Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Romance in The Hobbit - book and movie

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Romance in The Hobbit - book and movie   [1] [2] >>
Much has been written about the lack of a female character in [i:dnoc79eb]The Hobbit[/i:dnoc79eb] which presents some difficulty for Boyens and Jackson, particularly given the pressure from Hollywood for a love story to draw in a wider audience. I wonder what you all think about the possibility of using Bard or Beorn as the male romantic lead? Both seem to me to hold some potential. Both are part of the Battle of Five Armies and both have interesting backstories. Boyens and Jackson will have to create a female romantic in any case, unless they try to insert Arwen into the plot somehow. Or am I missing a female character with love story potential in Tolkein's book?
Hmmmm! That's a toughie. They don't really need a romance in the first Hobbit film as it will be geared more towards the adventure. But the lack of any female characters could present a problem I hadn't considered. (I wonder if they could do something with all those dwarves, but I suppose "purists" would be up in arms :lol: ). The second Hobbit film could have some more of the Aragorn/Arwen backstory.

[b:1z4ftzbv]Gandalfs Beard[/b:1z4ftzbv]
Who has said that the Hobbit won't work without a love interest? On a website?

It's a journey story, which is plenty.
Well, if you look at what the studio insisted with LOR - that there be powerful women characters - it's hard to think they'll back off it for Hobbit. Look at the way the studio marketed the love story, and it pulled in tweens and teens who had no interest in fantasy, Brit Lit, or action movies. At the very least the studio marketing people will insist that a powerful female character play a significant role. Boyens and Jackson will have to invent that already. I think the studio will insist that invention include romantic interest, to broaden the appeal of the picture. I'm not saying I like it, but I think it is inevitable.
I think that Bard would be the only choice. It is against all my Tolkien beliefs to make Beorn in love. He's not that type of...creature. He's independent. He doesn't need anyone. Plus, are there any women skin-changers? I suppose Beorn had a mother, but Beorn...he's not the type to fall in love.
I don't really feel that any romance has a place in the Hobbit. It just doesn't seem to fit in my mind. But I guess we don't live in a perfect world so they have to mess some things up so that they make all the money off of it possible! LOL. But if they have to put in a romance I agree with Beren that it should be Bard. Beorn just doesn't strike me as the type to fall in love either. He's just too independant to be tied down like that besides he is a skin changer and that could present some unforseen problems with a lover! <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
For the LotR love story, and the other strong females, there was a ground work to use. Aragorn and Arwens full story was in the appendicies, and her added actions were not so much added in out of the blue, she more just sort of replaced Glorfindel and then had that role beefed up a little. So that's fine by me. Then there was Eowyn, who got to have a lot more action to her and a lot less love (the buried the love with Faramir.
As for the Hobbit, there is a love story right on through the entire tale! A hobbit and his table. Bilbo is in love with food! They even joke about it during the "Concerning Hobbits" opening of FotR as narrated by Bilbo.
Ha ha!!! So they will give Bard a wife just to feminize Laketown a little more, and there will be lots of vulnerable children, but at Bard's house there will be lots of FOOD and bacon and tea and toast. Bilbo will be inspired to tears. So we'll have to destroy the dragon for the sake of saving cupboard comforts. Awesome. :lol:
I'm not entirely keen on a love story in The Hobbit. I like it how it is! But if they were to put one, my best bet is Aragorn/Arwen.
I think this represents what is wrong when hollywood gets ahold of an idea. The assumption is that the movie needs a romantic storyline. I would argue it does not, what it needs is an emotional storyline. Why is passion for another person the only passion that hollywood assumes will sell?
Reminds me a rumor (I hope a rumor) that due to the success of The Dark Knight, hollywood is looking to make the next Superman movie darker and grittier. Dark worked for Batman, so it must work for superman! Nope, wrong again. This is a failure to work with the source material and keep the characters as who they are.
The lord of the Rings is not the Hobbit, or vise versa. Trying to put in a new, ungrounded storyline would greatly alter the work. They may have added much of Aragorn/Arwen's love tale into LotR, but the story was grounded in the appendicies. Tolkien wanted the storyline in but had difficulties working it into the rest of the narrative.
The hobbit? Yeah, not so much.
Who knows, maybe in a serious wack to our collective cerebrums they will show a love story with Denethor and his wife, to culminate with her death when Faramir is born. Making the viewing audience much more sympathetic for a character who hates his son so much in Return of the King. Perhaps not hate, but surely does not appriciate him. Love and loss, now that's a tale Hollywood can get behind.
If Romance is needed in the Hobbit, why not show the romance of Bilbo's parents, Bungo and Belladonna?
[quote="Show":2ql26lh8]I think this represents what is wrong when hollywood gets ahold of an idea. The assumption is that the movie needs a romantic storyline. I would argue it does not, what it needs is an emotional storyline. Why is passion for another person the only passion that hollywood assumes will sell?
Reminds me a rumor (I hope a rumor) that due to the success of The Dark Knight, hollywood is looking to make the next Superman movie darker and grittier. Dark worked for Batman, so it must work for superman! Nope, wrong again. This is a failure to work with the source material and keep the characters as who they are.
The lord of the Rings is not the Hobbit, or vise versa. Trying to put in a new, ungrounded storyline would greatly alter the work. They may have added much of Aragorn/Arwen's love tale into LotR, but the story was grounded in the appendicies. Tolkien wanted the storyline in but had difficulties working it into the rest of the narrative.
The hobbit? Yeah, not so much.
Who knows, maybe in a serious wack to our collective cerebrums they will show a love story with Denethor and his wife, to culminate with her death when Faramir is born. Making the viewing audience much more sympathetic for a character who hates his son so much in Return of the King. Perhaps not hate, but surely does not appriciate him. Love and loss, now that's a tale Hollywood can get behind.[/quote:2ql26lh8]
I agree with you Show. Hollywood tends to think of love as only passion between two people. The Hobbit itself is kind of a love story about commradery (sp? sorry i was never a great speller:-(lol). It's more about friendship than love between two people. But then again the general public isn't really smart enough to figure that out on their own so that's probly why they wanna put a love story in it somewhere! But I don't think any of the regular characters that are already in the story would be overly great for a love story. I'm not so keen on a love story but if there has to be one I like the idea of Denethor and his wife and also I think Samwise that your idea about Bilbo's parents isn't bad either.
I seriously doubt that Jackson and Del Toro will be pushed into inserting a romance where none exists. My guess is that they will do more of the Arwen Aragorn backstory.

