The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Witch King of Angmar]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No one is saying that's what they wanted. But when the alternative is dwarf-tossing, Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep, inventing this nonsense about Arwen dying the longer Sauron is alive, trying to let Boromir off the hook by saying he was on a secret mission to take the ring for Denethor...I mean, I'll take a little boredom over dwarf tossing, any day.

Movie boromir >>>>>>>> Book one (just saying)


BTW What happened to

[Show spoiler]beorn? Was he alive during the war of the ring?

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No one is saying that's what they wanted. But when the alternative is dwarf-tossing, Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep, inventing this nonsense about Arwen dying the longer Sauron is alive, trying to let Boromir off the hook by saying he was on a secret mission to take the ring for Denethor...I mean, I'll take a little boredom over dwarf tossing, any day.

Well, someone was saying just that.

While I don't personally think the dwarf tossing line was necessary, the response from the audience was overall positive. I saw both TTT and ROTK performed live (projected film w/ live orchestra), and these were the types of lines that the audicence was vocally responsive to. When Gandalf showed up on screen for the first time - everyone clapped and cheered. When the dwarf tossing line was said, those same people laughed.

I think its a way for Jackson to relate the films to the widest audience possible. 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.

[kjacobs03]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

Movie boromir >>>>>>>> Book one (just saying)


BTW What happened to

[Show spoiler]beorn? Was he alive during the war of the ring?

He was probably fighting with the Dwarves up by the Lonely Mountain during the War of the Ring. Or maybe along side the Mirkwood Elves.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Witch King of Angmar

BTW What happened to

[Show spoiler]beorn? Was he alive during the war of the ring?

Tolkien (from Letters, p. 178):

"Beorn is dead. He appeared in The Hobbit. It was then the year Third Age 2940 (Shire reckoning 1340). We are now in the years 3018-19. Though a skin-changer and no-doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man."

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

No biggie there, the key is the white council meeting and throwing Sauron out of Mirkwood, easy to make that into good movie material without drawing from the other works.

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...

[Member-115369]

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.

[easyrider]

[QUOTE]Perforated ulcer strikes down Hobbit director
January 29, 2011

Recovering ... Sir Peter Jackson. Photo: AP
Filming of the widely-anticipated Hobbit movies will be delayed because director Peter Jackson is recovering from surgery for a perforated ulcer.

Jackson, 49, who directed the hit Lord of the Rings film trilogy in his native New Zealand, was admitted to a hospital in Wellington on Wednesday evening with acute stomach pains.

"Sir Peter is currently resting comfortably and his doctors expect him to make a full recovery," spokeswoman Melissa Booth said in a statement.

"The surgery is not expected to impact on his directing commitment to the Hobbit beyond a slight delay to the start of filming."

Filming of the two movies of The Hobbit, based on the J.R.R. Tolkien fantasy novel, had been expected to start around the middle of February.

The first movie will be released in December 2012 and the second is expected a year later.

The movies have been beset by a succession of problems, most notably the threat last year by Time Warner Inc to move production overseas because of fears unions would impose a boycott to back demands for a collective contract.

The move could have cost New Zealand an estimated $1.5 billion and threatened the country's fledgling film industry.

In response, the government last year changed labour laws to keep the estimated $500 million production and increased tax breaks for Warner Bros.

The Hobbit is based on the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit who lives in the land of Middle-earth and goes on a quest to find treasure guarded by a dragon.

The book, first published in 1937, is the precursor to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which also takes place in Middle-earth.

The cast for the movies includes Oscar winner Cate Blanchett, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom, Ken Stott and Martin Freeman.[QUOTE]

[Ernest Rister]

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...

Thus forever damning the folly of trying to include such a thing in The Hobbit. If it isn't important to Bilbo, or Bilbo's story, it should be cut from the film. If it is so UNIMPORTANT that Bilbo never hears about it, talks about it, learns about it, or affects his story, why include it in a film version of his story? Cause a film version of The Hobbit with Gandalf and Elrond fighting SAURON (?!?) of all people - that isn't 'The Hobbit' any more, and in fact, makes the territorial dispute with Smaug seem like rather small potatoes, doesn't it? Who cares about Smaug's hostile takeover of Lonely Mountain when Sauron is running around in the world?

You disagree? Well, cutting terciary stories is exactly what they did when adapting Fellowship of the Ring, keeping the whole film Frodo-centric with marvelous results (dwarf tossing bs aside).

