Thread: WHITE COUNCIL WILL WRECK HOBBIT
    >>
Odo[/quote:27f8alz1]I say make a good movie that follows the book well, and if they could fit something in about the White Council great! We have to remember this is going to be two movies.
I've said this somewhere else on a thread but I'll say it again.
(1) Movie One. Bilbo from Hobbiton to their leave-taking with Gandalf at the entry to Mirkwood. (The Beorn scene could be beefed up with all the night noises and growlings outside until the party finds out Beorn's story about the attack on the Goblins and Wargs of the Misty Mountains. Then the journey from Beorn's house could be 'creepened' up with the shadowy Beorn following them - which might lead nicely into the bitter parting with Gandalf and the entry into the dark and creepy forest.
(2) Movie Two. The rest of Bilbo's adventures until 'back again.'
(3) Movie Three (if we must): The Amazing Adventures of Gandalf the Wizard (including White councils and the dangers of Mirkwood and the battle of Dol Guldur).... Jackson could direct this himself. He seems to like adding new stuff. His imagination could run free! (Ian McKellen could carry a movie - no worries, mate!)
Three movies. Imagine the bucks coming in!
Imagine all us fans dancing in the streets!
What story? Certainly not [i:i2gved8w]The Hobbit[/i:i2gved8w]!
I'm glad you've seen reason, Cbernui.
"VOTE NO! TO PARRALEL STORYLINES!"
And yes, there's still plenty of story to make two movies without the White Council! (It might even be done properly leaving nothing out - Excelsior!)
As I have already pointed out on the thread Eldorion kindly linked to. It is possible to have the bulk of The Hobbit in the first film if they end it with the Death of Smaug. This would thus maintain the integrity and kid friendly tone of the bulk of the original story, which I absolutely agree is important.
The second film could then focus on the White Council and The Battle of 5 Armies. This would require a brief set up scene in the first film, but I do agree it should not become a "parallel" story, with both stories stretched out over both films.
The second film should have the White Council and Dol Guldur told in flashback, with Gandalf finishing up and meeting with Bilbo and the Dwarfs just in time for the Battle of 5 Armies.
Okay, thus The Hobbit is largely kept intact as Bilbo's adventure, and the second film becomes essentially the "prequel" or "bridge" to LotR.
The fact is, I've always wanted to see the White Council and Dol Guldur as a story close to it's proper place. Even as a kid I was like "Where's Gandalf?" and "Why didn't we get to see what he was doing?". Well now I can (...er...in a couple of years anyway).
PJ, Del Toro, I hope you are paying someone to read these forums. I think this is the best way to assuage [b:3jtsulgf]Most[/b:3jtsulgf] of us who want the Hobbit's integrity maintained as much as possible, while satisfying the urge (of some of us) to see the stuff Tolkien relegated to appendices (but was still part of the story).
There is a slight chance a third movie will later be made, covering such things as The Hunt For Gollum, The Reopening of Moria, and other events that occur between The Hobbit and LotR.
So we must resign ourselves to this fact, and it's not necessarily bad news. I don't really see a problem that can't be largely resolved if they follow my blueprint for how to handle things (hopefully ). As long as the movies are 3 1/2 hours long like LotR, there should be no trouble getting everything in.
The Hobbit is only 305 pages long (pb). It was a very quick read when I re-read it last year. As long as the more "grown up" stuff is shifted to film 2 (White Council, The siege of the Dwarfs, The Battle of 5 Armies which begins on page 281) we can be assured that the first film will cover 95% of the book and be closer in tone to the book. And I imagine the tone would be somewhat similar to [i:2jyw0zww]Time Bandits[/i:2jyw0zww].
[u:2jyw0zww][i:2jyw0zww][b:2jyw0zww]If[/b:2jyw0zww][/i:2jyw0zww] they do it this way[/u:2jyw0zww], I don't see how the White Council could possibly "wreck" the Hobbit. At most, it would be just a minor annoyance to the more "purist" among us.
It really wouldn't make sense for the White Council to appear in a third "bridging" movie which might never get made, [u:2jyw0zww]as the events take place [b:2jyw0zww]during[/b:2jyw0zww] The Hobbit (which makes it part of the story) [/u:2jyw0zww]. And I for one want to see those events.