[b:2tq1l2i7]Gandalfs Beard[/b:2tq1l2i7]
Your probly right Gandalf's Beard but it never hurts to be prepared. You know how hollywood is, always messing up a good story. But Jackson probly wouldn't insert a love story anyways he seems to remain true to the book's spirit if not the words.
Lothierial liked my idea for Denethor and his wife?!
To be honest, I did that as a joke. I didn't figure it would work well. But with your comment I began thinking on it a little more. If the second movie focused more on the growning shadow and it's affect on Gondor, the story could flow perfectly. It would also lay an interesting foundation for showing that Sauron can turn a bad event into something evil. The death of his wife from childbirth is a bad/sad thing. But the hatred that grows from it is evil, not the event itself.
I guess the biggest thing going for Del Toro and Jackson is the size of Jackson success with LotR. After that big a win for him, he must have alot of wieght to throw around.
If the first movie is still to be based on the book and the second is to bridge the gap between the Hobbit and LotR, as has been said, it would seem ludicrous to force romance into the story. The Hobbit is a very linear adventure tale with a very simple point A to point B story line. And it was written as a children's story.
From the standpoint of a storyteller, it works on its own and to take it apart and add in a host of other characters, or even a randomly placed love interest, would be difficult to accomplish without compromising the flow of the story.
One solution I see is that maybe one of the dwarves is in love and is constantly thinking about his little bearded lady back home. That seems like something Fran and Phillipa might write in, and it would probably work. The question then becomes: would female audiences identify with a dwarven love story?
I think there is much greater opportunity to work themes of love and romance into the second movie in which we see other characters appear.
With Denethor and his wife Show I was more thinking about providing back story about the reason Denethor dislikes Faramir so much in LOTR. I thought that would make sense if they absolutly needed something but I don't think it mixes well with the rest of the story. I was just thinking about it and it would be difficult in the extreme to meld that into the story of The Hobbit. Borderline impossible lol
The more I think on the more it becomes possible. It really depends on what aspect they want the second part to tell. There is so much going on that they really need to choose what the focus will be. I would think the growing darkness could easily be the focus. And how better to show it than through Gondor.
But to blend with the Hobbit itself? impossible, I agree. But as an after story that could link some elements, oh yeah. Also Denethor's growing distrust of Gandalf and some pressure elements on Aragorn about who is running Gondor before he takes the throne.
Good point Show. I didn't really think of it like that before. Putting Denethor's story in the second film would probably work. On that note I do think it would be good to add Denethor's palantir expirience and how it corrupts him but that might be a strech what do you guys think?
I can think of plenty of good movies without a real romantic plotline. Pan's Labyrinth is one. Silence of the Lambs is another. Jaws. Shawshank Redemption. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Saving Private Ryan. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is probably the best example because Lewis' writing style in the Chronicles of Narnia is similar to Tolkien's style in the Hobbit.
In some of the above there aren't even any female characters that really contribute to the plot at all. I don't think there are any in Private Ryan except his mother. Notice, they do still have emotional struggles and deep character arcs- um, well, uh- Holy Grail, maybe not. Jaws, perhaps not that deep. But the rest. The Hobbit definitely would not seems strange or simple without love.
I agree with you on this one Barrel :mrgreen: . But I don't think it will affect the first film anyway. If there is any romance I am certain it will appear in film 2, most likely expanding on the Arwen/Aragorn backstory. Which is fine by me.

