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

Thread: Thrain II, Gandalf and the quest for Erebor

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Thrain II, Gandalf and the quest for Erebor   
Okay we all know that with in the hobbit films are the plans to show Gandalfs activities. We also know there were originally plans to explore the events and actions of the many characters between the hobbit and tLotR.

I am wondering however if there was or still is any plans to show how and why the events of the hobbit take place.

Will we see, or perhaps hear of Gandalfs first excursion in to Dol Guldur, his meeting with Thrain II, the recovering of the map and key, his subsequent meeting of Thorin and his trip to the blue mountains?

I would never expect these events to take place in chronological order, unless as some kind of prologue, much rather as flash backs through out the films. As with Bilbos finding of the ring in tLotR. I would assume the prologue would show Smaugs decent onto Erebor and Thrain and Thorins escape.

Only these do seem to be pivotal points in the over all story of the ring, and the hobbit. They also seem to be almost entirely in scenes already depicted, Dol Guldur, the prancing pony and Erebor.

Do new line even have the rights to these areas? Is it the lord of the rings the hobbit and thier appendices or only the appendices that fall chronologically between the hobbit and the lord of the rings?

Any thoughts?
Hi Elladen,

I suppose they could take the one Thrain argument and completely eliminate the need to deal with the "Durin's folk" appendix. Steuerd Jensen discusses this quite thoroughly in this essay (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/ThrainHist.html) which has good notes to the opposing 2 Thrains view. I personally think that the discrepancies probably result from Tolkien not realizing that what he was writing would be as analyzed as it has been, but it could provide a way for the studio not to have to deal with the estate again, particularly since they just got a settlement on [i:25993yce]The Hobbit[/i:25993yce].
Actually, I think the settlement opens up the possibility that some of these backstories are more likely to appear now. Especially as New Line is now a subsidiary of Warner Bros and is therefore putting their rep on the line too.

[b:3klvjaxm]GB[/b:3klvjaxm]
I think it all depends on the terms of the settlement. Perhaps the Tolkien estate has opened up a limited amount of the appendices for the film. Or maybe they've opened it all the way. We don't know for sure.
But is seems to me that it is most likely that they'll show this particular sequence as a quick flashback at some point when Gandalf has time to explain the whole deal to Bilbo.
My opinion in a nutshell, no.
Long stories have a hard time translating into film. Jackson did a wonderful thing for us when he made LotR as great as he did.
But even that was not perfect. Be it the loss of beloved characters like Bombadil or Frodo forsaking Sam before entering Cirith Ungol. Even the huge fans of the movie had irks with the conversion. At least those of us who knew the books.
But what I keep reminding myself is that if a film includes all the "important" exposition we want, all the history and backgrounds, you end up with a flop and boring film.
Books are not film. Movies are not books. The depth, detail, and history that Tolkien created simply does not survive a [b:2hx0t8rc]change[/b:2hx0t8rc] into film. It couldn't. The only hope is to change as little as possible while remaining true in spirit to the source material.
It boils down to quantity vs. quality. I would rather a wonderful version of the hobbit, than a crappy version that includes everyone's back-story.
To include even more of middle-earth and the larger picture that Tolkien created is a titillating notion for fans like us. But after consideration, I think it would ruin the film.
I think, and hope, that the powers that be will refrain from going out into wide ranging tangents. And instead focus on telling the story of thirteen dwarves and one hobbit going on a journey to get back a hoard of gold.
Over stuffing the film with back-story would just drag the film down and kill the pacing.
.
At least that is my current opinion.

P.S. I thought the handling of the Prolouge for FotR was perfect. They provided just enough of history to keep friends of mine who never read the books from asking a million questions during the movie.
Hear, Hear Show *clapping*. You really nailed how I hope the direction of the film goes.

[b:4yhsiwkn]GB[/b:4yhsiwkn]
[quote="Beren":3rr63sy3]I think it all depends on the terms of the settlement. Perhaps the Tolkien estate has opened up a limited amount of the appendices for the film. Or maybe they've opened it all the way. We don't know for sure.[/quote:3rr63sy3]

The appendices are part of LOTR. The film rights to LOTR were sold before there even was an estate. Now that the Estate is not fighting any legal battles, there is no obstacle to the filmmakers utilizing the appendices (as PJ did before).
I absolutely agree about quantity vs. quality and the focus of the story, [b:2kcmp9x7]Show[/b:2kcmp9x7]. The Hobbit is about the Quest of Erebor, and in my humble opinion we don't need to know everything else that happened before, during, and after it. What is essential can be communicated through brief dialog, which can work in films (Shadow of the Past in the FOTR movie comes to mind) as well as books.
[quote="Eldorion":8frqgfa0][quote="Beren":8frqgfa0]I think it all depends on the terms of the settlement. Perhaps the Tolkien estate has opened up a limited amount of the appendices for the film. Or maybe they've opened it all the way. We don't know for sure.[/quote:8frqgfa0]

