Thread: Lets talk directors vision
<<        >>
Guys. Read: "History of the Hobbit: Part Two: Return to Bag End."
T got to Chapter Three of a LotR rewrite - and gave up. Unsurprisingly, the enterprise was doomed to fail. T should have known better. I mean, why stuff around with the best book ever? Oh sorry! Unless of course you're the film makers....
GB - I can find no mention of a third revision through Carpenter's [i:si1f7ogi]Biography[/i:si1f7ogi] and lacking any other biographies (I just wish I could afford [i:si1f7ogi]The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide[/i:si1f7ogi]!) I have nothing else to consult.
Odo - do you mean chapter three of a [i:si1f7ogi]Hobbit[/i:si1f7ogi] rewrite?
Thanks for the sourcing Odo
. That wasn't where I read about his last attempt at rewriting The Hobbit, but at least you have confirmed that Tolkien made the attempt
I did you know, Eldo! To clarify: "LotR: The Prelude" (AKA "The Hobbit"
It's a pleasure, old Beard!
What's everyone’s thoughts when it comes to Beorn and the bear transformation, I think it's going to be a bit of a challenge, considering its going to be aimed at a younger audience, it can't be stunningly realistic and include realistic biological similarities. I know it's terrible and sad and terribly geeky
but has anyone every played World of Warcraft? If you have (I'll admit I did once but it was a while ago, and for a short period of time, I don't play any more
) you might have seen the cinematic trailer? Well I think that the 'druid' character, as seen in the trailer at about half way through, transforms brilliantly. I think it would really look good a scene in which Beorn can be seen sprinting into the battle of five armies and suddenly morphing into his bearform, I don't think it should be like a werewolf’s transformation, it should look elegant and it should be a swift change.
Heres the link, please don't think me to much of a geek
http://www.apple.com/games/trailers/wor ... er480.html
P.S. I don't know why its linked though WoW.com via Apple, but hey. If it doesn't work you can find it pretty easily on WoW.com
Do we actually need to seee the change? Wouldn't it be more tense and thrilling if Bilbo and Co. only hear those wild noises outside, not knowing what all that snarling and howling (changing) portends (until Beorn later tells them about his battle with the goblin/warg band?)
I think it would be really cool to see the transformation during the battle of five armies. The image of Beorn running downhill and transforming into a bear and destroying orcs is something I need to see on the big screen. I agree that the transformation should not be very violent since Beorn is not an evil character and his skin changing power doesn't come from evil.
to be honest im not too sure about this new director, i fear he might ruin the great middle earth that we have seen on screen and come to love. I definitely trust peter jacksons judgment in choosing him especially after district 9, but the movie hell boy does create a lot of doubt; yeah hell boy was a good film but it was also very average, a film that wont be remembered 10 years from now while lord of the rings will go down in history of cinema with the greats like god father and star wars etc.
but having said that his interviews thus far do inspire confidence but i do really wish peter jackson took charge of this one.
As for directors vision i dont think there will be much of a difference since jackson is still involved and the WETA workshop and WETA digital crew are all still involved, I read somewhere that allan lee and john howe are doing the concept work for this one too and they did greatly influence jacksons vision of middle earth so i think we could be see a very familiar middle earth, i hope he doesnt want to make it lighter and more humourous than jacksons lotr however because while the hobbit book isnt as dark as the lotr book the movie lotr wasnt as brutal and dark as the books to begin with. a lighter middle earth than the one jackson created would be like the early harry potter films.
Eegad! Doesn't anyone actually like the book? (I thought it had sold a few copies... Nah! Must have been on the back of LotR sales!)
Thanks Fingolfin, glad someone agrees it’s a good idea!
Odo, I think your suggestions might work well in some of the situations he transforms/changes in, like the in the one you pointed out (you're right suggestive violence often impacts the viewer more in some situations), but I don't think it would work in every situation
, I think that it would also work well if Beorn is visually glorified in the tBoFA
. One feature that ties in with the particular method of transformation that I was talking about, could include a link between human and bear combat i.e. Beorn swinging a blow with a fist and in the time between the swing and the impact his fist transforms into a claw (followed by the rest of him) and thus delivering the blow with the swipe of his claw
. OR, he could partly transform every now and then occasionally inheriting a bears voice when angered (and so on and so forth), a bit of artistic licence on Del Toro's and Jackson's parts.