So - Oh, sweet irony -- now the exact same creative team that patted themselves on the back for having common sense and eliminating plot strands that have nothing to do with Frodo -- the very same people are going to try the reverse technique and pad the crap out of the Hobbit with plot strands that have nothing to do with Bilbo, plots never included in the original tale, plot strands Bilbo himself is apparently never even made aware of.

Seriously, guys -- this could go the way of the Prequels if they don't get a grip and put themselves at the service of story, rather than forcing the story to serve whatever terciary contract rights opportunities were left open from the last go round.

[Member-115369]

Just have to agree to disagree.

I want it to be a nice, full prequel into the LOTR movies. If it's just Bilbo's story from the book, then I wouldn't be much excited for it as I think The Hobbit kind of stinks compared to Tolkien's other work.

I'm viewing the Hobbit movie as a prequel to the LOTR movies--and Bilbo's story is just a part of it. Gandalf is more central in LOTR than Bilbo, so I have no qualms with them expanding on his back story by showing the white council part and also adding to the lore of Sauron in the movie.

But again, just agree to disagree. I'm a huge fan of the LOTR movies and only a more casual fan of the books compared to most of you, so I'm able to view them seperately and not care so much about what the cut or change as long as the movies tell their own cohesive story.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Just have to agree to disagree.

I want it to be a nice, full prequel into the LOTR movies. If it's just Bilbo's story from the book, then I wouldn't be much excited for it as I think The Hobbit kind of stinks compared to Tolkien's other work.

I'm viewing the Hobbit movie as a prequel to the LOTR movies--and Bilbo's story is just a part of it. Gandalf is more central in LOTR than Bilbo, so I have no qualms with them expanding on his back story by showing the white council part and also adding to the lore of Sauron in the movie.

But again, just agree to disagree. I'm a huge fan of the LOTR movies and only a more casual fan of the books compared to most of you, so I'm able to view them seperately and not care so much about what the cut or change as long as the movies tell their own cohesive story.

Think you need to reconnect with your inner child

Seriously,think the movie will be more in your vision so you have no reason to be sceptical about it.It is the others which have reason to worry abit.Will divulge some scenes in the book now,so those who don't want to know a thing about the story (In the book) should steer clear.

[Show spoiler]As long as the battle of the five armies is the main battle,and not a confrontation between Gandalf and the Neuromancer (read Sauron),I will be happy.My favourite part in the book was the travel through mirkwood

We'll see next year hopefully,or maybe early 2013.

[Member-115369]

Yeah I don't have much of a inner-child. Don't like or want kids of my own so I can totally avoid kid books, movies etc.

As for your concern, I wouldn't worry about that. I'd be pretty confident the

[Show spoiler] battle of five armys

will be the main battle in the movies. The white council stuff would be a side plot resolved earlier. Though I guess I could see them doing it as happening at the same time roughly and cut back and forth between them.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

If it isn't important to Bilbo, or Bilbo's story, it should be cut from the film. If it is so UNIMPORTANT that Bilbo never hears about it, talks about it, learns about it, or affects his story, why include it in a film version of his story? Cause a film version of The Hobbit with Gandalf and Elrond fighting SAURON (?!?) of all people - that isn't 'The Hobbit' any more, and in fact, makes the territorial dispute with Smaug seem like rather small potatoes, doesn't it? Who cares about Smaug's hostile takeover of Lonely Mountain when Sauron is running around in the world?

But, it IS part of the story. When you were reading the story, didn't you want to know why

[Show spoiler] Gandalf, one of the main characters and the mover of everything in the story, leaves Bilbo and the Dwarves before they enter Mirkwood, and mysteriously reappears much later at The Lonely Mountain? He explains that did it to deal with "The Necromancer".

When you read the book the first time, weren't you interested in finding out more about that? Also, it was Tolkien himself who decided the original story was deficient in its original children's state and revised it to tie into the rest of his Middle-earth saga. He did this to the extent that the actual purpose of the adventure documented in The Hobbit is no longer "There and Back Again" (the subtitle of the book), but was to

[Show spoiler] rid Middle-earth of Smaug so Sauron couldn't use him to attack Rivendell and Lorien when he finally launched his war from Mordor. From The Quest or Erebor:

Gandalf: "I knew Sauron had arisen again and would soon declare himself, and I knew he was preparing for a great war... I am sure now, that to attack Lorien and Rivendell, as soon as he was strong enough, was his original plan. The Dragon Sauron might use with terrible effect. Often I said to myself: "I must find some means of dealing with Smaug. But a direct stroke against Dol Guldur is needed still more. We must disturb Sauron's plans."