PJ and GDT have both stated that they have no interest in making said third movie, so I'm not exactly expecting it.
[quote:1hgnf3sh][u:1hgnf3sh][i:1hgnf3sh][b:1hgnf3sh]If[/b:1hgnf3sh][/i:1hgnf3sh] they do it this way[/u:1hgnf3sh], I don't see how the White Council could possibly "wreck" the Hobbit. At most, it would be just a minor annoyance to the more "purist" among us.
It really wouldn't make sense for the White Council to appear in a third "bridging" movie which might never get made, [u:1hgnf3sh]as the events take place [b:1hgnf3sh]during[/b:1hgnf3sh] The Hobbit (which makes it part of the story) [/u:1hgnf3sh]. And I for one want to see those events. [/quote:1hgnf3sh]
The point is that the White Council is [b:1hgnf3sh]not[/b:1hgnf3sh] part of the story of [i:1hgnf3sh]The Hobbit[/i:1hgnf3sh] just because it happened concurrently, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. [i:1hgnf3sh]The Hobbit[/i:1hgnf3sh] is a fairly simple and straightforward story about one Bilbo Baggins and his Adventure with a group of Dwarves ... we all know the rest. The White Council has [b:1hgnf3sh]very[/b:1hgnf3sh] little to do with this and isn't part of the same story.
That is, I think (though I can't speak for Odo) why the White Council could "wreck" these films: because it is part of the filmmakers' overall attitude of not making an adaptation of [i:1hgnf3sh]The Hobbit[/i:1hgnf3sh] but a general Middle-earth-ish movie including elements of TH.
That's my perspective at least.
His story needs to be told, both for me and for the non-reading audience who will wonder the same thing I did when i was a kid. Apparently Jackson and Del Toro agree. I have proposed a way forward in which both purists and that audience can be largely satisfied, without wrecking the main body of The Hobbit.
It's going to happen.
If we don't want a parallel story approach [b:2rx0was8](and I agree that would ruin the tone of the Hobbit)[/b:2rx0was8], and if the producers actually do bother to pay attention to forums (and I suspect that they increasingly do) then it behooves us to suggest other ways for them to fulfill the expectations of long time Tolkien fans and casual film-goers alike.
Again, in brief: End film one with Death of Smaug, The Hobbit is thus largely
intact. The LotRish stuff then is all in film 2.
The White Council is going to be included. Del Toro and Jackson have made that clear
If the film-makers take the approach I have suggested, we get the best of both worlds.
NB I must admit, whilst I adore LOTR (book), I don't have quite the emotional attachment to it that I do to TH, and so I still managed to enjoy those movies in spite of their lack of purity (grit teeth). Maybe I'll just have to avoid The Hobbit Movies (at least until I hear what the reviewers say - which is not my usual policy).
I really believe they can make a beautifully faithful version (even with the White Council), if they follow the approach I suggest. I don't want the Hobbit ruined either.
I just thought of the name for my (illusionary) Third Movie: "Gandalf the Grey". Superb!
I'll even help PJ write the script - newfangled ideas included - but only if he agrees NOT to do the White Council in Movie Two!
Yes - it's blackmail - but I'm desperate... (Eldorion, I'm sorry about suggesting any sidestep from the Narrow Way of Purity - but we must save The Hobbit at all costs! Surely you understand!)
..."GANDALF THE GREY": Scene Eighteen (or thereabouts):
Gandalf pursued through gnarled darkened trees by Orcs. He wiggles his fingers and a leaf rattles some way away. The Orcs move cautiously in that direction. A twig breaks further away. The Orcs cry out and storm through the undergrowth in that direction. Gandalf gives a (Ian McKellen-ish) wry smile, and proceeds off into the trees in the opposite direction.
Imagine it, not a pebble thrown as a ruse - no - it's Magic! But, no, not Big Magic - Little (subtle) Magic! (How could PJ NOT give into blackmail, I ask you!)
There's a point in The Hobbit where the book takes on a significantly darker tone, and that's where Gandalf leaves. Until then Gandalf was around the save the day, as a Deus Ex Machina to Bilbo and the Dwarves, and when he couldn't save them, others did (Eagles, Beorn). Bilbo only once is on his own in the first half of the book, but he also is without the Dwarves, and thus is caring after his own hide, lost in the dark, riddling with Gollum. A dark scene to be sure, but not like the darkness of Mirkwood or Smaug or the Battle of Five Armies. The greater events going on here, beyond the scope of one Hobbit by the very end of the story, is wearying upon him.
