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

Thread: Hobbit creatures- silly or not?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Hobbit creatures- silly or not?   [1] [2] >>
What I'm interested at looking at here is are some of the creatures in TH story too silly and childish for a modern audience who have watched LOTR?
So lets start with trolls. After the trolls of LoTR movies do three bumbling trolls with names like William- which Tolkien regretted later in life- belong any more? Should there still be a talking purse in this scene? What do you think?
What about the stone giants hurling boulders at one anther in the storm in the misty mountains? Are they needed? Or are they a bit silly?
How about Beorns Disney cast of helpers; dogs on two legs carrying plates, horses setting tables?
Just a few of the examples to get things going.
And if you think these things should remain how would you like to see them handled on film to stop them seeming farcical?
The trolls in The Hobbit would make excellent characters. They may be funny but they are dangerous creatures. Mixed in the pot by the hand (or spoon) of a wise 'adapter', humor and horror could become filmographic gold! It might even seem fresh and almost cliche-free!

The talking purse could be quite startling, and funny too, given Bilbo's predicament, and surely no less silly than a cliched dwarf-throwing joke! The latter joke, I believe, was in an adult movie! What movie... can't think...? Oh yeah! It was in that most serious movie, "The Two Towers." Aragorn (a big buffoon by all accounts!) makes the joke in the middle of a huge battle to save Helms Deep! Does the humor undermine the tension of the scene? Even for all it's inherent ''absurdity," probably not. In Middle-earth there are magical talismans and other such things (rings come to mind). This purse has been given a fantastical burglar alarm! I can live with it! Indeed, I love it! The purse yelling out its alarm would be quite a shock for those who don't know about it - the wider commercial audience by all accounts! Humor and horror, what!

[i:2532yxaz]What about the stone giants hurling boulders at one anther in the storm in the misty mountains? Are they needed? Or are they a bit silly?[/i:2532yxaz]
Yeah, what about them? Great wild beings born of stone and natural forces? They come out in the night, exhilarated by the powerful forces of climate, they are big and they play, and quite roughly. Can you imagine boulders and rocks sent crashing amongst you? Possibly by huge creatures up the mountain sides, dimly seen in cloud and shadow, occasionally thrown into full view by lightning strikes! Frightening! Probably not very funny either - if you're in the middle of it! Which is where a good film maker will put you.

They were[i:2532yxaz] not[/i:2532yxaz] Disney animals at Beorn's house. They were real animals, though intelligent, who could do wonderful tricks. Also, there is a hint they were something more than the kind of animals as we would know them. (The Hobbit is a fantasy, by the way!)

What I suggest you guys do is erase any thought of Disney from your minds - if you can. Read the book again and think of all those scenes happening in natural settings (real on-location scenery) and allow a little imagination to gloss your thoughts.The scenes in the movie can be funny. They can be fantastical. They don't have to be any more silly than the so-called 'silly' stuff that happened in the LotR movies. Whether we approve of the 'silly' stuff in those movies or not, most people accepted it all gleefully! I had no objection to the 'silly' stuff myself, except where it was not based properly on Tolkien. Even then, I could like some of it as entertainment - it was just misplaced in the wrong movies!

Page by page, I could point out how silly the LotR is - the book I mean! But my disbelief is suspended - and gladly. I apply the same measure to The Hobbit. Fairy-story! Fantasy! That's what this is! Don't ever forget it!

Do we want them to film The Hobbit or some other movie? As to Tolkien changing his mind about things. Well, unfortunately for Tolkien, he put it out there to be seen, and once out there, it was taken from him. Readers own it now. Yes, he tried to take it back by trying a major rewrite, but he couldn't succeed. He gave birth to a marvelous Child, and yes, the Father ceased to love the Child after awhile. Sad that! Losing love for your Child - pitiable! Fortunately for The Child though, other folk still love it! And rightly so, the Child deserves it! Best book ever written. (LotR comes second - sorry!)


Odo Banks
Fundamentalist Purist.
Something has been nagging at the back of my mind and now I know what it is! The talking purse in The Hobbit reminds me of the Sorting Hat in Harry Potter! But, sorry! Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone was a children story (for the whole family) and you can get away with that kind of thing in that kind of movie! Can't you? But not in The Hobbit movies, of course, because that would be [i:tuha2dya]absurd[/i:tuha2dya]. The Philosohers Stone was a 'childrens' story with no 'adult' themes entwined throughout, so it could have this kind of [i:tuha2dya]farcial[/i:tuha2dya] thing and not offend anyone... but... well... weren't there actually 'adult' themes in the book...mmmm?

