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

Thread: Expanding The Hobbit

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Expanding The Hobbit   
[quote="[url=http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009/08/14/33139-mtv-pj-not-planning-on-third-bridge-movie/:13ymichh]Peter Jackson[/url:13ymichh]":13ymichh][W]e started to .... expand it, because The Hobbit; you know Tolkien wrote The Hobbit before he wrote Lord of the Rings .... But then once he wrote Lord of the Rings he naturally expanded the world and the events that were happening in the background of The Hobbit. Things that he didn't really know about when he was writing The Hobbit but he devised later on when the world of Middle-earth kinda grew in his imagination. [b:13ymichh]There's a lot of material that we can retrospectively put into The Hobbit which doesn't actually exist in the novel; which is fun, I mean this is fun stuff, because it sort of expands The Hobbit in a way that makes it very much related to The Lord of the Rings[/b:13ymichh].[/quote:13ymichh]

My bold emphasis.

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about this. Personally I think that they should just focus on making [i:13ymichh]The Hobbit[/i:13ymichh], but it seems that they want to make it a general prequel to [i:13ymichh]The Lord of the Rings[/i:13ymichh] instead.
I think that they want to include the things that were happening during the Hobbit that make LOTR make more sense. Namely, the White Council and the overthrow of the Necromancer. The big question is: how much will they expand? And how much will this extra stuff take away from the Hobbit story? That's a very delicate balance that they need to get right.
[quote="Beren":15kvrigr]I think that they want to include the things that were happening during the Hobbit that make LOTR make more sense. Namely, the White Council and the overthrow of the Necromancer.[/quote:15kvrigr]

I'm not sure what you mean by "make more sense", though adding the White Council and Dol Guldur would certainly flesh out the backstory more. Could you elaborate?

[quote:15kvrigr]The big question is: how much will they expand? And how much will this extra stuff take away from the Hobbit story? That's a very delicate balance that they need to get right.[/quote:15kvrigr]

I certainly hope that they include the story of The Hobbit too. With two movies to cover a relatively short book they certainly [i:15kvrigr]could[/i:15kvrigr], though I don't know if they [i:15kvrigr]will[/i:15kvrigr].

I just had another thought about this: I think the story of The Hobbit goes beyond just the plot to include also it's feel, that is, the children's book/fairly tail sort of feel. I think it's possible though that by expanding the scope of the films to be more like LOTR (which del Toro seems to want [url=http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2008/10/08/del-toro-wants-5-part-middle-earth-movie/:15kvrigr]here[/url:15kvrigr]) that the original tone of The Hobbit will be lost.
That's one of the reasons I felt the first Hobbit movie should end with the death of Smaug Eldorion. With Backtracking to show what Gandalf and the White Council were doing meanwhile in the second film, leading up to the Battle of 5 Armies. That way the first one could focus on Bilbo and the Dwarves adventure and the humour. And the second could segue into the more serious and adult tone of LotR. But I seem to be in the minority on that one <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . And others seem to be talking me round, but I still dither about it :roll: .

[b:11mqtr3h]GB[/b:11mqtr3h]
Now that is an intriguing idea GB. I have assumed that the first film will end with the death of Smaug, but I also assumed that there would be inter-cutting with the White Council storyline in the first movie as well. I like your idea though, it would give us at least one movie in the spirit of The Hobbit. :mrgreen:

That said, I think there are two potential problems with doing that.
[list:363gr7g6]1. Having to introduce all the members of the White Council plus whatever supporting heroes (and villains) are present in that storyline [i:363gr7g6]and[/i:363gr7g6] wrap it up in less than a single movie in time for the Battle of the Five Armies.
2. Having two climaxes - the taking of Dol Guldur and the Battle - in one movie.[/list:u:363gr7g6]

Fascinating as it would/will be to see the visual side of Sourthern Mirkwood and Dol Guldur, I rather wish that the filmmakers would leave the story more or less as it is. However, this is definitely food for thought given the parameters already established for the film.... :ugeek: I do really like your idea because of the feel and tone aspect.
I had suggested, on another thread regarding this topic, that a set-up scene or two would be necessary in the first film. Then it could be picked up shortly after the beginning of the second film. Bilbo and the Dwarves after the death of Smaug would be in laketown, someone says "I wonder what Gandalf's doing???". Cut back to where we left off the White Council. White Council storms Dol Goldur, and the two timelines converge with Gandalf arriving just in time for the Battle of 5 Armies. Anyway, food for thought.