While it's a simple adventure story, "There and Back Again," The Hobbit presents a deeper, more complex story then just at face value. The discussion of the Necromancer's Tower, and Gandalf's acquiring of the Map and Key, was always a dark undertone of the tale, something so perilous, that even a company taking on a Dragon, the Last of the Great Wyrms, would have no chance against this other darkness. And yet it has done them a great wrong as well, and attention to it draws Gandalf away when they need him most. It's not a disjointed "other event," it's an essential element of the story that will enhance The Hobbit movies, especially if (as I think it is) is introduced in Movie 2, mirroring Bilbo's descent into the dark of Mirkwood, and his need to emerge as a leader to the Dwarves, and show off his special, latent talents that he knew not he had.
What I'm more worried about is that Christopher Lee won't be able to act in the White Council because he's too old to fly down to New Zealand.
(I am probably alone in the wish that the whole tale was wrapped up in one great film, and i can't get past that at the moment.)
The story is not a comprehensive historical chronicle of what happened at that time period in Middle-earth, it's an adventure story about Bilbo. Gandalf is, in the end, a rather minor character in this story. His activities while separated from are no more a missing part of the story than the Battles of the Fords of Isen (something Tolkien actually wrote about at some length, eventually published in [i:1sflv71h]Unfinished Tales[/i:1sflv71h]) is a missing part of the story of LOTR. It's a side-event that is separate from the story.
[quote:1sflv71h]His story needs to be told, both for me and for the non-reading audience who will wonder the same thing I did when i was a kid.[/quote:1sflv71h]
That's your opinion. But if they truly want to adapt the story of [i:1sflv71h]The Hobbit[/i:1sflv71h] and nothing more they wouldn't include him. This is not just my opinion: the story of [i:1sflv71h]The Hobbit[/i:1sflv71h] can be found in the book and Gandalf's individual activities are not part of it.
[quote:1sflv71h]I have proposed a way forward in which both purists and that audience can be largely satisfied, without wrecking the main body of The Hobbit.[/quote:1sflv71h]
As I believe I said in the earlier thread, I think that your idea is the best possible solution (that I've heard/thought of) given that the White Council [i:1sflv71h]will[/i:1sflv71h] be included. I do not however think that the White Council [i:1sflv71h]should[/i:1sflv71h] be included.
There's nothing wrong with making the best of what we're given. I think that you and GB are both on the right track with the separate parts script ideas since the White Council will be included.
Take [i:2c8gz1gq]that[/i:2c8gz1gq] dead horse! Ha, how do you like me now?! *ahem*
For everyone saying that the White Council-related events are part of the story of [i:2c8gz1gq]The Hobbit[/i:2c8gz1gq], I have a question for you. Why is this given only the briefest of vague mentions in the book if it's part of the story?
[quote:2c8gz1gq]What I'm more worried about is that Christopher Lee won't be able to act in the White Council because he's too old to fly down to New Zealand.[/quote:2c8gz1gq]
I would definitely like to see Christopher Lee back as Saruman if Saruman is indeed there both for continuity's sake and because I think he's a great actor. I think I mentioned this in another thread, but he's said that he'd be interested if they could his scenes in, say, London rather than New Zealand.
If you did that, Elrond would be a Human, the Ring would have been won in Riddle-contest from Gollum in actuality, rather than it being a lie showing the dark elements of the Ring to foreshadow The Lord of the Rings, and Dwarven runes would be Anglo-Saxon runes, rather than their own intricate language, to name just a few.
Okay, the third wasn't as story-important, but the other two are key story elements we take for granted these days. Elrond, as written in The Hobbit, is a man who has distant elven ancestors, much like Aragorn, and his estate of Rivendell is much less the epic council-home built into the wall of a canyon with numerous rooms and such, as it is The Last Homely House before the Wilderland.
The entire chapter of Riddles in the Dark was rewritten to make sense with The Lord of the Rings, it was more along the lines of Bilbo's "lie" to the Dwarves, which wasn't a lie in the original publication, because it was true. This is the most changed plot-point to fit the story in with the Trilogy.
