The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by joliefan

That means he can make it as long as he wants right back to the second age anyway how old was Gandalf when he died ?

Well, first off Gandalf was immortal as he was of the order of Maiar, he came to Middle Earth as a Wizard in the form of an old man to strive against the rising threat of Sauron.

As to the date, January 15 3019 Third Age is recorded when he fell against the Balrog, and was sent back (presumably by the Valar/Eru) to "finish his task" as The White Wizard as he met Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas in Fangorn on March 1 3019 Third Age.

His spirit left his body, so you could probably argue that he did indeed "die".

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by jbig31

Well, first off Gandalf was immortal as he was of the order of Maiar, he came to Middle Earth as a Wizard in the form of an old man to strive against the rising threat of Sauron.

As to the date, January 15 3019 Third Age is recorded when he fell against the Balrog, and was sent back (presumably by the Valar/Eru) to "finish his task" as The White Wizard as he met Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas in Fangorn on March 1 3019 Third Age.

His spirit left his body, so you could probably argue that he did indeed "die".

Thank you i was wondring what would happen if we lived that long

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Josh

I don't think some people understand how much material is in the appendices. I'm copy/pasted the timeline of Arda before, but since I'm sure some new fans are reading these posts, I'll just link to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda#Third_Age

That is a direct link to the Third Age which is over 3,000 years in length. And yes, you are correct to assume that there was a First and Second Age before that (a Fourth Age too!). Both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit occur during the Third Age. Of the 3,000 years and hundred or so of bulleted notes left by Tolkien, only (almost) one year is described in the Hobbit and three bulleted notes. There is a absolute ton of material to draw on.

Just from looking over the timeline, I see a good potential starting point being in 2460 when Sauron returns to Middle Earth. Then I think PJ can go all the way to 2968 when Frodo is born. That is 500 years, of which The Hobbit represents 1. Of course, we have no way of knowing how far back PJ will reach, but the material is there.

I also like that they removed "There and Back Again". That title is really centric on the Bilbo's story, and we know that this trilogy (that feels good to say) will expand far beyond it.

The potential to fill three movies with The Hobbit and LotR appendices exists, but if the Lord of the Rings movies are any indicator, that may not be the case. If the movie names as conjectured by TORN are close to the mark, I believe that instead of Tolkien-related Middle-earth history, we will see

[Show spoiler] approximately one movie of The Hobbit-related material, one movie that concentrates on Smaug and his destructive tendencies, and one movie dedicated to The Battle of Five Armies. This is despite the fact that although the book is 19 chapters, Smaug occupies two chapters ('Inside Information' and 'Fire and Water') and most of The Battle of Five Armies is pretty much contained in one short chapter.

Jackson used the same approach in LotR, where the monsters and battles were given far more weight than they had in the actual story:

- the Cave Troll/Balrog sequence that only occupied the very short "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter

-the Battle of Helm's Deep which was the centerpiece of the Two Towers movie but only occupied one chapter in the book

- the emphasis on the Battle of the Pelennor Fields and its monsters compared to its one book chapter

- the time spent in Osgiliath, the underground world of Isengard, the orc-fight at the Tower of Cirith Ungol, and other "creepy" places as compared to their relatively minor treatment in the book

- and of course his fascination with the monsters.

The fact that (un-destroyed) Dale is a major construction project - despite its passing brief mention in the book - seems to be another indicator of this trend.

My guess is that the appendices will also receive this treatment. Little of the actual history except for instances where monsters or grotesque scenes can be extrapolated or exaggerated.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

My guess is that the appendices will also receive this treatment. Little of the actual history except for instances where monsters or grotesque scenes can be extrapolated or exaggerated.

True, but I am one of those people who applaud the removal of Tom Bombadil from the films. The films definitely seem as if they will have a more LOTR tone to them - something mentioned a page or two back. I have argued that this was the intention of Tolkien - to marry the two stories - but that the popularity of the book prevented that from happening. I have a feeling that if he could do it again, both books would follow the same tone.

So I'm all for PJ taking elements of the story and making them grand, as long as the story is told in an entertaining way for all. You purist (and I'm not saying that in a negative way) want to see the film as the book was written. While that can be done, I can't imagine it being nearly as entertaining as how PJ presents the material (with some exceptions, of course).