[b:1ji86xrq]GB[/b:1ji86xrq]
[quote="Eldorion":2jvxc1ee]I'm not sure what you mean by "make more sense", though adding the White Council and Dol Guldur would certainly flesh out the backstory more. Could you elaborate?[/quote:2jvxc1ee]

I don't mean that LOTR doesn't make sense. I just mean that a lot of the backstory that happens during The Hobbit is really a set-up for LOTR. Sauron is the Necromancer, and he is driven out of his Northern stronghold merely to crawl back to Mordor and begin strengthening himself for the last war in LOTR.
I see now, thanks [b:pzsik9zp]Beren[/b:pzsik9zp]. I agree that it would do that, and it appeals to the backstory hog within me. :lol: I still think that it should be treated as it is (if at all): separate from the main story. That's part of the reason I rather like [b:pzsik9zp]GB[/b:pzsik9zp]'s idea, since it splits up the two story threads. I think that would be best for the movies, although it will certainly make the second one rather battle-filled.

This almost seems like it could be a trilogy with the added storyline. It wouldn't be The Hobbit we know though....
I've been thinking a bit more about [b:1ekaf141]GB[/b:1ekaf141]'s idea, and I was struck by this that I found in another thread:

[quote:1ekaf141]OK, there has been a lot of discussion about when they are going to cut the movie. For some reason a lot of people seem to think it will come with the death of Smaug. No way, its too late in the story and not enough for the 2nd film.[/quote:1ekaf141]

I know I was concerned about overloading the second film earlier, but I hadn't really thought about this before. Only five of the 19 chapters of the book occur after the death of Smaug, so if anything it should be the first movie that might be overloaded. I think that making the first part of the second movie be primarily the White Council is far more workable than I gave it credit for initially. We'd have one Hobbit quest movie and another LOTR-esque battle movie.

I think it could work. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> Thanks for the idea, [b:1ekaf141]GB[/b:1ekaf141]!
One of the things I've always been amazed by in the LOTR movie trilogy is how well Peter Jackson portrayed the innocence of the hobbits in the Shire, both at the very beginning and the very end. In fact, that very innocence is definitely the highlight of the movies for me; I can't imagine them without it.

Anyway :roll: my point is that I think, going along with GB's idea (which I think is awesome, by the way) that it would be cool if perhaps the Hobbit starts with Bilbo, the dwarves, and their quest, moves on to the more darker content later (either near the end of the first movie or the beginning of the second) and then the second movie ends back with the more fairy-tale-ish sort of theme.

Of course, none of this would apply if they didn't make 2 movies, and, besides the fact of my idea being based off a random thought, it probably doesn't make much sense. Tell me what you think!
Indeed Astar, in my concept of how The Hobbit should work, there would be one or two set up scenes introducing us to the White Council in the first film. These would have hints of the seriousness to come. Which would then be expanded upon in the second film.

My ending for the second film would have Bilbo telling his story to Happy Hobbit children (possibly including a young Frodo) which segues right into the beginning of LotR.

[b:d12fzje5]GB[/b:d12fzje5]
I kind of like this idea, but I really don't want the ending of the Hobbit to get swallowed up in all the "extra" stuff.
Ady's blogs indicate that the first two films are going to focus strictly on events surrounding the Hobbit. So we shouldn't be getting "extra" stuff <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . That leaves open the possibility that a bridging film might still be made covering things like the reopening of the Mines of Moria etc. But if the Hobbit films end as I suggest it will still fit snugly together, even if the bridging film never gets made.