Vega, I think you might have a point there about Del Toro, I think his previous methods of bringing films to life differ from the ones Jackson has previously favoured but I've no doubt he'll make a brilliant film and as alot of people posting on this thread have pointed out this isn't the LotR.
I think Oin should burst into Beorns bathroom,only to see him zipping himself into a moth eaten bear suit (Bungle), "Don't come in here !!! "
No doubt that is what one would get with a BBC television production with 80s production values
(I kid, I kid
Sigh, yet another of my well thought through, ideas passed off by the clever cat
, back to the drawing board -again. Because everyone knows that if Lester Cat's not happy with the idea, well you might be better off starting again!
P.S. Is it really that bad an idea
Actually I do like the idea J Dwarf
. I agree the crunchy sinew and bone popping effects of changes like in the Underworld franchise might be a bit out of place. A smooth morphing effect as Beorn charges into battle would be sweet
. I also like Odo's idea regarding Beorn's first change. It would be funny and a scary. The Dwarves and Hobbit would be in for a bit of a shock to discover their host was a bear
Have you heard of the Clever Cat?
The cat that knows what’s at!
He is so very wise,
It’s True, I tell no lie!
A veritable sage and that’s a fact!
Lester Cat's idea would be awesome in a Parody version of The Hobbit
I can envision it now. Oin bursts in as Beorn is zipping up after taking a leak, a cigarette dangling from his lips and a large shot glass of whiskey sitting on the back of the loo
You can't 'know' The Hobbit, just 'feel' it,
But some who 'know' try to unreel it,
Latex suits are surely cute,
Your idea is funny to boot!
But GB, please bear in mind - PJ is like to steal it!
I was recently reading (in UT) Gandalfs account of how he got Bilbo involved in the Quest of Erebor and it occured that this account gives a director of the hobbit more scope maybe than for LoTR. It is clear (using Tolkiens conceit of being a mere chronicler) that the Hobbit, or more properly, There and Back Again, is Bilbos account of events and one can imagine his version was suitable as a tale to be told to younger hobbits around the fire. But it is not the only version, Gandalf gives a version that is less frivolous and which highlights how angry the dwarves were at the whole idea of taking Bilbo along. So when it comes to tricky scenes such as Bilbo singing to the spiders one could assume this is Bilbo's hobbit-child friendly version and not necessarly an accurate account of events. Just a thought to throw into the mix.
I know it's not my normal method, but I will address this seriously.
I want the songs!
I want the Bilbo I loved in The Hobbit.
I don't want any LotRizing at all.
If folk want an out and out adult version, then watch LotR again. (If you look closely enough, LotR itself is a matured version of The Hobbit).
Keep The Hobbit for the kids and for those who are kids at heart.
I can bear PJ's LotR - but don't meddle with The Hobbit!
Petty has a good point...(Heavens to Betsy, we agree again
I must say Odo, that I actually was originally more on your side of things, which was why I thought the bulk of the Hobbit through the death of Smaug should be contained in the first film, and the White Council/Dol Guldur stuff and the Battle of 5 armies relegated to the second to maintain the kid friendly version in a complete package.
But as we now know, the material is to be blended and spread evenly over both films. So it makes sense to follow Petty's logic (up to a point) on this issue.
I think this highlights a problem between the Hobbit and LoTR that Tolkien was aware of- one is a children's book and the other is not, but one is clearly a prequel to the other. In writing Gandalf's account of events it seems to me Tolkien was himself trying to present the events in a manner more in keeping with the adult world of LoTR rather than the children's world of the Hobbit- which means as a Purist I'm a bit torn as to whether the Hobbit should be presented as is or whether it is legitimate to "grow it up" to fit more with LoTR. Also if you enter into Tolkien's conceit and treat it all as history then, as with all history, you have to take into account who is writing it. I give a quote from The Quest for Erebor from UT to illustrate- the speaker is Gandalf, "But you know how things went, at any rate as Bilbo saw them. The story would sound rather different if I had written it." In reading this I get the impression this is Tolkien speaking as much as Gandalf from the perspective of having written LoTR. I think if Tolkien had not published the Hobbit and still gone on to write LoTR then when he finally published the Hobbit it would have been less child-like than it is and most likely darker.
...and so, it comes to this... I only hope Hail Manwe has not been tainted by GB's sweet poison!
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of how Tolkien might have written The Hobbit had it come after LotR, Petty.