Because, to tell the truth, The Hobbit wasn't written with the same source material in mind, and in numerous cases breaks the histories and the established lore for the sake of child-friendly fairy-tales (rather different from the dark of Faerie that occurs in the semi-final version of The Silmarillion that was published).
The Lord of the Rings retconned many things about The Hobbit, because Tolkien's understanding of his Third-Age world was evolving with it, stemming from a new creative impulse that he immensely disliked at the beginning (he actually didn't like The Hobbit very much soon after it was published because of the "newfangled hobbits and gollums and anglo-saxon runes and dwarves bearing names out of Voluspá" - paraphrased from The Tale of Sigurd and Gudrún, his newest publication), but one that transformed the entire state of his world and pushed it towards it's most well-known and loved conclusion.
The Hobbit was a work in-process, it wasn't just a stand-alone story. So it has plenty of room for the stories that couldn't just be altered within the text of the narrative, but had to be relegated to the Appendices.
I'm actually with Lester Cat on one thing at least. ONE MOVIE would be best, so long as it follows the simple linear storyline. Brilliant if it could be pulled off - but it wouldn't make as much money as TWO MOVIES - and that's the important thing.
What is your basis for this? The entire Riddles in the Dark chapter is genius. Have you read the original form? The new one is vastly superior, and not because it conforms to The Lord of the Rings. It's better written, deeper, and a much darker and more troubling story element that hints into what is yet to come with the latter half of the book when Gandalf is gone for good (until a final appearance at the end).
I just [i:2daasz0d]love[/i:2daasz0d] people who try to pass off their opinion as fact. Because of course your belief that it is silly not to include the White Council completely invalidates the fact that it's not in the "true" version of the story found in the book. The fact that Tolkien changed elements of [i:2daasz0d]The Hobbit[/i:2daasz0d] does not mean that he changed the focus or structure of the story itself, and there is also a major difference you seem to have overlooked. Tolkien was the author of the story, PJ and GDT are merely adapters of it. [i:2daasz0d]The Hobbit[/i:2daasz0d] exists, and has existed in a stable form for over 40 years now (since the Third Edition in the 1960s). PJ and GDT are supposedly adapting this story.
[quote:2daasz0d]If you did that, Elrond would be a Human, the Ring would have been won in Riddle-contest from Gollum in actuality, rather than it being a lie showing the dark elements of the Ring to foreshadow The Lord of the Rings, and Dwarven runes would be Anglo-Saxon runes, rather than their own intricate language, to name just a few.[/quote:2daasz0d]
Sorry? Wishing for faithfulness to the text as Tolkien finalized somehow equates to the idea that we are supposed to go back to the earliest version of the story? Do tell how that logically follows.
[quote:2daasz0d]The Hobbit was a work in-process, it wasn't just a stand-alone story. So it has plenty of room for the stories that couldn't just be altered within the text of the narrative, but had to be relegated to the Appendices.[/quote:2daasz0d]
No, [i:2daasz0d]The Hobbit[/i:2daasz0d] was not a work in progress, it was a story that happened to undergo two post-publication revisions [i:2daasz0d]by the author[/i:2daasz0d] resulting in new editions. [i:2daasz0d]The Hobbit[/i:2daasz0d] is also, even after being added to the broader legendarium, a self-contained story. If one tries to expand it to include other events in Middle-earth at that time it is no longer [i:2daasz0d]The Hobbit[/i:2daasz0d].
I'm going to reiterate this from my last post: if the White Council is part of the story of [i:2daasz0d]The Hobbit[/i:2daasz0d] why was it not mentioned in the book? The book is, after all, the version of the story written (and revised) by Tolkien.
Marahandir makes some great points about Tolkien retrofitting The Hobbit to fit into Middle Earth. And also some good points about why The White Council should be part of the Story of The Hobbit.
But I agree with Eldorion and Odo, that the integrity and tone of the last published version of The Hobbit (which we all likely grew up with) should be maintained as much as possible in film 1.
With an expanded storyline, The White Council and Dol Guldur, plus the Siege of the Dwarfs and the eventual Battle of 5 Armies will be plenty of material for Film 2.
I would love a pint or two right now.