"When you think of the Great Battle of the Pelennor (in Return of the King), do not forget the Battle of Dale. Think of what might have been. Dragon-fire and savage swords in Eriador (the location of the Shire)! There might be no Queen in Gondor. But that has been averted - because I met Thorin Oakenshield one evening on the edge of spring not far from Bree."

If that is the real purpose of The Hobbit adventure, as defined by Tolkien, should those events not be included in the movie?

[Member-115369]

Well said Grand Bob.

They're crucial events if the movie is to be a good prequel to the LOTR movies and the movies are to flow as one 5 movie set.

As I said above, it's a shame he didn't make the Hobbit book longer and written in the style of LOTR instead of writing it as a children's book focusing only on Bilbo's story IMO.

It's a great kid's book, but us adult fan's of his work would have a much better saga of the ring if the Hobbit was written like LOTR and told the story you note above and it was then referenced in LOTR.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

But, it IS part of the story. When you were reading the story, didn't you want to know why

[Show spoiler] Gandalf, one of the main characters and the mover of everything in the story, leaves Bilbo and the Dwarves before they enter Mirkwood, and mysteriously reappears much later at The Lonely Mountain?

No, because it is commonplace in fantasy tales for the aged mentor to give advice and guidance and then disappear (or die) leaving the hero to face the hard tasks on his own. One has the sense when reading the Hobbit that Gandalf is fairly assured that Bilbo is going to be all right, Bilbo does not know how strong he really is. And I'm going to say it again, the minute Sauron - i.e. the servant of Middle-Earth's version of Satan - appears in The Hobbit, you obliterate the idea of Smaug as the story's great adversary. I mean, Sauron wants to destroy and dominate the world, Smaug is small potatoes compared to a battle with Sauron. Smaug becomes the General Grievous of the tale, if you need a modern analogy.

If that is the real purpose of The Hobbit adventure, as defined by Tolkien, should those events not be included in the movie?

No. Change the name of the movie to "The Wizard" if you want to tell the story from Gandalf's point of view. The name of the movie and the book is "The Hobbit", not the Wizard, not The Shadow, not The Dragon....The Hobbit.

Tolkien didn't craft a very carefully structured narrative that serves as an anti-war drama only to have the whole thing discombobulated and re-combined with loose bits of backtracking backstory, loose bits that he was forever futzing with and changing as he went along.

When a certain character dies, and admits to another character that peace and contentment are greater values than war and dominance - how does that gel with the story when we're seeing war as a neccessary evil to chase Sauron's spirit out of a forest? "War is folly...except when it is required, and then it is glorious. Just wait until you hear the Howard Shore music!"

Oy...I really, really, need to stop thinking about this.

One last thing - did Tolkien actually write those lines of text ascribed to Gandalf? Or did his son, writing under his father's name?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's a great kid's book, but us adult fan's of his work would have a much better saga of the ring if the Hobbit was written like LOTR and told the story you note above and it was then referenced in LOTR.

But it isn't. No one ever mentions it. If it was important to either story, we'd hear about it. But we don't, just like the battle in Lorien. Yeah, it is listed in the appendices, but it isn't important to Frodo's story or Aragorn's, and so Tolkien wisely doesn't spend any time writing about it.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

One last thing - did Tolkien actually write those lines of text ascribed to Gandalf? Or did his son, writing under his father's name?

Tolkien was the author, he wrote more than one version (as he did to almost everything) and the full text with footnotes may be found in Unfinished Tales, p. 321-336; Although Christopher comments, he did not even edit the errors. This is also described in Tolkien's Letters, p.334, where he writes:

'There are of course, quite a lot of links between The Hobbit and The L.R. that are not clearly set out. They were mostly written or sketched out, but cut out to lighten the boat: such as Gandalf's exploratory journeys, his relations with Aragorn and Gondor; all of the movement of Gollum, until he took refuge in Moria, and so on. I actually wrote in full an account of what really happened before Gandalf's visit to Bilbo and the subsequent 'Unexpected Party', as seen by Gandalf himself.'

Although a narrative summing up the major details was given in Lord of the Rings, Appendix A (III, Durin's Folk), upon further thought Tolkien apparently decided a full accounting was required, which became The Quest for Erebor.