It would be interesting to discuss which events covered in the appendices and the Silmarillion that occur in the interim period between the Hobbit and LotR would be part of a bridging film.

[b:3o93e4hq]GB[/b:3o93e4hq]
I was saying "extra stuff" as in the White Coucil and the driving out of the Necromancer. If the second film is mostly about that stuff (as you are suggesting), the ending of the Hobbit story could get drowned in the "high events."

[quote="Gandafs Beard":7t8w4e10]It would be interesting to discuss which events covered in the appendices and the Silmarillion that occur in the interim period between the Hobbit and LotR would be part of a bridging film.[/quote:7t8w4e10]

I'll do some research. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
The Return of the King had many "High Events", yet the return to the Shire still evoked a return to coziness and warmth <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> . I don't really see too much of a problem with that in the Hobbit Beren.

Dang, I was hoping you could remind me of the other interim events without hitting the books :oops: . It's been a looooong time since I discussed them on Ady's blog pre-forum days :roll: .

[b:3e4o3r31]GB[/b:3e4o3r31]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":hpg0nk2n]Dang, I was hoping you could remind me of the other interim events without hitting the books :oops: .[/quote:hpg0nk2n]

I'm not a Tolkien encyclopedia, you know...lol. :lol:
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":2d109d4q]Ady's blogs indicate that the first two films are going to focus strictly on events surrounding the Hobbit. So we shouldn't be getting "extra" stuff <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />.[/quote:2d109d4q]

I don't think there's going to be a third movie, GB. PJ said so according to [url=http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2009/08/14/33139-mtv-pj-not-planning-on-third-bridge-movie/:2d109d4q]MTV, via TORn[/url:2d109d4q]. Granted, the conception of the bridge movie has changed enough already that this is probably not set in stone.

In any event, the sense I've been getting is that the story of the Hobbit and the White Council will be rather integrated in the two films.
[quote="Beren":2v9o2891][quote="Gandalfs Beard":2v9o2891]Dang, I was hoping you could remind me of the other interim events without hitting the books :oops: .[/quote:2v9o2891]

I'm not a Tolkien encyclopedia, you know...lol. :lol:[/quote:2v9o2891]

REALLY? Are you sure??! :lol:
The battle at Dol Goldur is kind of anti climactic in a way. Sauron knew the White Council was coming for him, so he buggered off back to Barad Dur before they could get their hands on him. I can't find any indication of he left any army behind (probably sacrificed that force)
rodu - I don't know of any evidence that he left a force behind either. Appendix A states that Sauron retreated from Dol Guldur, and Appendix B that he abandoned it. However, I don't think it unreasonable to think that he might have left a small rearguard.

Now that you mention this though, that would have good implications for GB's idea since it would mean there aren't two major battles in the same movie. This just keeps getting better and better. :mrgreen:
I think that they want to include the things that were happening during the Hobbit that make LOTR make more sense.
I think its a cool idea to add in things they referred to in the LotR and the Appendix involving the Hobbit. It will flesh out the story a little more, and make it a little bit more exciting for those fans that wish to see more than just the novel that we've all read so many times.
I'm not optimistic with the way things seem to be going...

Odo
Hi Nat, welcome to the forum! <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />

[quote="Nat":p5ffr4q7]It will flesh out the story a little more[/quote:p5ffr4q7]

Actually it will add entirely new elements to the story, not flesh out the existing one.