However, the author did continue to retrofit it into his evolving Middle-Earth through the Appendices and the Unfinished Tales, and they're just as relevant to his story as the other retrofits that made it into the book.
However, it's a big deal adding a chapter here or there in later additions, as opposed to rewriting a chapter to fit better in with how an element is represented in the sequel.
The Hobbit is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, but only in the sense that The Lord of the Rings is it's sequel. No, it shouldn't have the same feel as The Lord of the Rings, and I don't think it will. The battles are few, and whether or not there will be an actual battle at Dol Guldur is still unknown. But there were definite darker themes that could easily accommodate the White Council and Dol Guldur and the Necromancer, and not detract from the story, but rather enhance it.
Tolkien said this with Lord of the Rings, and I assume he meant it for The Hobbit as well: the appendices should be treated as a part of the story that didn't quite squeeze into the breadth of the narrative. He really wanted Aragorn and Arwen in Fellowship, but with all the Council of Elrond and Shadows of the Past, it's a bit much. These are things that are a part of the story, but couldn't find an adequate way to ease into the story without feeling disjuntled.
Considering that The Lord of the Rings movies were arranged in a very different form that the books (interspaced works much better for movies than stopping, switching to a new group for many chapters, and then moving back), the movie of The Hobbit could well accommodate the White Council in the same way that the movies could accommodate for Arwen and still feel true to the original.
I'm certain that some details will be changed. This happens with movies. However, Guillermo Del Toro said that he wants to keep even closer to the books than the movies did. Not that he wants to ignore the White Council, but to the feel of the book, to its characters, and to its events.
I'm willing to trust that Guillermo Del Toro will handle things just well, considering El Laberinto del Fauno. I trust him more than I trust Peter Jackson with the book, actually.
I definitely agree with this point Marandahir. I always felt Arwen and Aragorn belonged in the body of the text. And I think it would have been nice if Tolkien had included The White Council and the events at Dol Guldur in The Hobbit, though I suspect he would have run into problems for some of the reasons Eldorion suggests.
And in terms of filming and maintaining the "kid friendly" tone of the final version of The Hobbit, I think it makes much more sense to put the Darker and more complex parts of the story into the second film
[quote="marandahir":131ghs0o]I too want to preserve the feel of The Hobbit as it's final form in authorial publication.
However, the author did continue to retrofit it into his evolving Middle-Earth through the Appendices and the Unfinished Tales, and they're just as relevant to his story as the other retrofits that made it into the book.[/quote:131ghs0o]
The Appendices to LOTR were part of LOTR from the very first publication of ROTK, and the [i:131ghs0o]Unfinished Tales[/i:131ghs0o] is a posthumously-published anthology of writings stretching across many decades. More importantly however, these writings about Middle-earth are mostly [b:131ghs0o]not[/b:131ghs0o] directly relevant to the story of [i:131ghs0o]The Hobbit[/i:131ghs0o] with the slight exception of a few small parts of the Appendices and [i:131ghs0o]The Quest of Erebor[/i:131ghs0o]. They are not, however, actually part of the story of [i:131ghs0o]The Hobbit[/i:131ghs0o]. Much of the legendarium is relevant to TH, but only TH itself tells the story of TH. (How's that for a tongue twister?)
[quote:131ghs0o]However, it's a big deal adding a chapter here or there in later additions, as opposed to rewriting a chapter to fit better in with how an element is represented in the sequel.[/quote:131ghs0o]
I agree, but did Tolkien actually insert any chapters? I was under the impression that Riddles in the Dark was the biggest change he made, though I may be wrong. In any event, I think there is a difference between the original author making a later addition (or, to be fair, a scholar making slight revisions to give a more accurate version as Douglas A. Anderson did for TH and Hammond and Scull did for LOTR) and a filmmakers who is supposed to be making an adaptation adding significant elements to the story.
[quote:131ghs0o]Tolkien said this with Lord of the Rings, and I assume he meant it for The Hobbit as well: the appendices should be treated as a part of the story that didn't quite squeeze into the breadth of the narrative. ... These are things that are a part of the story, but couldn't find an adequate way to ease into the story without feeling disjuntled.[/quote:131ghs0o]
If Tolkien couldn't fit it into the narrative, what makes you think the filmmakers could do better than the man who invented the story and world in the first place. Also, I think you missed an important point: the Appendices are appended to [i:131ghs0o]LOTR[/i:131ghs0o], not [i:131ghs0o]The Hobbit[/i:131ghs0o]. TH and LOTR are, after all, separate stories.