NB If I may be allowed to go off at a tangent. The thing that most struck me the first time I read Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone, was how much it reminded me of The Hobbit. Tone, atmosphere, humor, description - I don't exactly know what it was - but to me the effect was striking. I think I read somewhere that JKR had not read The Hobbit before she started writing Harry. If I've got this story right, I don't believe her. (I guess she might have been influenced by the early chapters of Fellowship though - that's feasible I guess).
OK,here's my problem,why delete any character from this project?This is a two film production of a story at best 1/3 of the telling of LOTR which they did in 3 films.I have a real problem with introducing a new character to this classic story just so as not to offend our female audience{please no hate mail I love the female audience} I agree with Odo{wise beyond his continent}
the animal helpers in Beorn's home dont have to be disney characters,think more Narnia and I believe it would work fine.As far as the trolls, it would be foolish to leave the scene out considering it was referenced at least twice in LOTR and I think onre of the pivotal scenes to Bilbo building the trust of Thorin







REMEMBER THE GREAT EYE SEES ALL
My dear Odo you do get yourself worked up, I fear for your health. I am not just suggesting that everything in TH that could be seen as fantastical or even silly be removed, I am also enquiring as how best to do it on film given the commercial parameters the makers no doubt have set.
For example in LoTR most of Tolkiens dialogue is substituted by less archaic modern dialogue. Should this be the case for TH? With the trolls as an example should they say till speak like a 1950's university dons idea of the lower classes? Should they still use words like "lumme" or "blighter" which have largely fallen out of use?

In the case of the Stone Giants should they be, as they largely are in the book, a frightening part of the backdrop to the storm in the mountains, or should the filmakers take inspiration from the dwarfs fear of being mistaken for stones and hurled about as an excuse for a cgi action scene?
Same goes for Beorn, how much attention should be given on film to his animal helpers? Should we get to see the meeting of the bears and their pursuit and fight with goblins and wargs or, as in the book, should there only be rumour of it?

This is more the sort of angle I am taking, not dismissing things for being silly but pondering how best some of the 'sillier' stuff might be handled in a film which has to sit alongside LoTR and which will have the darker necromancer story interwoven into it. Apologies if I was not clear enough.
Like Odo, I really don't see the problem. If Narnia can be made into films suitable for adult viewing, I don't see why The Hobbit can't.

[b:e6y1d2p6]GB[/b:e6y1d2p6]
Well, I think Lord Byron says it all!

[i:q9mkrc50]"I'm jus abou to burst me boiler,
Lemme tell ya now,
Oo cares what ol' GB thinks,
Eze jus a flamin Beard any-owl!

There aint no sillies, cob,
Zose dogs! Zose clevver horseys!
Ya not playin' straight, Beardy Lad,
Ya tryin ta be saucy!"[/i:q9mkrc50]


... and not even you can argue with the Great Poets, GB! Surely! :x
The trolls should talk like proper The Hobbit trolls! They talk like they talk. It was funny. I never thought 'working class cobs", I thought trolls just talked like that! Give me The Hobbit as is, not some sanitized bland mockery! The book was GREAT. Haven't I said it a hundred times?! Stay as true as humanly possible to the text and they'll get their money - and by the treasure trove!

Eldo, I found something at the rubbish dump the other day. Have no idea how it got there but it was inside an old tobacco tin. A snippet of paper with the following words scrawled...

[i:1zjo78o6]"When I am gone, I truly long
No one destroys my Greatest Work,
By making a film put through the kiln,
Sanitized beyond the point of hurt!"[/i:1zjo78o6]

It was signed - and here the spidery writing is blurry - J.R. [indecipherable letter] T. But I think we know who wrote it, Eldo! I suspect it was before Tolkien was sent utterly raving mad by listening too much to those Literati child-hating types and began to hate 'The Hobbit." (I guard this precious snippet closely, I keep it hidden, I keep it safe.)


Odo Banks
What are you jawing about Odo? Didn't I just agree with you? :? <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

[b:1b1fi3fi]GB[/b:1b1fi3fi]
Did you? Sorry - force of habit I guess...! :oops: !
Starting fights on your own Odo? lol. On the matter at hand I understand you want TH as close to source as possible, I'm not arguing against that, but easy to say harder to do, what about some suggestions of how best to do these things on film? For example (minor I grant you) in the bit where they escape the elves in the barrels one of the elves uses the word 'toss-pot' I find it unlikely this will make it into the film- things will be changed- so how about some insights as to how Odo would do it if he were in charge rather than just saying leave it as is?
Part of the question of this thread is how to do certain (potentially silly) things on film. Should the trolls look different from those seen in LoTR to differentiate them- should they wear more 'normal' clothes for example to go with their ability to converse- however poorly?
[quote="pettytyrant101":s1ll1btv]Should the trolls look different from those seen in LoTR to differentiate them- should they wear more 'normal' clothes for example to go with their ability to converse- however poorly?[/quote:s1ll1btv]

Food for thought: the trolls we saw in the LotR films were pretty much all slaves. The one in Moria had been captured by goblins, and the ones in the service of Mordor were commanded by Orcs (though all of them were slaves of Sauron). I think it quite plausible for "free trolls" to dress and behave differently.
Anyone see the film UP. Had a scene where the animals were serving food and drinks.
Reminded me of Beorngs house <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .
Wow! I thought the same thing Chris. Great Movie.