[b:1rzw7war]Gandalf's Beard[/b:1rzw7war]
You are mostly right, Barrel, but look at Prince Caspian. Ok, so there is a female (Susan) and there is a male (Caspian) that could contribute. But a romance (or, perhaps more accurately, a fling) between them is NOT in the book, and the characters are not suited for it. Susan was losing interest in Narnia at this point, which makes her less prone to fall for Caspian. Caspian, in the book, was most likely younger than her, and wasn't a dashing 25-year-old movie-star like Ben Barnes. But the movie-makers (and Disney) wanted to attract as many people as possible, and they thought that a "romance" would attract the teenage crowd.

Of course, Andrew Adamson (the director of Caspian) isn't the same as Del Toro. And the Hobbit isn't being made by Disney. So it is very possible that there won't be any romance (in the first film). I'm just trying to show what's possible.
I have a question... why all the interest in a more developed version of Aragorn and Arwen?

Is it only because that is the only romantic plot line we can come up with for the second film? ...or because we actually want to see it on film. Call me a typical male or whatever, but as far as I am concerened, it is not needed. I think there was plenty of their story to go around in LotR. Really, why dwell on them even more when there is so much other material they could be working with?

Just my two cents.
I agree in principle Show. But if the Studio Suits push for a romance, then it seems to me Jackson and Del Toro should work with what exists rather than creating a new romance out of whole-cloth.

[b:3u5xjt0s]Gandalfs' Beard[/b:3u5xjt0s]
I think you guys are right.

For me, there hasn't got to be a romance in the Hobbit.

But if the movie company insists, I think they shouldn't go and make up new characters - they could better stay with the characters and the romance from LOTR...
[quote="Show":3d76j41f]I have a question... why all the interest in a more developed version of Aragorn and Arwen?

Is it only because that is the only romantic plot line we can come up with for the second film? ...or because we actually want to see it on film. Call me a typical male or whatever, but as far as I am concerened, it is not needed. I think there was plenty of their story to go around in LotR. Really, why dwell on them even more when there is so much other material they could be working with? [/quote:3d76j41f]