But, I think there have been filmic precedents for how to handle such a blending of different tones and versions of character's perceptions of events. I've always thought Terry Gilliam's films have marvelously demonstrated such a talent. And Del Toro's own Pan's Labyrinth displays an uncanny ability to shift between rather extreme tones and perceptions and maintain the integrity of a cohesive storyline.
I think this is likely why Jackson picked Del Toro to succeed him. The tonal shifts between "adult" and "kid-friendly" material are nowhere near as extreme between The Hobbit and LotR (and related material), but they do exist. So I think we can rather get the best of both worlds.
I agree with you GB (sorry Odo) about Gilliam (I've been a fan since I saw Brazil) and he would have been on my list of directors to consider, although he does seem to have a bit of trouble with budgets! I have hopes having enjoyed both Pans Labyrinthe and Hellboy that things might be better than under PJ's helmship. It's clear whether some of us like it or not they have taken the decision to fit the Hobbit more into LoTR with the inclusions of the White Council etc and that's something we're just going to have to live with- the question now then is how do you do this with a story written for children. So it will have to shift mood between Bilbo and the rest or else risk boring children with politics and the adults with frivolity. A tough balancing act.
The tide has turned and now it seems I order the waves to retreat, but never mind, a True Believer stands strong, holding onto the Faith, when every friend and wise man turns his back.
I have just recently read "The History of the Hobbit" Parts One and Two. In Part Two ('The Return to Bag End') there are two and a bit chapters of T's rewritten Hobbit in which he did his best to LotRize it. It did not work! He failed! He abandoned the idea as too hard to achieve satisfactorily!
Look, I have no trouble making the mental adjustment between the 'tone' of The Hobbit and that of LotR: The Hobbit was Bilbo's child-friendly version - it is his often witty version and undoubtedly shows his desire not to brag of his deeds in any way, nor unduly frighten the children.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, Bilbo's is the best version, and Gandalf's version can only be guessed at anyway... [b:5578612h]even the Great Man could not pull it off[/b:5578612h]!
Very True Odo. But the fact that he made the attempt indicates that Tolkien WANTED a more adult version. Had he lived long enough, he [b:39u4fwqr][i:39u4fwqr]may have[/i:39u4fwqr][/b:39u4fwqr] eventually worked out how to do it.
Rubbish and balderdash! T accepted TH was carved in stone! He may have had his regrets - but bad luck! The World knows it's perfect as it is; the sane World, that is.
I'm not sure yet, but I almost feel like putting in a new Topic. Something like: 'Would [i:2suranwp]'The Hobbit'[/i:2suranwp] still make a Great Movie if LotR did not exist?'
Surely it would be better than Percy Jackson and the Olympians (or Twilight
I think Odo you may have missed the problem. You said "I have no trouble making the mental adjustment between the 'tone' of The Hobbit and that of LotR" which is fine, they're two separate books. But by including material that draws on information which comes from the adult world of LoTR and putting it into the children's world of The Hobbit it would be more akin to reading both at once- and their tones are quite different. I think this may prove more difficult to pull off than might at first seem.
But, don't forget Petty, the differences in tone are not nearly as extreme as that which Del Toro had to resolve in Pan's Labyrinth. So I'm not overly concerned that he's up to the task myself.
Yes, I comprehend your point, Mr Tyrant, but the bottom line remains: The Hobbit is a great book on its own. LotR is in fact purely an add-on (no matter how brilliant that add-on is!) The Hobbit, and this has been discussed nigh to death and yet the issue can never lose its importance, only became a [i:3kkg2zgz]prequel [/i:3kkg2zgz]after LotR was begun. A minute point, but manifestly crucial!
My main point remains: I want the movie to be true to the book, and absolutely so,though even I know that some filmographic adaptation is required and the tiniest bit of procreation required to realize Tolkien's (original) conception. Yes, I, Odo Banks, accept some adulteration! Conservatives don't oppose all change, but the change must be appropriate and for good purposes, not to cheaply satisfy the shallow yearnings of Tolkien Liberals and such-like. Tolkien's (original) conception must be respected, irrespective of his later misgivings about his book. When he wrote The Hobbit he wrote it for a certain audience. It then became the property of that audience. I am of that audience and it is what I want! And don't try to suggest the changes Del Toro initimates he will look at are at all acceptable! Minor - necessary - change... not a jot more!
It occurs to me that adults have always had a tendancy to wreck children's fun. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit ostensibly for a younger audience, but the childrens story has nearly always contained fragments, hints and commentaries from the adult sphere. This is not the same, however, as saying The Hobbit is an adult tale in any true sense. Nor should it be adultified - or, to use the term we've been using heretonow, LotRized.