Do I want to see large battles or singing elves? Me, I go for the large battles every time, even if they are a very small part of the book. Just my opinion, and I respect yours, even more so because of your knowledge of the material. I just wanted to make the point that the material exists (for the newbs) and you're probably right, PJ will expand greatly on it for dramatic effect.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Josh

True, but I am one of those people who applaud the removal of Tom Bombadil from the films. The films definitely seem as if they will have a more LOTR tone to them - something mentioned a page or two back. I have argued that this was the intention of Tolkien - to marry the two stories - but that the popularity of the book prevented that from happening. I have a feeling that if he could do it again, both books would follow the same tone.

So I'm all for PJ taking elements of the story and making them grand, as long as the story is told in an entertaining way for all. You purist (and I'm not saying that in a negative way) want to see the film as the book was written. While that can be done, I can't imagine it being nearly as entertaining as how PJ presents the material (with some exceptions, of course).

Do I want to see large battles or singing elves? Me, I go for the large battles every time, even if they are a very small part of the book. Just my opinion, and I respect yours, even more so because of your knowledge of the material. I just wanted to make the point that the material exists (for the newbs) and you're probably right, PJ will expand greatly on it for dramatic effect.

I don't know, Josh, I felt that Return of the King and King Kong were seriously bloated, and I suppose I'm so used to knocking out the book in an afternoon or watching the Rankin/Bass cartoon do a pretty good job of telling the story in 90 minutes, trying to imagine the thing stretched out to seven hours seems a bit silly on its face. We'll see what happens.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The potential to fill three movies with The Hobbit and LotR appendices exists, but if the Lord of the Rings movies are any indicator, that may not be the case. If the movie names as conjectured by TORN are close to the mark, I believe that instead of Tolkien-related Middle-earth history, we will see

[Show spoiler] approximately one movie of The Hobbit-related material, one movie that concentrates on Smaug and his destructive tendencies, and one movie dedicated to The Battle of Five Armies. This is despite the fact that although the book is 19 chapters, Smaug occupies two chapters ('Inside Information' and 'Fire and Water') and most of The Battle of Five Armies is pretty much contained in one short chapter.

Jackson used the same approach in LotR, where the monsters and battles were given far more weight than they had in the actual story:

- the Cave Troll/Balrog sequence that only occupied the very short "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter

-the Battle of Helm's Deep which was the centerpiece of the Two Towers movie but only occupied one chapter in the book

- the emphasis on the Battle of the Pelennor Fields and its monsters compared to its one book chapter

- the time spent in Osgiliath, the underground world of Isengard, the orc-fight at the Tower of Cirith Ungol, and other "creepy" places as compared to their relatively minor treatment in the book

- and of course his fascination with the monsters.

The fact that (un-destroyed) Dale is a major construction project - despite its passing brief mention in the book - seems to be another indicator of this trend.

My guess is that the appendices will also receive this treatment. Little of the actual history except for instances where monsters or grotesque scenes can be extrapolated or exaggerated.

I'm guessing there will be either a prologue or a huge flashback. After all, who doesn't want to see Smaug destroy Dale and take over the Lonely Mountain.

[kdo]

I'm actually quite happy that the decision has been made to extend this into a 3-part series, and it is, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Not only do I get to see one more film at the theaters before I forever retire from going, but to have a chance to see a good portion of the appendices onscreen, especially the closure of Middle-Earth, and what happens to all the characters at the end of their days, will be a fantastic treat (if of course, they decide to do that). There's a fortune to be made on this series, and I believe both New Line and Peter Jackson are aware of that, and considering how poor movies in general are these days, they'd be crazy to not take this series as far as they can. I do feel for Jackson though, considering he didn't even want to direct these to begin with, but I'm sure he's being compensated more than fairly...and he deserves it...every time I watch LOTR, it exhausts me just to think about how overwhelming that project must have been. But I will say that nobody, and I mean nobody could've done "The Hobbit" films like Jackson's going to do them, and had he not directed, I wouldn't have even bothered seeing them. But with him in charge, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these films will be anything less than spectacular, and I'm proud to make them the finale of my movie-going experiences at the cinemas, (and will be equally as proud to add them to my HD collection once they're released on disc).