Because the Aragorn-Arwen love story is the most famous love story (beside Beren and Luthien) in all of the history of Middle-Earth. Personally, I would like to see the first meeting between Aragorn and Arwen, when Aragorn mistakes Arwen for Luthien (Arwen is a descendant of Luthien). A lot of stuff was left untold in LOTR, such as their first meeting, and their reuniting in Lorien. Perhaps these two events could start and end the movie? I don't know the time line good enough to know if that would work. And I'm not too sure about the story having its "book-ends" be a love story. All I'm saying is this: the love story between Aragorn and Arwen has a lot of history intertwined in it, and it would fit well with other events. It is also very famous, and not even half of it was in LOTR.
Elrond's ultimatum is pretty vague in the movie. I don't think it's even mentioned at all, just hinted at. I think it should show up in the second movie.
I read The Hobbit twice and it is such an amazing book. I just hope they stick to Tolkien's original vision when they begin filming. I wouldn't mind a little of a backdrop for Arwen and Aragorn's romance, but kept to a minimum. I'm sure there are more girls out there who care more about the accuracy of Bilbo's journey than the romance. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
Why?? - didn't hollywood figure out anything that they don't need sex and bad language to sell a movie. We did just fine without it in the original movies.
Sure there was Arwen, but really that was a very small part of the 3 movies. They could have put more in about Eowyn and Farimir but didn't need it. The idea is just stupid. Stay with the book and you will have a winner! 8-)
[quote="buzzlebug":312h0psl]Why?? - didn't hollywood figure out anything that they don't need sex and bad language to sell a movie. We did just fine without it in the original movies.
Sure there was Arwen, but really that was a very small part of the 3 movies. They could have put more in about Eowyn and Farimir but didn't need it. The idea is just stupid. Stay with the book and you will have a winner! 8-)[/quote:312h0psl]

the problem with that is hollywood is run by a bunch of morons. who think that they know everything. now even though i think everyone is in agreement that they should just stick to the book however the idiots who run the movie business just might have it in there heads that they need a physical romance betweet 2 people even though the story would be perfectly fine without it. they have to throw something in every movie made from a book that totally doesn't belong. but really unless some of them have a vision of granduer in which they realize how stupid the whole thing really is. this of course is all speculation because we don't actually know for sure if a romance is what they want and we all know we can trust P.J. to fight for the book!
I agree with everyone who said that The Hobbit does not need romance to make it work. However, I am doubtful that the writers will be able to restrain themselves from inserting [i:3rulsmcy]some[/i:3rulsmcy] form of romance into the story. The problem with that, to me, is that it is distinctly not part of the tone of of The Hobbit, which is a children's story.
If you ask me, there was a romance; Balin and Bilbo.
[quote="lothierial":34z9phg3][quote="buzzlebug":34z9phg3]Why?? - didn't hollywood figure out anything that they don't need sex and bad language to sell a movie. We did just fine without it in the original movies.
Sure there was Arwen, but really that was a very small part of the 3 movies. They could have put more in about Eowyn and Farimir but didn't need it. The idea is just stupid. Stay with the book and you will have a winner! 8-)[/quote:34z9phg3]

the problem with that is hollywood is run by a bunch of morons. who think that they know everything. now even though i think everyone is in agreement that they should just stick to the book however the idiots who run the movie business just might have it in there heads that they need a physical romance betweet 2 people even though the story would be perfectly fine without it. they have to throw something in every movie made from a book that totally doesn't belong. but really unless some of them have a vision of granduer in which they realize how stupid the whole thing really is. this of course is all speculation because we don't actually know for sure if a romance is what they want and we all know we can trust P.J. to fight for the book![/quote:34z9phg3]

I don't think that Hollywood suits are necessarily morons or idiots, but are simply searching for an outcome that will justify their investment. Being people of business and viewing the movie as product, they wish to use it as a vehicle that will maximize profits, and in many cases are willing to sacrifice artistic integrity to get there. When the end result is a weakened movie then, justifiably, those executive decisions, created in ignorance, are, rightly so, deemed idiotic. Hence, we find ourselves discussing whether The Hobbit will have, romance, or full frontal nudity, or humorous expletive laden insults (used to good effect in the burning fir tree scene).