The Hobbit is brilliant because of the wit and songs - not in spite of them!
You know Odo, despite my great pleasure at having Gandalf's Adventures added into the mix, I agree with much of your sentiment regarding The Hobbit.
To me, The Hobbit is a True Artifact crafted by a creature of Middle Earth for other creatures (or rather their children) of Middle Earth in their own time, whereas LotR is more a Record for the Ages, written to preserve an Epic for future generations (and The Silmarillion is even more-so).
My only caveat is that I always think there is room for more than one version of The Story. Which is why I wouldn't be averse to Tolkien having written an LotRized version too. Why can't I have my "kiddie stuff" with a little sex and violence (and highbrow intellectual Themes) thrown in too (not that a Catholic would ever add much sex into the mix
)? As an adult with a childlike love of Fantasy I want to have my yummy frosted colourful cake and eat it too, chased with a shot of Scotch Whiskey (preferably Loch Lomond).
What a peculiar post that was!
Here it went... over there.... around the corner... into the Monastery Closet with Priests that love Children (figuratively speaking)... out again into the blue daylight of Reason...
I'm not sure what to say! But as you well know not knowing what to say never stops me -
I almost suspect somewhere deep down inside you lies that Beautigful Spirit I first espied in you (they were more innocent days). That Spirit that hungers to love The Hobbit openly (as a child). But dear Beard, you still seem to teeter (intellectually, at least) on the edge, trying to prove your adulthood and avoiding your child ...!
Sad, when you're fifty perhaps, you won't care anymore what others think! But I love you again, GB, after this... (I never stopped loving you, you know...even in the bad times...
I hear what your saying GB about Pans Labyrinth and the handling of tone- and whilst its a film I enjoyed I did feel the adult world in it intruded too much on the child's, I would have preferred more of the child's view of the world and I fear this is what may happen in the Hobbit- much to the horror of those such as Odo.
Nobody's expressed concern about the totally different style of elves we have in the hobbit and lord of the rings.
"Well, well!" said a voice. "Bilbo the Hobbit on a pony, my dear! Isn't it delicious?"
"Most astonishingly wonderful!"
These are NOT Tolkien elves. These are drunk Oscar Wilde elves. Not a hint of them in LoTR, I think they are packed off into the Rivendell basement whenever respectable company shows up. Where did they come from and what in the world are we going to do with them?
Halfwise, they shall be left as they are! Why not? Forget the Oscar Wilde voices though - not necessary or advisable at all.
And they are Tolkien's Elves - before he grew up and got over-serious.
Btw gay doesn't have to mean [i:3r45rmbj]Gay[/i:3r45rmbj]. No more cravens here, please, there are enough already! If you're so worried about it, we can have female Elves reciting the lines you picked out. (Elves with a sense of humor - who woulda thought it? Oh yes - that's right -Tolkien thought it - before he started taking [i:3r45rmbj]respectability[/i:3r45rmbj] too seriously!)
Mr Tyrant - I'm horrified all right.
Oh, those are Thranduil's (Legolas's Father) Wild Woodland Elves
(Mirkwood, aka the Greenwood originally). They have been discussed on other threads. They are a breed apart from other Elves, those saucy drunkards
And Gay Elves, why-ever not Odo darling. How delightfully SCRUMPTIOUS. *squeal...Tee Hee*
As to Pan's Labyrinth, I feel the "child's view" (i.e. the Magical view) is the REAL one in the end (it's the only way I can watch that film without killing myself
The Rivendell Elves were joyfully light of heart, singing in the trees, and the Mirkwood Elves liked the grog!
I'm not convinced by this arguement that the Mirkwood elves are somehow intrinsically different than other elves. Legolas is most peoples idea of an elf and he is from Mirkwood yet he is not prone to dialogue such as that seen in the Hobbit nor to spontaneous dancing and then running away.. Also Tolkien could be quite critical of other writers (including Lewis) for presenting the world of faerie in a twee sort of way which I've always felt (even reading it as a child) Tolkien did with the Mirkwood elves.
Twee might be suggested for the Rivendell Elves, just maybe, but I'm not so sure about the Mirkwood Elves. Inititially they were illusive, then stern and proud, then illuminated and made careless by alcohol, but surely not Twee.