[quote:131ghs0o]the movies could accommodate for Arwen and still feel true to the original.[/quote:131ghs0o]
Without wanting to derail this discussion too much, I think it's highly debatable that the Arwen scenes were true to the original. At least they didn't put her in Helm's Deep though.
[quote:131ghs0o]I'm certain that some details will be changed. This happens with movies.[/quote:131ghs0o]
I think everyone realizes that there will have to be changes to adapt the story from one medium to another, but I feel that changing the story itself defeats the purpose of adapting it.
As always, Eldorion, we seem to be (mainly) on the same page with Tolkien. Some folk on this forum seem a bit wrongheaded to me about what TH actually is.
Funnily enough, T himself seemed to have come around to have a LOTR perspective on The Hobbit and he tried to "match it up." I feel that T failed in the attempt because (somewhere deep down on a sub-conscious level) he was meant to. TH was so good even its creator could not in the end meddle with it too much! The task was beyond him.
PJ and Del T are apparently good enough though...
However, the movie format, and the way it jumps between and meshes scenes to produce dramatic effect, rather than following one group, then jumping back in time and following the next group, and so on and so forth (as Tolkien does, and later is adopted as the format of choice by many fantasy writers, such as Robert Jordan), can assimilate this storyline more easily than the book could. We saw how the Paths of the Dead were an after-story in the books, told by Legolas, to achieve the affect of surprise at the end of the Battle of Pelennor Fields. The movies chose the option of showing the journey of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gímli as it happened (though took some liberties with the tale). It didn't continue that same element of surprise, which I was disappointed about, but it gave a clearer and more tied into the tension with the Paths of the Dead (mirroring Frodo and Sam's journey in Cirith Ungol as well).
They're able to produce a mirror effect more prominently, where different character groups' plotlines resonate with each other in this way. This is a lot harder in a book.
I was unaware that Tolkien tried to rewrite the entire book to retrofit it into the history, but I am not surprised. He disliked the book based on it's appropriation of real world languages, names, and the the fact that Hobbit and Gollum were words and concepts created in an idle hour without the depth of meaning behind them that his histories had. He later retconned Hobbit to hobytla, through Lord of the Rings, Concerning Hobbits, and the Appendices. You can see how desperately he really wanted to reconform the book to his Legendarium.
Yes, it'll use lines that aren't in the book or the appendices, yes, it'll be something that wasn't originally in the book. But I feel it may be a positive difference between the two mediums, even if it's not a perfect mirror of the book, which a movie can never be, and when it gets close to it, it just as much divides the fandom and viewer base (such as The Watchmen did).
I lament the loss of Glorfindel, but Tolkien didn't write many female characters, and this is a flaw of his that I'll hold, a flaw that detracts, but doesn't ruin his books. He wasn't sexist. He championed woman in the deconstruction of the whole Man and man that he flaunted around throughout his Legendarium through Éowyn and "But no man am I." The movies expand the feminine presence, and I think it's a positive thing, even if there were some poor choices with Arwen in the later parts of the movie with her being tied to the fate of the Ring, and Sauron using her as a fear-bartering parley tool thing.
As to retrofitting TH, yes, T grew to dislike the way he approached it. Fortunately, it was too late for him to change. TH was a Classic (my favorite book even after all the years I've been a keen reader), but not the Classic T wanted in the end - still a Classic! T could not improve it. He knew it. It's only sad he did not enjoy TH (in the end) as much as I and millions of fans (especially children) do.
As for women in LOTR, I don't think it detracts from the book at all. I think it quite realistic for women in Middle-earth to [b:1aaktl9r]not[/b:1aaktl9r] be going out and doing all the same things as men; far more believable than if Tolkien had tried to apply modern notions of feminism and women's rights to a story set thousands of years ago. That's not to criticize feminism or women's rights, but to be honest I don't think they have a place in LOTR, simply because there would be no way those ideas would exist.
