The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Member-115369]

Like I said, agree to disagree. You aren't going to change my opinion, and I couldn't give a crap less about changing yours as I really couldn't care less what other's think about movies, books etc.

At the end of the day our own opinions are all that matter. It's interesting to discuss things sometimes, but not to worry about what others think or trying to change their minds.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

That is wrong in regards to LotR.It said in the book (Think it was Elrond) that the war of the ring was going to be Gandalfs crowning achievement,or to that effect.

Agreed with that. He was the most important character in the events of both the Hobbit and LOTR.

He's a supporting character in terms of the "lead" roles based on lines of text and screen time. But he orchestrated everything. Set the Dwarves and Bilbo on their quest to get rid of Smaug. Got the White Council together to expel Sauron from Mirkwood. Got the Fellowship of the Ring together and set them on their way. Played huge roles in the Battle of Helms Deep and Pellenor (sp?) Field etc.

I like that he's played up a lot in the LOTR movies and hope to see the same with the Hobbit, purists be damned.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

That is wrong in regards to LotR.It said in the book (Think it was Elrond) that the war of the ring was going to be Gandalfs crowning achievement,or to that effect.

Well, you can say that protecting and shaping Harry Potter's life was Dumbledores' crowning achievement, but the series isn't about Dumbledore, is it? You can say that watching and nurturing Luke Skywalker and guiding him to the Force was Obi-Wan Kenobi's crowning achievement, but the Star Wars series isn't about Obi-Wan Kenobi, is it.

Neither is The Hobbit about Gandalf. *Making* The Hobbit about Gandalf is only going to hurt The Hobbit. They shouldn't call it The Hobbit anymore, they should just call it "Gandalf".

Common sense. Taste. Restraint. Control. Discipline.

I think I'm starting to turn into the Gordon Ramsay of film discussion.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Well, you can say that protecting and shaping Harry Potter's life was Dumbledores' crowning achievement, but the series isn't about Dumbledore, is it? You can say that watching and nurturing Luke Skywalker and guiding him to the Force was Obi-Wan Kenobi's crowning achievement, but the Star Wars series isn't about Obi-Wan Kenobi, is it.

Neither is The Hobbit about Gandalf. *Making* The Hobbit about Gandalf is only going to hurt The Hobbit. They shouldn't call it The Hobbit anymore, they should just call it "Gandalf".

Common sense. Taste. Restraint. Control. Discipline.

I think I'm starting to turn into the Gordon Ramsay of film discussion.

lol.For that you are forgiven.Atleast it makes it more spicy And,oh,btw:I was refering to Gandalf being the main character in Lord of the rings,not the Hobbit

[Member-115369]

No one's saying to make it about Gandalf.

Just that there's no harm in telling the White Council story on the side. Bilbo's quest with the dwarves is still the main focus and should get 75-80% of screen time across the 2 movies IMO.

You disagree and want it left out, and that's fine. Agree to disagree.

But no one is saying that what's in the Hobbit book shouldn't be the main focus of the movies. Just that we're ok with adding some more of the side stories into it to make it a more full fledged prequel to the LOTR movies rather than a light hearted loosely related prequel that's non-essential watching (or reading) as it's so tangentially related to the LOTR plot/war of the ring.

Again, fine if you don't want that in there, but don't act like anyone's saying that Bilbo's story shouldn't be the main focus of the movie. It should most definitely be, some of us are just happy Jackson is apparently including a bit more to tie it into LOTR better in our eyes.

[Mahatma]

Tired now,and probably gonna regret this post later,but think the Hobbit will be another-like LotR-shallow,quick production with bad acting,but spectacular cinematics.But-like someone else here said-one mans garbage,is another mans treasure

I will defenitely see this,but after LotR my hopes aren't very high.Signing off for today.Thanks for interesting posts

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Agreed with that. He was the most important character in the events of both the Hobbit and LOTR.

He's a supporting character in terms of the "lead" roles based on lines of text and screen time. But he orchestrated everything. Set the Dwarves and Bilbo on their quest to get rid of Smaug. Got the White Council together to expel Sauron from Mirkwood. Got the Fellowship of the Ring together and set them on their way. Played huge roles in the Battle of Helms Deep and Pellenor (sp?) Field etc.

I like that he's played up a lot in the LOTR movies and hope to see the same with the Hobbit, purists be damned.