The good news in this case is that the trilogy was a runaway, blockbuster success which generated far more profits than they had anticipated and garnered numerous awards to boot. Accordingly, the suits are now less willing to disturb the process that will create these movies, because of the known quantities of Jackson, Boyens, Walsh, WETA, and now Del Toro and the much greater likelihood of a repeat success. This is especially true when you consider that The Hobbit is far more easily filmed because the storyline is nowhere near as complex and multi-threaded as LOTR was. Incorporating the Arwen/Aragorn story into that maze was probably very difficult in the screenplaying process- Tolkien certainly had difficulty with it, or he wouldn't have placed it in the Appendices- but in so doing Jackson, et. al. made a more thoroughly enjoyable cinematic experience. For LOTR, adding the romantic elements paid dividends in the narrative, but for The Hobbit it doesn't make any sense at all and a false supposition of executive malfeasance to add romantic elements to The Hobbit certainly doesn't make as much sense considering the pull that Jackson, et. al. now have.
I agree with everyone else that romance is not essential to The Hobbit plot and that the Aragorn/Arwen love story should be kept for the second film where they can go into more detail, because it is a really beautiful story that fans want to see. If they needed a female character for the Hobbit, what about Galadriel? They could show the meeting of the White Council when Gandalf disappears for a time to meet with the council to discuss Sauron moving back to Mordor and the Witch King in Dol Guldor, I believe. Galadriel could be the more central female character in The Hobbit. Galadriel's background could be shown as well.
Aredhel: You are right about the inclusion of Galadriel as a strong female character if any in the film. Also note that at the time, she really is the de facto leader of the Noldor, since the fall of Gil-Galad.
Her background wouldn't work out that well though. So much of who she is takes in the entire work of the Silmarillion, which has this whole pesky legal remafications involved if they went and used it.
And in Middle-Earth, if a director starts re-creating an entirely alternate life for the (Great?)Grandchild of the first king of the Noldor, nerds will start a riot. And comic books stores and Best Buys across the nation will need new windows.
haha good point
I'm not really opposed to a romance story as long as it doesn't interfere with the main storyline. It actually might be good, as long asthey're changing things, why not go a little further?

I thought of Galadriel as the main female character ,too, but she's not exactly a romance unless you go in on her and Celeborn and that's not likely.

I think that Aragorn and Arwen is the most likely romance. They're still open for a beginning story as written in the appendices, and Aragorn could tie into the movies by, I don't know, being an advisor to the White Counsel or something.

The Bard romance, however, is ridiculous. You couldn't do that without changing his whole character. In the book, Bard is more of a grim, pessimistic but wise person; not someone to be wooed. Plus, there's no existing girl for him to fall in love with, and if they made one up and inserted her, it would just feel fake.

Then again, if they wanted to do a more major love story, could there be dwarf women in the Company, and something with Thorin...? That sounds really weird to me, but anything is possible...
We all know that Aragorn is way older the he looks, the same for Arwen.
So what i really would like to see is what is written in the lord of the rings appendix obouth how those two have met, you could start this kind of story from the moment the group rests at rivendel. because that is were arwen and aragorn meet, if i am correct. so i would like to see more from that story.

omg posted this post wrong twice, hope some mod can correct my error, sorry.
What are some teenage romance novel ideas? I'm planning on writing a teenage romance novel, and i need some good ideas/story plots. Anyone have any ideas? I'm willing to devote as much time to writing this novel as possible. I have read Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Series, and I enjoyed them very much. Anyone have any similar ideas, but very different at the same time? Give me your ideas and suggestions!
________________
[url=http://www.perfect-partner.com/:4uqjz0qo]matrimonial[/url:4uqjz0qo]
I'm sure they'll find a way around it, somehow. When Peter Jackson pitched his Lord of the Rings to New Line Cinema, the studio execs said he had to kill off one of the hobbits - "we don't care which one, it just has to be one of them." PJ nodded and smiled, of course, and went back to making his masterpiece without any intention of killing off Frodo, Sam, Merry or Pippin. Thank God he didn't, because it would have been so cliched and predictable, not to mention completely in defiance of Tolkien's intention. The point of the story is that all the main characters (the hobbits especially) MATURE over the course of the story; that becomes most evident by the end, particularly with Sam, and it would not be served by killing off any of the characters, besides the ones who are meant to die. Tolkien gave us more than enough noble (and ignoble) deaths to keep the viewers satisfied - Boromir, Theoden, Denethor - who could ask for more?

When it comes down to it, I think most Hollywood executives - not the directors, not necessarily the producers, but the financiers and the backers who support the films - are utterly bereft of talent, vision, or creative ability. They are bean-counters, with no idea of how to make a good film or to produce a work of art, and their only interest is to maximise the earnings from their investments. It's merely incidental if they get critical as well as commercial acclaim. And as long as a film has a big name behind it, it doesn't matter whether or not it's any good - they know people will go to see it regardless. Seldom will they gamble with an unknown, or an unproven name or idea. And when they do have a success, they almost invariably release a sequel the next year or the year after to capitalise on it, usually worse than the original, regardless of whether the story actually warranted it. Years ago, film 'franchises' as we know them today were very rare: we had Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Aliens, Terminator (1 & 2), and a few more. Nowadays, though, you hardly ever see a film that doesn't have the number '2' or '3' after it. Just this year we've had Transformers 2 (complete rubbish, apparently), Night at the Museum 2 (hated the first one; why do we need a second one anyway?), and more smelly tripe than the whole Japanese nation can eat in a day. Eventually, however, this self-destructive cycle must collapse in on itself, and hopefully these money-grubbing meddlers will lose their jobs and good directors can get back to what they enjoy doing (or used to do) - making good films!