Relating this back to the lack of female characters, it depends on what you consider a lack. Tolkien did not write about people who stayed at home, he wrote about adventures and Quests. Given the believably misogynistic setting of Middle-earth one could hardly expect women to go on a lot of adventures and Quests. However, there are plenty of female characters if you keep your eyes open. Melian, Miriel, Luthien (a big one), Galadriel, Aredhel, Idril, Morwen, Nienor, Elwing, Silmarien (only briefly), Tar-Miriel, Arwen, and Eowyn all come to mind.
I didn't feel it detract either, really. When I saw the movies and Arwen's presence, though, I was pleasantly surprised for more female characters in the story. Also, she didn't feel disjuntled at the end, popping up and marrying Aragorn when we only heard of her twice before, in Many Meetings way back in Fellowship, and only a passing mention plus a song heard as Frodo is leaving the Fire-room at that.
I understand your point about The White Council not being in the original source material, and that it was in the Appendices for Lord of the Rings. However, it is a story directly pertaining to the set up for the sequel; it's not a disjuntled "this is what was happening elsewhere in Middle-Earth at the same time" sort of plot; it has a number of ties in with the plot of The Hobbit, namely the finding of the key and map, the dwarves' desire for vengeance on The Necromancer as well, Gandalf leaving, Gandalf returning, the mentions of the White Council before Gandalf leaves. Things like this. It's a natural extension of the story, and a good use of space since we're breaking up the movie into two parts.
It also shouldn't detract from the feel of the second film, which should be darker and more of the underlying struggles and weariness that comes from an adventure that was more lighthearted earlier. Bilbo was sort of against it all and gloomy until now, but now it's serious business, because he needs to rely on his own power, and there's no one to save him.
I am afraid that because the films are a prequel to the LOTR films they will try to expand it from [i:1zxhbqk8]The Hobbit[/i:1zxhbqk8] into a more general glimpse of Middle-earth at that time period.
[quote:1zxhbqk8]it has a number of ties in with the plot of The Hobbit, namely the finding of the key and map, the dwarves' desire for vengeance on The Necromancer as well, Gandalf leaving, Gandalf returning, the mentions of the White Council before Gandalf leaves. Things like this. It's a natural extension of the story, and a good use of space since we're breaking up the movie into two parts.[/quote:1zxhbqk8]
The key and the map had been found long before the Unexpected Party ever occurred, and the Dwarves had nothing to do with the White Council's movements against Dol Guldur. Gandalf is the only real story element tying the two together, but it is, as you say, an [i:1zxhbqk8]extension[/i:1zxhbqk8] from the story. I don't see what's so bad about "just" adapting the original story and not trying to add to it.
Given that they will be adding to it though, I like GB's idea, as I said earlier.
But I must say I get a little kooky every time someone says Tolkien was just writing historically when it comes to gender roles in ancient times , so everyone please meet me in the Feminism thread.
By the way, for those who haven't found it, the Feminism thread is in the JRR Tolkien sub-forum.
Yes, and since they are adaptations, they should not be radically adding to or altering the fundamental story. They're certainly not regurgitations (no one is saying that), but they're not recreations or entirely new stories either.
[quote:39aad3sy]Im sure that many purists went mad over the absences of Bombadil, the party at Rivendell showing the relationship between Strider and Bilbo...the list could go on. [/quote:39aad3sy]
Personally I'm not too concerned over the changes you mentioned. The problem for me are the more major changes (Elves at Helm's Deep, the Army of the Dead at Minas Tirith, etc.) to the story itself.
[quote:39aad3sy]I am fairly confident that what ever treatment they give The Hobbit, it will be a great movie[/quote:39aad3sy]
Almost certainly, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll be faithful adaptations.
First off, LOTR movies, are adaptations, not regurgitations. Im sure that many purists went mad over the absences of Bombadil, the party at Rivendell showing the relationship between Strider and Bilbo...the list could go on.
I am fairly confident that what ever treatment they give The Hobbit, it will be a great movie
It is perfectly within keeping to put those elements into the body of the story itself and remain a relatively faithful adaptation. As I said before, it may be more advisable to relegate most of those elements to the second film, but if the article link recently posted on another thread (sorry, forgot which one ) is correct, it suggests that Gandalf's story will be running concurrent to The Hobbit. It's not the way I would do it, but I think it will still be good anyway.