Indeed, you are correct. In Tolkien's own words:

"...clearly he (Gandalf) was an emissary of the Valar ("gods"), and virtually their plenipotentiary in accomplishing the plan against Sauron... The Hobbit saga is presented as vera historia, at great pains... Bilbo was specially selected by the authority and insight and Gandalf as abnormal... The story (The Hobbit) and its sequels are not about 'types' or the cure of bourgeois smugness by wider experience, but about the achievements of specially graced and gifted individuals. I would say, if saying such things did not spoil what it tries to make explicit, 'by ordained individuals, inspired and guided by an Emissary to ends beyond their individual education and enlargement'. This is clear in Lord of the Rings, but it is present, if veiled, in The Hobbit from the beginning, and is alluded to in Gandalf's last words."

[Ernest Rister]

whoops! Double-post.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

No one's saying to make it about Gandalf.

Just that there's no harm in telling the White Council story on the side. Bilbo's quest with the dwarves is still the main focus and should get 75-80% of screen time across the 2 movies IMO.

You disagree and want it left out, and that's fine.

I'm not saying it can't work, and 80% Hobbit and 20% Tertiary Padding I can live with...after Return of the King and King Kong, I just don't trust Boyens and Walsh anymore to restrain themselves into "co-creating" something that is going to play more like 50% Hobbit and 50% co-created sensational melodrama. Arwen dying the longer Sauron lives? If they can be THAT brazen with the mythology, do you really want to let them run wild expanding the Hobbit?

Agree to disagree.

Absolutely - its clear we're both protective of Tolkien.

But no one is saying that what's in the Hobbit book shouldn't be the main focus of the movies.

I'll tell you what is blowing my mind -- the modest animation studio Rankin/Bass produced a short animated film based on the Hobbit, and regrettable musical numbers aside, they hit every important note needed for the tale, and even produced some striking animated art, and they entertained. Yes, yes, yes, I know the film is replete with awkward nonsense and blarney and ham-fisted obvious storytelling. I'm just saying, despite everything wrong, they got some important things right, and if Jackson and Co. stuck to that tight storyline, they'd have an action-adventure film to rival Raiders of the Lost Ark. Why do these people want to turn the thing into Lawrence of Arabia?

The running time of that Rankin/Bass creation doesn't break ninety minutes. Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens need six hours to tell the same tale in live action? No, friends. They don't. I'm wondering if they even have a choice at this point, but never believe anyone who says Jackson needed six hours to film The Hobbit.

Hope it works. Really. Personally, I'd rather have The Hobbit and as bizarre as this sounds, a fifth film of "Lost Tales" including all the side stories. It would sell itself. "Where was Gandalf during blah blah blah". People would love it, and the narratives wouldn't be sidetracked with all this tertiary information.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

One problem, though -- in the LOTR, everyone is very surprised to learn that Sauron's spirit has returned and is gaining strength in Mordor in Lord of the Rings. He has apparently been gone for three thousand years. If there was this huge secondary military effort to chase Sauron's shadow out of Mirkwood, someone obviously forgot to inform Bilbo, even sixty years later. Frodo, despite being steward of Bilbo's Red Book, is clueless as well.
How are they going to reconcile the alterations they have already made? This comes to mind:

GANDALF
For sixty years, the Ring lay quiet in Bilbo's keeping, prolonging his life, delaying old age. But no longer, Frodo. Evil is stirring in Mordor. The Ring has awoken. It's heard its Master's call.

FRODO
But he was destroyed. Sauron was destroyed.

GANDALF
No, Frodo. The spirit of Sauron endured. His life force is bound to the Ring and the Ring survived. Sauron has returned. His Orcs have multiplied. His fortress of Barad-Dur is rebuilt in the land of Mordor. Sauron needs only this Ring to cover all the lands with a second darkness.

***

Frodo knows about Bilbo's ring, but has no clue Bilbo was a component of a military campaign to chase an Epic Legendary Enemy out of Mirkwood? We're getting into George Lucas re-write as you go territory now...

1) Gandalf was not aware that Bilbo's ring was the One Ring until the beginning of LoTR when he came to Frodo and made the "test". Saruman was the master of ring-lore and had told the council that the One Ring had diappeared into the waters of the Anduin. So of course Bilbo did not know.

2) When Tolkien wrote the passage about explaining the Quest of Erebor, it was cast after the fall of Sauron and he was telling the hobbits about it before they left Gondor (According to Unfinished Tales).

[Member-115369]

Well, who knows if it will be six hours. It may end up being two movies of 2-2.5 hours each, which is more likely than two 3 hour movies IMO.

And also keep in mind a lot of run time can be spent on the battle scenes. Tolkien was woefully short in his descriptions of action scenes compared to subsequent fantasy writers. Jackson did a great job of taking the descriptions from the books and filming great and reasonably lengthy battle scenes to bring them to life in all their glory.