Guillermo del Toro seems to me a competent director, and it's obvious with The Hobbit he wants to follow up on the QUALITY as well as the success of PJ's trilogy. If The Hobbit is butchered - and there's no guarantee it won't be - doubtless it will be down to meddling Hollywood pricks, and not the fault of the director. If that happens, I for one will be very disappointed.

On the topic - I don't think Rowan Atkinson would make a good Bilbo. (Who suggested that?) For one thing he's too tall - 6'1" according to IMDB, and much too slender to appear 'hobbit-size' even next to someone considerably taller. He's also too well-known, at least in Britain. (Not sure about America.) I know, so was Ian Holm, but he is a very charismatic and accomplished actor, also he was previously affiliated with the Lord of the Rings universe due to his portrayal of Frodo in the BBC Radio production. His portrayal of Bilbo in my opinion was one of the best in the trilogy, as good if not better than Ian McKellen's Gandalf (shame he had so little screentime.)
Really I can't suggest an ideal actor for the role, however I would suggest a complete unknown play Bilbo - a TALENTED unknown, not a wooden Trojan horse like Hayden Christensen. I've already voiced concern that Hollywood might cast someone like Shia LaBeouf - he seems an obvious (too obvious) choice considering his big roles in Transformers and Indiana Jones, and his quirky screen personality, but I hope, I really HOPE they don't cast him. THE ACTOR HAS TO FIT THE CHARACTER. When will Hollywood grasp this simple concept?
"Hey, I got a great idea: let's get Tom Cruise as Bilbo!" "Definitely! Brilliant! I'll get him on the phone right away! Cruise'll add at least $50 million to our box office gross!" "And Mel Gilbson as Beorn!" "Oh yeah! I'm countin' the green!" "And how about this - Vinnie Jones as the Goblin King!" "Genius, genius." "Now we can probably fit Daniel Craig in as the voice of one of the Eagles..." "Oh, you're definitely onto a winner there." "And I'm thinking maybe Brad Pitt as the Elven-King..." "Ooh, the ladies'll love that!" "And Christian Bale - he's been in a few big movies lately, he's a serious-looking sorta guy so we could probably use his face for one of the Mirkwood spiders." "Sure, just make sure he doesn't lose his temper on set, you know how that guy is..."
See what I mean? Maybe SLIGHTLY exaggerated the point there, but that to me is how Hollywood operates. Forget the furore surrounding the changes made to Peter Jackson's LotR - if nothing else that was a brilliantly acted, directed and artistically impeccable piece of cinema, and most of the changes made to the story were sensible. If Hollywood screws this film up, it will screw up BIG TIME. I can already see Tolkien spinning in his grave...
james, what is your source for killing off a hobbit? This is the first I've heard of that one.

In defense of the evil Hollywood execs I would point out that we got three LotR movies. The story that Jackson relates is that he started with a two film script. This was originally approved by Miramax films. Here was the evil execs that wouldn't take the gamble, and said make it one film. Jackson began shopping in earnest for a new backer.
Then came New Line. After a presentation by Jackson all he saw was blank faces. Then finally (I forget his name) looked at him, and to paraphrase: why is it two movies? This is obviously three.
New Line took a huge, huge gamble with LotR. Filming all three at once, putting out loads of cash and betting it on some director who has pumped out a handful of cheap monster flicks.
Every film was near the three hour mark or more. Every element of the film was just astounding.
I for one feel at ease with the upcoming hobbit films. My only complaint is that I can't watch it now.

And if you wanna read and watch two completley different stories with the same title, check out the Bourne books/movies. The stories are so different, that I was able to enjoy both because other than amnesia, spys, and a some names, everything was different.
Honestly James, I think you are being a wee bit paranoid <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . Peter Jackson has a history of standing up for his own vision. And with the full force of a Triple Blockbuster behind him, he can write his own ticket in Hollywood these days--including having his pick of Director to work under him on the day to day operations this time. And he got Del Toro, another famously Independent film-maker.

