's an awful idea, and one that i feel was crowbarred in at the insistance of the studio to try and get more movie Lord Of the Rings fans to see it rather than have the film 100% stand-alone. Probably also counts for the likely cameo appearance of Legolas as well.

It makes sense to the story. Frodo learned of Bilbo's adventures through storytelling, so it would make sense to show Bilbo either telling Frodo of the adventure or Frodo actually reading the book.

Bearing in mind that The Hobbit was written as a childrens adventure, is anyone concerned that some of the more 'silly' elements from the book are going to be ditched? The Singing, the talking Wargs, Trolls and Spiders, Birds and other animals? I personally don't have a problem with that, but if Jackson is trying to keep a tone more similar to his previous trilogy, i could imagine that the first thing he would do is get rid of a fair amount of the talking animals.

Tolkien had made efforts to "darken" The Hobbit prior to his passing, but stopped when he realized it was becoming a much different book. Some edits did take place (inadvertantly), but not to the degree Tolkien had wanted. PJ taking that liberty would actually reflect the authors intentions, not go against them.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Josh

Tolkien had made efforts to "darken" The Hobbit prior to his passing, but stopped when he realized it was becoming a much different book. Some edits did take place (inadvertantly), but not to the degree Tolkien had wanted. PJ taking that liberty would actually reflect the authors intentions, not go against them.

From what I've read, I think it's more accurate to say that Tolkien's aborted attempt to rewrite The Hobbit was an attempt to match the tone and style of LOTR, not just to "darken" it. He couldn't get away from the fact that the rewrite was fundamentally changing the character of the story. And that was not even with changing the basic plot. Tolkien was able to recognize that even though some movie industry scriptwriters are not.

Part of me would like to see the Hobbit rewritten in the style and tone of LOTR. From a movie standpoint, I think it makes sense for the Hobbit movie to match the tone of the LOTR movies.

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

Bearing in mind that The Hobbit was written as a childrens adventure, is anyone concerned that some of the more 'silly' elements from the book are going to be ditched? The Singing, the talking Wargs, Trolls and Spiders, Birds and other animals? I personally don't have a problem with that, but if Jackson is trying to keep a tone more similar to his previous trilogy, i could imagine that the first thing he would do is get rid of a fair amount of the talking animals.

I'm not sure that "silly" is the right word. Whimsical maybe. I think it should be possible to include most of those elements in the movie. After all we are blessed with two screenwriters who have a proven track record of improving Tolkien's writing. If you don't believe me, just ask them.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by SonOfTorah

I think that's an awful idea, and one that i feel was crowbarred in at the insistance of the studio to try and get more movie Lord Of the Rings fans to see it rather than have the film 100% stand-alone. Probably also counts for the likely cameo appearance of Legolas as well.

You'll be disappointed to know Legolas is already in it then. They are incredibly expanding The Hobbit, so it makes sense that some of these characters return. The Legolas thing isn't that out of left field considering the Elves are still in the book...As for Frodo, I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Ian Holm is playing older Bilbo again, and it would make sense that Bilbo would be telling his story to Frodo, and Frodo being amazed and in a childlike wonderment on the adventures his uncle had. It fits perfectly in that context and that's what Peter Jackson is going for. It's not like their forcing Frodo into the journey or something like that.