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by kdo

I'm actually quite happy that the decision has been made to extend this into a 3-part series, and it is, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Not only do I get to see one more film at the theaters before I forever retire from going, but to have a chance to see a good portion of the appendices onscreen, especially the closure of Middle-Earth, and what happens to all the characters at the end of their days, will be a fantastic treat (if of course, they decide to do that). There's a fortune to be made on this series, and I believe both New Line and Peter Jackson are aware of that, and considering how poor movies in general are these days, they'd be crazy to not take this series as far as they can. I do feel for Jackson though, considering he didn't even want to direct these to begin with, but I'm sure he's being compensated more than fairly...and he deserves it...every time I watch LOTR, it exhausts me just to think about how overwhelming that project must have been. But I will say that nobody, and I mean nobody could've done "The Hobbit" films like Jackson's going to do them, and had he not directed, I wouldn't have even bothered seeing them. But with him in charge, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these films will be anything less than spectacular, and I'm proud to make them the finale of my movie-going experiences at the cinemas, (and will be equally as proud to add them to my HD collection once they're released on disc).

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think at first PJ didn't want to direct The Hobbit because he didn't want to personally wear out Middle Earth. I think in the end the chance to go back to Middle Earth was too much for him. And I can't blame him at all. To be involved in a movie with as much richness and depth as the Lord of the Rings and the upcoming Hobbit films, not to mention world-class professionals and highly talented actors, would be magical.

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by kdo

I'm actually quite happy that the decision has been made to extend this into a 3-part series, and it is, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Not only do I get to see one more film at the theaters before I forever retire from going, but to have a chance to see a good portion of the appendices onscreen, especially the closure of Middle-Earth, and what happens to all the characters at the end of their days, will be a fantastic treat (if of course, they decide to do that). There's a fortune to be made on this series, and I believe both New Line and Peter Jackson are aware of that, and considering how poor movies in general are these days, they'd be crazy to not take this series as far as they can. I do feel for Jackson though, considering he didn't even want to direct these to begin with, but I'm sure he's being compensated more than fairly...and he deserves it...every time I watch LOTR, it exhausts me just to think about how overwhelming that project must have been. But I will say that nobody, and I mean nobody could've done "The Hobbit" films like Jackson's going to do them, and had he not directed, I wouldn't have even bothered seeing them. But with him in charge, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these films will be anything less than spectacular, and I'm proud to make them the finale of my movie-going experiences at the cinemas, (and will be equally as proud to add them to my HD collection once they're released on disc).

I don't believe this is going to happen seeing that this is about the storyline on The Hobbit with info from the appendices sprinkled in for backstory.

PJ already showed what happened with the rest of the characters

[Show spoiler]except for Sam, Legolas and Gimil leaving Middle Earth for The Undying Lands

[fattyjoe37]

I love the Lord of the Rings, but a 300 page book does not need to be 3 most likely 3 hour films. Honestly, 2 was pushing it. I'll still be there opening day, but I'm skeptical.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Josh

True, but I am one of those people who applaud the removal of Tom Bombadil from the films. The films definitely seem as if they will have a more LOTR tone to them - something mentioned a page or two back. I have argued that this was the intention of Tolkien - to marry the two stories - but that the popularity of the book prevented that from happening. I have a feeling that if he could do it again, both books would follow the same tone.

So I'm all for PJ taking elements of the story and making them grand, as long as the story is told in an entertaining way for all. You purist (and I'm not saying that in a negative way) want to see the film as the book was written. While that can be done, I can't imagine it being nearly as entertaining as how PJ presents the material (with some exceptions, of course).

Do I want to see large battles or singing elves? Me, I go for the large battles every time, even if they are a very small part of the book. Just my opinion, and I respect yours, even more so because of your knowledge of the material. I just wanted to make the point that the material exists (for the newbs) and you're probably right, PJ will expand greatly on it for dramatic effect.