Now, Jackson has quite a good sense of balance regarding choosing actors, both known and unknown. Frodo, Gandalf, and Elrond were all played by actors of some reknown, and they turned out just fine--brilliant in fact. I seriously doubt anyone will be cast who isn't a good fit for the part <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> . Atkinson was suggested as an April Fools day prank, but after some thought quite a few of us here think that idea isn't wholly out of bounds (still not my first choice though).

And when it comes to Romance (the topic of this particular thread <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ), if any is shoehorned into the Hobbit, the likeliest outcome will be an expansion of the Arwen / Aragorn backstory. I sympathise in general with many of your concerns about Hollywood Suits, but seriously, I think you can relax about this one :mrgreen: .

[b:xnx6er78]GB[/b:xnx6er78]
aragorn and arwen as well as denathor and faramir or denathor's wife would be cool backstorys but isn't the timeline wrong? the hobbit took place 50 years before LOTR. now im not a expert, and i know arwen is immortal and aragorn is older than he looks but still, i don't think it matches up. somebody please correct me if im wrong
I don't know how much the timeline of the novel really matters in the world of the films. Isn't there supposed to be much more time between Bilbo's party and Frodo's departure than in LOTR? It may be more important whether Jackson would cast another actor as Aragorn. If Mortensen will come back, then I wouldn't be surprised if Aragorn shows up at the White Council.
If I remember correctly, Aragorn is in his 90's in LotR (but looks in his 30's). Bilbo is in his 50's in the Hobbit and 111 in LotR, so that makes Aragorn in his 30's at the time of the Hobbit. So no problem with an Aragorn Arwen romance in the Hobbit.

[b:iol9qasd]GB[/b:iol9qasd]
Don't forget to add another 13 years if we use book time. The party was when Frodo was 33, Making his age plue Bilbo's 111 equal one gross 144. If I remember right, and I need to do a check later to make sure. It wasn't until he turned 50 that Frodo set out on his journey.
I'll fact check tonight if I get the chance.
I believe you are correct about the book time Show. I actually preferred the change made in both Jackson's and Bakshi's films. It just makes the flow of the story better to have Frodo departing within a few months after Bilbo, instead of years. Either way though, Aragorn could still fit nicely into The Hobbit (Viggo Rocks 8-) ).

[b:1xdmvil9]GB[/b:1xdmvil9]
Well, it's been a long time since I read The Hobbit and I will need to get a copy and reread it but if memory serves me right, how about Tom Bombadil and Goldberry? They were a cute couple, very environmentally oriented, people could relate to them now with no problem! :mrgreen:
You know Elwyn, that's not a half bad idea :idea: . As Bombadil didn't make it into LotR, he and Goldberry could at least warrant a cameo. Though I have been starting to think lately that (if the C. Tolkien suit ever gets settled) some of the side stories to LotR and The Hobbit that didn't make the cut, could be turned into a series of GOOD animated shorts ala the Animatrix.

[b:314yhu1x]GB[/b:314yhu1x]
I don't know that throwing in a romantic angle will actually make the film do better at the box office -- which is all that the financial backers (other than PJ) are worried about; they couldn't care less about artistic integrity. Personally, I don't want this particular story gummed up with mush, but if there has to be some spooning, why not go all out? Front-load the flick with a girlfriend for Bilbo (we know he ends up a bachelor, but that's not vital for this film). How about a sweet little Bolger gal, a winsome lass from the Frogmorton vicinity, or a toffe-nosed Took-ette (a couple of times removed, of course, to avoid charges of incest)?

Seriously, though, the only "realistic" love interest would have to involve Bard or Beorn, as many here have already noted. We know both end up with children at some point (Bard had a son, Bain; and Beorn had his "Beornings"Wink Smilie, so we could stick either or both of them with sweethearts without being untrue to the tale, even if the book doesn't mention them. Since I train with female bodybuilders, I have affection for big, strong women -- just the types to keep a bruiser like Beorn in line. I'd like to see him partnered up with a ferocious skin changer of the opposite sex. It might give the movie a bit of a kick, especially if she has a personality where she flirts with Bilbo and makes him uncomfortable.

Just a thought.
  [1] [2] >>