[quote:p5ffr4q7]and make it a little bit more exciting for those fans that wish to see more than just the novel that we've all read so many times.[/quote:p5ffr4q7]

What is the point in making a movie called [i:p5ffr4q7]The Hobbit[/i:p5ffr4q7] that is ostensibly an adaptation of the book if you're not going to bother adapting the book but just make a new story that is somewhat based on the book?
I hate to beat a dead horse <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> , but that is essentially the definition of adaptation--creating a film [i:2sz2tur4][b:2sz2tur4]based on[/b:2sz2tur4][/i:2sz2tur4] the original story. And as long as the adapters use Tolkien's own material to expand the Hobbit (i.e. the White Council etc.), it still falls in the pervue of adaptation, rather than creating an entirely new story based on concepts from the original story(as was done in Will Smith's I Robot, based on Azimov's works).

[b:2sz2tur4]GB[/b:2sz2tur4]
Well if we want to talk definitions, adaptations is [i:5scdjcs0]actually[/i:5scdjcs0] defined as [color=#0000FF:5scdjcs0]"a written work (as a novel) that has been recast in a new form; "the play is an adaptation of a short novel""[/color:5scdjcs0] according to [url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=adaptation:5scdjcs0]WordNet[/url:5scdjcs0]. In other words, it is the same story but it is told in a new form; it's not a hodgepodge of different stories that Tolkien wrote and were then expanded and grouped together by the filmmakers. More simply, the films will be called [i:5scdjcs0]The Hobbit[/i:5scdjcs0] so many will assume that it tells the story of [i:5scdjcs0]The Hobbit[/i:5scdjcs0] (the book). Confusion has arisen from this with LOTR; I'm confident I'm not the only person to have had conversations with non-fans who confuse what happens in the book versus the films.
Very true Eldorion, but many of those Film Fans aren't book-readers anyway. So they aren't so concerned about the alterations due to adaptations. It's only people like us :ugeek: who really care about that sort of thing.

And the short form dictionary definition of "adaptation" doesn't account for the necessary changes that are always made when adapting stories from one media to another.

In some rare cases the film comes first, then the written form, in which case a good book adaptation will fill in many gaps from the film. A Play will be adapted differently from a film, which is adapted differently from a musical, which is adapted differently from a Graphic Novel. In each case the artists involved choose which elements to adjust, leave out, or add, for any number of reasons which I have already pointed out, and in some cases you have even agreed that certain changes made sense.

I think you and Odo do make a good case for Purism, but it's all relative as to how Pure your adaptation would be compared to another's.

[b:1jz45ni8]GB[/b:1jz45ni8]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":3bli40fo]the short form dictionary definition of "adaptation" doesn't account for the necessary changes that are always made when adapting stories from one media to another.[/quote:3bli40fo]

I think that is what [color=#0000FF:3bli40fo]"recast in a new form"[/color:3bli40fo] is supposed to mean. No one expects a 100% literal repetition of the book.

[quote:3bli40fo]In each case the artists involved choose which elements to adjust, leave out, or add, for any number of reasons which I have already pointed out, and in some cases you have even agreed that certain changes made sense.[/quote:3bli40fo]

True, but I think that any time the changes cause alterations to the fundamental characterizations and personalities of the characters or to the plot it has gone too far because it starts changing the story itself instead of making tweaks in order to retell the story.

[quote:3bli40fo]I think you and Odo do make a good case for Purism, but it's all relative as to how Pure your adaptation would be compared to another's.[/quote:3bli40fo]

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you pleaes elaborate?

Thanks for the great discussion (yet again). :mrgreen: :ugeek:
I was just meaning that if you actually adapted a film from the books yourself, that as Pure as you would try and make it, you would invariably find people even more Purist challenging your vision :mrgreen: . It's all relative <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

[b:41ajgq75]GB[/b:41ajgq75]
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":am08np1y]I was just meaning that if you actually adapted a film from the books yourself, that as Pure as you would try and make it, you would invariably find people even more Purist challenging your vision :mrgreen: . It's all relative <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .[/quote:am08np1y]

Certainly there is no objective, universal standard that one can use for purism, but neither is there one for "heathenism" (as Odo calls it :lol: ), or revisionism if you prefer. Purists will of course disagree over what exactly constitutes a fundamental part of the story (I for one see no problem removing Bombadil, while others see it as major issue). Purists can at least agree however, for the most part, about method for adaptation (i.e., preserve the fundamental story - including characters and plot - even if you change the way in which it is told).