I agree that it was better to leave Bombadil out of LotR, and I'm all for battles, at least, until they reach the point where they become tedious. Obviously, these movies will make a fortune from the average movie-goer wanting to see monsters and battles. But with all of that extra time, why not (at least briefly) explore some of the "deeper" reaches of the story, since that is why Tolkien invented Middle-earth in the first place. For example, while the characters are at Rivendell, why not have a Hobbit or a human discuss issues of mortality with an immortal being such as an Elf or Wizard? This was one of the reasons that different beings were included in his stories. He wanted to illustrate that mortal beings desire immortality above all else (thus the "fall" of the Numenoreans). At the same time Elves had problems with immortality such as their resistance to change and being tied to whatever befell the Earth; Elves and the Valar sometimes refered to Death as "The Gift to Men". If you have The History of Middle-earth series, the tale of "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" in Morgoth's Ring is a rather lengthy example of this.

I am all for plenty of scenes of

[Show spoiler] the dragon, Witch-king, Sauron, and the inevitable battles

, but wouldn't it be great if Jackson briefly included the reason that Hobbits exist in Middle-earth, in Tolkien's words:

"But through Hobbits, not Men so-called, because the last Tale is to exemplify most clearly a recurrent theme: the place in 'world politics' of the unforseen and unforseeable acts of will, and deeds of virtue of the apparently small, ungreat, forgotten in the places of the Wise and Great (good as well as evil). A moral of the whole... is the obvious one that without the high and noble the simple and vulgar is utterly mean; and without the simple and ordinary the noble and heroic is meaningless."

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Jezza

It does beg the question though if he was so precious about his farther's work then why did he allow it to be made into films? It's an adaptation of the books, not a direct translation, so he has to allow some room for creative freedom, even if he is stubborn.

Christopher Tolkien didn't allow LOTR to be made into movies. His father had sold the film rights decades before.

[irockmysocks]

Originally Posted by fattyjoe37

I love the Lord of the Rings, but a 300 page book does not need to be 3 most likely 3 hour films. Honestly, 2 was pushing it. I'll still be there opening day, but I'm skeptical.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by lupinskitten

I THINK it is included in most versions of RotK, and all the "three books in one" sets -- I checked, and it's in my huge paperback copy, along with an incredible timeline of Middle-earth with when what took place, when characters were born, etc. I'm with you -- reading the Appendixes is next up on my to-do list.

There are some "special" editions that, regrettably, do not have the Appendices. If you get an American HM edition or a British HC edition, they will most surely have them.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Josh

Do I want to see large battles or singing elves? Me, I go for the large battles every time, even if they are a very small part of the book. Just my opinion, and I respect yours, even more so because of your knowledge of the material. I just wanted to make the point that the material exists (for the newbs) and you're probably right, PJ will expand greatly on it for dramatic effect.

Of course. They have to sell video games based on the movies.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I haven't been thrilled by the announcement of a third Hobbit film for 2 reasons: I don't think the source material justifies that much screentime - even with the stuff from the appendices - so I'm afraid the films will be bloated; and because they've already finished a film shoot based off of a 2 movie script. Now was not the time to decide they wanted to do 3 films - that decision should have been made before principal photography began. That said, I have a great amount of faith in PJ and his team - so, for now, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

On a separate note, here's a slightly different teaser trailer for "An Unexpected Journey" that's been making it's way to cinemas during the last month or so. It's just about the same as the one from December except for 2 or 3 shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpdYKhv3EK0

[Brightstar]

If peter jackson can get this trilogy right then they will flow like the river from The Hobbit right the way to ROTK.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by fattyjoe37

I love the Lord of the Rings, but a 300 page book does not need to be 3 most likely 3 hour films. Honestly, 2 was pushing it. I'll still be there opening day, but I'm skeptical.

The first movie will just be the dwarves visiting Bilbo's house!

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by fattyjoe37

I love the Lord of the Rings, but a 300 page book does not need to be 3 most likely 3 hour films. Honestly, 2 was pushing it. I'll still be there opening day, but I'm skeptical.

WOW!!! Such ignorance. Hav eyou been reading any of the posts in any of these pages?

There is a ton of material discussed in the LOTR's through the appendices or other storytelling that will be more than enough to fill in these movies.

However, I do agree that I wouldnt mind them being more around 2.5 hrs each instead of 3.

And even though I love the LOTR films, I did feel that ROTK was a little bloated also, and definitely King Kong.

[#Darren]

Yeah, it baffles me why people would think that, about a film called The Hobbit

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

FINALLY!!! thank you Josh for pointing this out for everyone (again!!).

it's amazing how many people still think the events in "The Hobbit" are going to be the only thing in these 3 movies.