So, I respect your opinion and certainly understand your point of view about keeping the story simple and Bilbo-centric. But I (for one) would be happy to see the film reward Tolkien's total effort by incorporating the details he added to bring the full-blown mythology to life.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

But it isn't. No one ever mentions it. If it was important to either story, we'd hear about it. But we don't, just like the battle in Lorien. Yeah, it is listed in the appendices, but it isn't important to Frodo's story or Aragorn's, and so Tolkien wisely doesn't spend any time writing about it.

Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree. I think it's important to the story of both Gandalf and Sauron, who feature majorly in LOTR and that it should have got more detail.

If Jackson does that in the movie then he's remedying something I think is a flaw of the books, and adding something you think is minor.

My major qualm with Tolkien's writing is he spent a ton of time on describing the scenery, inventing languages etc. but didn't spend nearly enough time fleshing out the plot, developing all the characters, describing the battles in the same level of detail, etc. The LOTR movies improved on those things IMO, and I'm hoping the Hobbit movies will do the same. You didn't like a lot of the changes to LOTR and would like a more faithful Hobbit adaptation.

So again, agree to disagree.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

...so Sauron couldn't use him to attack Rivendell and Lorien when he finally launched his war from Mordor.

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.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I think it's important to the story of both Gandalf and Sauron, who feature majorly in LOTR and that it should have got more detail.

A) Gandalf is a supporting character in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, not the lead.

B) Audiences really don't need to know anything more about Sauron than what they received in Lord of the Rings. He is the dark soul of evil, a lord of ultimate evil. Seriously, I never met anyone who walked out of the LOTR movies saying, "I wish I knew more about that Flaming Eyeball. I wonder if it had a bad childhood, and that's why it is so angry all the time?"

Seriously, if people want that backstory, they can go read the Silmarillion or the appendices.

Tertiary side stories in A-to-Z narrative fiction need to stay tertiary side stories. Restraint. Control. Taste. Focus. Discipline. Tolkien was a master of these. Jackson, Walsh, and Phillipa "I improved Tolkien" Boyens? Not so much.

My major qualm with Tolkien's writing is he spent a ton of time on describing the scenery, inventing languages etc. but didn't spend nearly enough time fleshing out the plot

Don't hate me, but aren't the plots of both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings fairly simple and straight-forward, as they were intended to be synthetic myths, written as if they were forgotten English mythology, easily understood by school children and adults alike?

The LOTR movies improved on those things IMO, and I'm hoping the Hobbit movies will do the same.

Actually, the embellishments to the story by Boyens and Walsh were deeply disappointing - bordering on the cheapest melodrama - and so I am gunshy heading into round 4 with these people.

You didn't like a lot of the changes to LOTR and would like a more faithful Hobbit adaptation.

So again, agree to disagree.

I just want the tale. I don't want the tale cluttered up with a bunch of pointless cameos and references, I had enough of that with the Star Wars Prequels...just tell the simple story with taste and restraint. Greed, greed, greed, greed is motivating the studio into padding this charming simple, anti-war fable into a bloated, over-stuffed six hour Lucas-esque mega-epic. My head hurts already.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

A) Gandalf is a supporting character in both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, not the lead.

B) Audiences really don't need to know anything more about Sauron than what they received in Lord of the Rings. He is the dark soul of evil, a lord of ultimate evil. Seriously, I never met anyone who walked out of the LOTR movies saying, "I wish I knew more about that Flaming Eyeball. I wonder if it had a bad childhood, and that's why it is so angry all the time?"

Seriously, if people want that backstory, they can go read the Silmarillion or the appendices.

Terciary side stories in A-to-Z narrative fiction need to stay terciary side stories. Restraint. Control. Taste. Focus. Discipline. Tolkien was a master of these. Jackson, Walsh, and Phillipa "I improved Tolkien" Boyens? Not so much.



Don't hate me, but aren't the plots of both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings fairly simple and straight-forward, as they were intended to be synthetic myths, written as if they were forgotten English mythology, easily understood by school children and adults alike?



Actually, the embellishments to the story by Boyens and Walsh were deeply disappointing - bordering on the cheapest melodrama - and so I am gunshy heading into round 4 with these people.



I just want the tale. I don't want the tale cluttered up with a bunch of pointless cameos and references, I had enough of that with the Star Wars Prequels...just tell the simple story with taste and restraint. Greed, greed, greed, greed is motivating the studio into padding this charming simple, anti-war fable into a bloated, over-stuffed six hour Lucas-esque mega-epic. My head hurts already.

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.