As I mentioned above though, the alternative is not any more objective. It is largely based on an idea of the "spirit" of the book. At least for purism there is an objective text that can be referred to rather than personal interpretations. Other variations of revisionism base changes on the need to make the story easier to follow or appeal to modern audiences, but again these are personal and far more relative than differing interpretations of which parts of the text are most important.

We can still debate the merits of each method of adaptation though, even with the knowledge that neither gives an exact guide of what to do for a scriptwriter.
Oh Eldorion, I'm getting really confused. What's this about you not being all that concerned about Tom Bombadil being excised? You're not as Pure as I thought you were!

Actually - you seemed far more Pure when (I thought) you were a girl. You definitely seemed to be wiser and truer then!

Odo

NB Oh my gosh! Didn't you even like Tom? Please say it's not true...
Goodness, by your definition Eldorion I can claim to be a Purist too :lol: . I just think Jackson kept the essential structure, imagery, and characters relatively intact (if I had to assign a value I'd estimate 70-80% intact, which is more than most adaptations). Which is why I am not overly concerned about The Hobbit expansion.

And Odo was just joking about the Heathen thing :mrgreen: , I don't take it seriously at all.

As far as revisionism, I feel that is something more along the lines of what the show Merlin does with the Arthurian Romances. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel, is the closest Jackson's films come to "re-visioning" I think (but I digress and shall leave that to perhaps pick up later on another thread).

[b:osvgd7i9]GB[/b:osvgd7i9]
[quote="Odo Banks":6l47qcql]Oh Eldorion, I'm getting really confused. What's this about you not being all that concerned about Tom Bombadil being excised? You're not as Pure as I thought you were![/quote:6l47qcql]

All in all, I don't think that Bombadil was a terribly important part of the story. I hate to classify parts of the story as more or less important than others, but given that not every could be included (it is a rather long book, after all) some things have to go. Of course, by that token, it makes little sense to start adding things (just so no one thinks I'm defending PJ :lol: ). Also, I did like Tom, though he wasn't my favorite by a long shot.

[quote:6l47qcql]Actually - you seemed far more Pure when (I thought) you were a girl. You definitely seemed to be wiser and truer then!.[/quote:6l47qcql]

Not quite sure I follow you there. :?
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":zn9aaupv]Goodness, by your definition Eldorion I can claim to be a Purist too :lol: . I just think Jackson kept the essential structure, imagery, and characters relatively intact (if I had to assign a value I'd estimate 70-80% intact, which is more than most adaptations). Which is why I am not overly concerned about The Hobbit expansion.[/quote:zn9aaupv]

That's a good point, I suppose I should examine my definition more closely. Obviously, just saying "fundamental" doesn't really explain much, though in my defense I also mentioned [color=#BF0000:zn9aaupv]"including characters and plot "[/color:zn9aaupv]. I don't think that the personalities or roles in the story of any characters should be changed (though of course some cutting of characters or certain storylines will be necessary) unless absolutely necessitated for some reason (for instance, because the plot was condensed and a character has to have a slightly different role). Under this criteria however, characters such as movie-Aragorn who is self-doubting and does not want to become King are not acceptable since Aragorn did not [i:zn9aaupv]have[/i:zn9aaupv] to be made into a self-doubting willful exile.

[quote:zn9aaupv]And Odo was just joking about the Heathen thing :mrgreen: , I don't take it seriously at all.[/quote:zn9aaupv]

I know, I just thought it was funny. :P

[quote:zn9aaupv]As far as revisionism, I feel that is something more along the lines of what the show Merlin does with the Arthurian Romances. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel, is the closest Jackson's films come to "re-visioning" I think (but I digress and shall leave that to perhaps pick up later on another thread).][/quote:zn9aaupv]

I use the term revisionism simply because it has gained some usage in past debates and has even been referenced in the little news reporting that has been done on the debate. I don't try to read too much into the word itself. but I think that there is more re-visioning than just Arwen/Glorfindel. I've mentioned this before, but changing the roles of characters like Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, etc. would count as re-(en)visioning those characters to me. The same thing happened in the plot, such as the re-envisioning of the Battle of the Hornburg as a massive conflict and the climax of [i:zn9aaupv]The Two Towers[/i:zn9aaupv].