Actually Tolkien was quite critical of [b:2590kkr2][i:2590kkr2]himself[/i:2590kkr2][/b:2590kkr2] for having portrayed the Elves in such a fashion
. If I recall correctly, this is referenced in the annotations in Roverandom (among other sources).
I'm sorry not to have all the direct sources lined up at the moment for the following: but Tolkien did eventually get around to explaining it away such that Mirkwood Elves were a bit less staid (and a bit less wise) than other Elves. More multicultural than other Elves, The Silvan Elves are a mix of Noldor, Avari, Nandor, and Sindar (the Ruling Class was mostly Sindar). And they were very friendly with Men (but not necessarily in an Oscar Wilde way
--not that there's anything wrong with that).
Even in LotR, the Book, Legolas is a wee bit more Fun-loving than the Elves of Rivendell or Lothlorien.
Some of this info can be found at The Thain Book, an online Tolkien Encyclopedia and also Wikipedia.
Actually, the only elves of Tolkien that were any fun to hang out with in the hobbit. The silmarillian elves written before and the LoTR elves written after are pretty much a bunch of sourpusses. I think he went through a happy phase while raising young kids: the giant and dragon in Farmer Giles of Ham were pretty fun, and I believe it was written in the same period.
I don't give a figwit about elven sexual predilections (unless I think I can get lucky with an elf maiden....naw, stop dreamin'). But I think the contrast in elven behaviour between the movies is so big here it will look ridiculous if you try a Tolkien movie marathon.
Indeed Halfwise! The Elves (generally speaking) are a very reserved bunch with a wee bit of a superiority complex. That's why I often refer to them as the Vulcans of Middle Earth. Though, more accurately speaking, the Vulcans are the Elves of Star Trek
There really won't be a continuity problem at all though. The Mirkwood Elves are Legolas's people, and Legolas was portrayed as quite the "playboy" in the films, the only Elf that really "let his hair down" (so to speak
). Even boozing it up with Gimli. So I don't see any problem on that score.
If that scene was the best we have of Legolas whoopin' it up, he's got problems with a stick up his arse (no sexual reference intended). I don't think he even cracked a smile throughout the entire trilogy.
In the Hobbit the Rivendell elves are the loopy ones. But in the movies I don't think we ever got a smile from the whole bunch, not even out of Arwen when she kisses that scrawny looking Aragorn fella.
I have a solution: as Bilbo does his return journey, he finds the elves all serious, just like in LoTR. Turns out they sent out their tax forms filled with drunken scrawls, and got audited. Party's over.
The problem with that scene is the booze wasn't strong enough to get an Elf loopy. They are used to much sterner stuff than Ale
. The fact he was even engaged in a drinking game though, demonstrated that he wasn't quite like the other Elves. And he could crack a joke (banter) even if he barely cracked a smile (which he actually did a couple of times when he was ahead of Gimli in kills
). And speaking of kills, the whole counting business is right out of the book, and another indication that he wasn't quite as serious as the rest of the Elves in LotR. I think the audience is primed to see an Elf get sloshed, even if they will be a wee bit surprised
Maybe the whole business in the movie with Legolas' tingly finger was plain silly and bears no relation to what T would have wanted. Maybe the Hobbit Movie will stick to the text and be amusing.
Personally, I find Silmarillion/LotR Elves aloof and dull. Hobbit Elves I find, while still noble, a bit more down to earth, and therefore preferable.
Mirkwood- home of the Buckfast elf! Maybe being so close to Dol Guldur they just figured to hell with it lets just get smashed all the time and party.
Time for a new question to be posed. The White Council and how it might be handled- specifically Gandalf and Saruman. I'm just wondering how much they will decide to play up the enmity between the two, a tricky balancing act. If memory serves me right there is an account of the meeting in UT in which Gandalf blows smoke rings at Saruman then snatches them away- but that Tolkien also felt this was too blatant and made it tricky to explain Gandalf's apparent blind spot in LoTR to Saruman's potential treachery. So how far should they go in making hostilities obvious and will they draw on (as they did for the LoTR films) these outside sources for added details? Opinions sought!
My view on anything to do with The White Council is fully enunuciated on the WHITE COUNCIL WILL WRECK THE HOBBIT thread. I'll say no more.
<<        >>
Ummm, is that Oz humour? Or are my eyes becoming too old cause i did look for a White Council thread before I plumped for posting this question here? Besides I wouln't put it past you Odo to have created a thread with that title!