But anyway, as I've said many times, I'm not a purist. I didn't mind Arwen dying with Sauron being alive etc. I always treat movie adaptations as largely seperate from the books. As long as the general plot is intact, I can live with most changes as long as the end result is a quality film that stands on its own. Some can't and get upset over changes (or certain types of changes). Different strokes for different folks and all that.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Josh

Well, someone was saying just that.

There are far fewer people who read Tolkien's works than watch the films, and that is proof that, while not respective to the source, it does deliver Tolkien's work to a much wider audience. In commercial filmmaking, that is the biggest goal of them all.

I disagree. The reason the films were so succesful was because the books are popular throughout the world. There certainly were many people who saw the movies that never read the books, but I don't believe "far fewer" would be accurate to describe the book readers. Jackson said that the Extended Editions were for the "lovers of the books". And we all know how popular the EEs are. If not, go check out how many people were angry that the EEs did not come out on BD when the Theatrical Versions did.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

And just imagine if the Fellowship would have passed through Moria undetected.
He would then have had the 'Balrog' to use for an assault on Lorien too.

That sure would have been something to behold.

The Balrog would certainly have made things more difficult, but the dragon was by far the bigger problem. Gandalf was more than a match for the Balrog he destroyed in LotR, but his problem was that he was already exhausted when he confronted him. Balrogs were involved in almost every battle against the Elves in The Silmarillion, and though formidible, several Elves were able to engage them in hand-to-hand combat. Ecthelion killed the Lord of the Balrogs (Gothmog) at the Battle of Gondolin, although he perished in the deed.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

True, that is a slight issue.

But Gandalf went off and left Bilbo to run Sauron's spirit out of Mirkwood. So we can more or less write that off as him simply never telling Bilbo or Frodo about that and his comment about the spirit returning meaning that the ring being found simply strengthened it beyond what it was when the white council expelled a very weakend spirit form Mirkwood.

It would be a good idea to understand how Tolkien wrote these books. First he had The Silmarillion's mythology running around through his head for years. He wrote The Hobbit, not intending it to be a part of that. When he started writing Lord of the Rings years later, his mythology started creeping into the story and it, and the Hobbit, became a part of it well after The Hobbit was first published.

Sauron feigned fleeing from Mirkwood to set up his plans in Mordor. Tolkien stated that as such.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

That is wrong in regards to LotR.It said in the book (Think it was Elrond) that the war of the ring was going to be Gandalfs crowning achievement,or to that effect.

True, but that doesn't mean Gandalf was the focus of the story. Tolkien wrote the story about hobbits because that's what the public was clamoring for.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

It would be a good idea to understand how Tolkien wrote these books. First he had The Silmarillion's mythology running around through his head for years. He wrote The Hobbit, not intending it to be a part of that. When he started writing Lord of the Rings years later, his mythology started creeping into the story and it, and the Hobbit, became a part of it well after The Hobbit was first published.

Oh I know. I mean it's just shame it wasn't written in a more seemless manner so it all fit together better.

That he'd always intended The Hobbit to be part of it, or had wrote LOTR first and then went back and wrote The Hobbit as a prequel etc.

But that wasn't the case, and having just re-read The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, The Hobbit and LOTR a few months back I can say I doubt I'll bother reading anything other than LOTR in future re-reads. I know the stories now and only LOTR do a I still enjoy re-reading.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

True, but that doesn't mean Gandalf was the focus of the story. Tolkien wrote the story about hobbits because that's what the public was clamoring for.

Sure, and again none of us are saying make the movies about Gandalf.

Just that he's a key player and for us that means it's fine to spend 20-30% of the movies on him and the white council to make it fit in with the LOTR movies better--in our opinions. Others disagree with that, and that's fine. To each their own.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by radagast

And we all know how popular the EEs are. If not, go check out how many people were angry that the EEs did not come out on BD when the Theatrical Versions did.

But that's among die hard movie fans posting on movie forums.

The average person who saw LOTR in the theaters has probably never seen the EEs, nor cares about them. And I'd say it's reasonable to assume that most who saw the movies in theaters never read the books. Reading has been on the decline for the past few decades.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

And we all know how popular the EEs are. If not, go check out how many people were angry that the EEs did not come out on BD when the Theatrical Versions did.

Brother, you hit that nail on the head!

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

terciary

You've been saying this a lot in this thread, so I thought you should know it's spelled tertiary, not terciary.

Not trying to be a dick, just helpful.