I think that both sides of the debate recognize that faithfulness of some degree to Tolkien is good, but it seems (to me) that the purist side wants more faithfulness.
Eldorion, I have the answer. Put Tom in but take out Bree - that was poorly done. Have the hobbits meet Aragorn in a ditch or something.

The other matter... I think we might leave that out too...

Hey! What's this LOTR talk doing on a TH thread? People will start thinking TH is a Prequel or something if we're not careful! DT and PJ have had enough encouragement without you and I helping them Eldorion, even indirectly! Come on, we know how those Heathens think! (Yes, GB, I know you're lurking!)

Odo
It seems that while I've been off cavorting with the Heathens, old Eldorion has not been guarding the walls of Purendom quite as much as I thought. It seems, someone must step into the breach! I now name myself, Tolkien Fundamentalist.

I give you credit, Eldorion, you had me fooled for awhile (in more ways than one, in fact!) It just goes to show that being a Heathen doesn't mean one isn't cunning - very very cunning...

Odo
Odo, Stop... :lol: :lol: :lol: ...my spleen can't take anymore. You don't want me to pee all over myself and electrocute myself with my wet laptop do you? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

(Though come to think of it, that could be a Fundie Terror tactic :mrgreen: )

[b:37eirxkc]GB[/b:37eirxkc]
I have no idea what you mean. :roll: Is this in furtherance of your Heathenism/Fundamentalism joke?
[quote="Odo Banks":2nols6m0]Eldorion, I have the answer. Put Tom in but take out Bree - that was poorly done. Have the hobbits meet Aragorn in a ditch or something.[/quote:2nols6m0]

Personally, and this may just be me, I would rather see Aragorn get his proper introduction and Tom not included than see Tom included and Aragorn be denied his introduction. I say this because, unfortunately, some sort of prioritization must occur due to time constraints and I see Aragorn as rather more important than old Tom, meaning no offence to him of course. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

[quote:2nols6m0]Hey! What's this LOTR talk doing on a TH thread?[/quote:2nols6m0]

Our discussions here do seem to wander a lot :lol: .
Quite possibly - but I can't admit it too openly. I mean, won't take away the humor... Maybe I've said too much already...

Odo

NB I'm a Monty Python Fan. This may explain some of my Odo behavior.
Monty Python, eh? I think this explains a lot about tonight. :P
Eldorion, I certainly hope you're taking my seriousness seriously. You see, we Tolkien Fundamentalists are serious folk, far more serious than Liberals, Heathens, Purists and the rest of that ilk. In fact, the more serious we are the sillier we seem to others! It's an irony that the Truly Pure must live with!

I hope the above makes everything clear.

Odo
Fundie Terror! That's a good idea GB (at least, coming from a Tolkien Heathen, that is). Does anyone remember that skit of Monty Python's about the Lethal Joke that the Brits inflicted on the Germans? I wonder if a Tolkien Fundamentalist might not use such a Weapon? It's difficult to imagine any kind of Fundamentalist (deliberately) coming out with anything funny, though. And you would have to be pretty careful about how you went about making a weapon like that too. (Joke resistant gloves, perhaps?) And would any kind of Fundamentalist know it was a joke anyway?

Odo
I've had a revelation (of sorts). Let's put Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and The Barrow-wights in The Hobbit Movie! Very PJ, I think! Those scenes might fit well in The Hobbit especially 'feel-wise', and it would be in keeping with the LOTR movie-making mentality .

Odo