The appendices are part of LOTR. The film rights to LOTR were sold before there even was an estate. Now that the Estate is not fighting any legal battles, there is no obstacle to the filmmakers utilizing the appendices (as PJ did before).[/quote:8frqgfa0]

But the Estate could have, in their agreement with New Line, limited the amount of thing they could use from the appendices. Since New Line reportedly owed the Estate a LOT of money, if the Estate was going to settle for something less, they have the right to restrict certain things. At least, that's how I understand it.
[quote="Beren":356oo9ll]But the Estate could have, in their agreement with New Line, limited the amount of thing they could use from the appendices. Since New Line reportedly owed the Estate a LOT of money, if the Estate was going to settle for something less, they have the right to restrict certain things. At least, that's how I understand it.[/quote:356oo9ll]

Well, [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8245300.stm:356oo9ll]the BBC[/url:356oo9ll] reported that the settlement "an undisclosed sum", though I don't what their source for that was. I'm doubtful that the Tolkien Estate tried to modify the terms of the original rights sale so that it applied only to parts of LOTR. They never expressed that as a goal at any rate (to my knowledge), I believe they simply wanted to suspend The Hobbit because they hadn't been paid.
For some reason, I just want to blame Saul Zaentz for poisoning the well from the beginning way back from when he screwed Bakshi <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . Not fair of me, as New Line had it's own Greedy Suits, I know :roll: . I'm just happy this most recent kerfuffle has been resolved <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> .

[b:8rcfgkp0]GB[/b:8rcfgkp0]
I'm glad that the lawsuit was settled too. Keep in mind it wasn't just the Estate claiming they'd been cheated - Jackson sued for the same reason and, if memory serves me correctly, so did some of the actors. New Line seems to have a pattern here. :roll:

Hopefully they won't cheat people out of their money this time around.
I think that the film should include flashbacks like Gandalf and the white Coucil and aspects of the book metioned like it should be included but I don't think there should be any dialogue because Tolkien doesn't mention any.
I wouldn't really call the White Council an aspect of the book. The only - very obscure reference to it - is in the final chapter, where "a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic" who had driven away the Necromancer. A fairly significant event to be sure, but no more than a brief aside and a way to keep Gandalf out of the picture so Bilbo can grow when considering [i:277u393s]The Hobbit[/i:277u393s].
Yeah I think your probs right there lol :mrgreen: but do think that the idea I suggested about no dialogue or speech would be a good idea?
[quote="B'arelyn Dwarf":2h0zi823]do think that the idea I suggested about no dialogue or speech would be a good idea?[/quote:2h0zi823]

It depends on how much is included. If there are just a few flashback shots - maybe in the context of "where were you Gandalf?" then I suppose no dialog would be workable. Given the fairly epic nature of what they'd be showing though I think a lot of people would see such flashbacks and want more.

So as much as I wish they'd leave this out, if they're going to include it, they should at least do it justice. It'll still be fanfiction, but hopefully it will at least make for good movie-watching.
I for one would like to see an added storyline of the White Council, as i think it might help fill in some story for non hardcore fans, and if the films is going to be split into two parts, as looks likely now, then what difference are an extra 20-30 mins going to make? Not a great deal i think.
[quote="Dunadan":2ee3wps9]i think it might help fill in some story for non hardcore fans[/quote:2ee3wps9]

I'm wondering what story you're referring to. Neither the story of [i:2ee3wps9]The Hobbit[/i:2ee3wps9] or [i:2ee3wps9]The Lord of the Rings[/i:2ee3wps9] concerns the attack on Dol Guldur, though it is part of the [i:2ee3wps9]back[/i:2ee3wps9]story of LOTR.

[quote:2ee3wps9]then what difference are an extra 20-30 mins going to make? Not a great deal i think.[/quote:2ee3wps9]

I have a feeling it will last longer than that, especially since there is going to be a battle. :lol: And even though I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea of it being included I hope that they give it a good try since it seems that it will be in there.
Alright not story [i:1kf4etyk]exactly[/i:1kf4etyk] but maybe some more info.
Anyway how do you know there would be a battle? Surely it all depends how they did it? Unless you know something you're not letting on? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
[quote="Dunadan":1r3b3ern]Anyway how do you know there would be a battle? Surely it all depends how they did it? Unless you know something you're not letting on? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />[/quote:1r3b3ern]

I'm afraid I don't have any secret sources reading the script as it's being written. :lol: However, I am reasonably confident that there will be one since it involves an attack on Sauron's fortress, and we know from LOTR how much PJ loves making battles big. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> Obviously Sauron has to escape, but I think that he probably would have left a rearguard to distract the White Council.

However, as I said before, I don't [i:1r3b3ern]know[/i:1r3b3ern] that there will be a battle.
The film actually very shaking, very much is pleasant to me.
What film? [i:6dgjlf8t]The Hobbit[/i:6dgjlf8t] hasn't been released yet, unless you were referring to the animated one from the '70s.