Thread: Expanding The Hobbit
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'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 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.... I do really like your idea because of the feel and tone aspect.
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.
This almost seems like it could be a trilogy with the added storyline. It wouldn't be The Hobbit we know though....
[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. Thanks for the idea, [b:1ekaf141]GB[/b:1ekaf141]!
Anyway 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!
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.
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="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.
Dang, I was hoping you could remind me of the other interim events without hitting the books . It's been a looooong time since I discussed them on Ady's blog pre-forum days .
I'm not a Tolkien encyclopedia, you know...lol.
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.
I'm not a Tolkien encyclopedia, you know...lol. [/quote:2v9o2891]
REALLY? Are you sure??!
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.
[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?
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.
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).
Certainly there is no objective, universal standard that one can use for purism, but neither is there one for "heathenism" (as Odo calls it ), 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.
Actually - you seemed far more Pure when (I thought) you were a girl. You definitely seemed to be wiser and truer then!
NB Oh my gosh! Didn't you even like Tom? Please say it's not true...
And Odo was just joking about the Heathen thing , 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).
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 ). 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.
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 , I don't take it seriously at all.[/quote:zn9aaupv]
I know, I just thought it was funny.
[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.
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!)
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...
(Though come to think of it, that could be a Fundie Terror tactic )
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.
[quote:2nols6m0]Hey! What's this LOTR talk doing on a TH thread?[/quote:2nols6m0]
Our discussions here do seem to wander a lot .
NB I'm a Monty Python Fan. This may explain some of my Odo behavior.
I hope the above makes everything clear.