[b:3tzghr0l]GB[/b:3tzghr0l]
Haven't seen Up yet so I'll take your word for it that the animals serving food works fine- got me thinking though that with animal servants, talking spiders et all that might not have been a bad idea to do TH as an animation by someone like pixar, would certainly have differentiated it from LoTR and let them stick to it being more a childrens book.
I don't want to lead this thread towards the "Director's Vision" one...but the problems is not the Hobbit vs LotR, no problem in a funny Hobbit and a serious LotR, the problem is the apparent intrusion of contemporary but dead serious foreign aspects like the White Council and Dol Guldur, or the bridging to LotR in a fairy tale Hobbit book like movie...
You are quite right VonSalza, it was in fact that sort of train of thought that led to setting up this thread. The question here though is more one of not if these things should be in the film (that's for the directors thread I reckon) but how best to do them if they are going to be in without them seeming silly. How do you balance talking spiders, purses, deer waiters and the rest with the more serious shades that they are introducing? Or can they happily sit side by side in the same film?
The talking purse is enchanted. It would be amusing in itself but quite startling when viewed unexpectedly. It is intrinsically funny but would NOT have to be played for laughs - as some kind of visual pun. The Sorting Hat plays this kind of role in HP as I've stated before.

The waiter deers (whom I don't actually recall, though I'm assuming we're talking about Beorn's useful animal folk) might be animal-men ie dwelling in two states. I know what I'm suggesting is sliding toward the sub-creative, but why not have some CGI trickery involved and let them seem to have hands when serving, but done subtly so that the audience are not absolutely sure (unless they freeze frame) that they have useful paws/hoofs/hands. I always saw them as Enchanted in some fashion - even as a child I knew that deer did not have hands, nor sheep nor hounds - but JRRT left no accurate description of how animals could serve dinner. When reading it I believed it, used my imagination, suspended disbelief, as you MUST always do with fantasy. We take a lot of silly things for granted, as long as the writer can carry it off expertly. Surely the film makers might here be allowed to use their imaginations to turn the scenes with the enchanted animals into reasonable, and not silly, visuals. Again it could be amusing and a little disturbing. We don't see the noisy creatures who dance outside that night when Bilbo and Co are indoors, having being warned NOT to venture outside. Could they be the same creatures who by day serve dinner and seem so mild? Are they shape-shifters all? JRRT does not suggest that the day creatures and the night creatures ARE the same creatures, but neither does he say they're NOT. It could left to the movie watchers imagination, done with subtlety. Again: not silly!

Talking spiders could be amusing - but hair raising. Play 'em as they are in the book. They're funny all right - but I don't want their fangs jabbing into my neck! The songs Bilbo sings are funny - and cool 8-) to this reader at least - but clearly infuriating to dumb old nasty spiders by all accounts. Funny, yes I guess so, but [i:1dppyoz1]silly[/i:1dppyoz1]? Well not at all in the sense of being something that doesn't work on screen.

[quote="pettytyrant101":1dppyoz1]How do you balance talking spiders, purses, deer waiters and the rest with the more serious shades that they are introducing? Or can they happily sit side by side in the same film?[/quote:1dppyoz1]

These scenes have [i:1dppyoz1]more serious shades [/i:1dppyoz1]already within them. They don't need to go 'alongside' in my opinion. The humor (and excitement) are intrinsic.

Fairy-story, guys! It's a fairy-story! I love it, you love it, don't get the whitewash out to make it palatable to perceived mass audiences. The movie will come across as merely 'flat' without the above 'silly' creatures. The movie masses won't know [i:1dppyoz1]what's[/i:1dppyoz1] missing but will sense that [i:1dppyoz1]something [/i:1dppyoz1] very important is missing!
[quote="pettytyrant101":1paav9qh]How do you balance talking spiders, purses, deer waiters and the rest with the more serious shades that they are introducing? Or can they happily sit side by side in the same film?[/quote:1paav9qh]

I think they can both be in the film(s) without any major problems, so long as they are not treated [i:1paav9qh]farcically[/i:1paav9qh]. It's a fantasy, a fairy-story as Odo is fond of pointing out, and here are chances to show the fantastic. In at least one of the cases you bring up, talking spiders, it can be quite as serious as many other parts of the film. Remember Aragog from [i:1paav9qh]Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets[/i:1paav9qh]? I thought he was creepy in both the book and the movie; and think that The Hobbit spiders could be creepy as well with the right design. However, I hope the design isn't over-the-top creepy; this isn't a horror film.
I know people hate me mentioning the Wizard of Oz, but think about how ever-lastingly good it is (for all it's faults). My favorite movie in fact... - Hey! Maybe I'm the Puerilist? :shock: ... - Anyhow, if it had taken the songs and humor out and just left the dark 'quest' stuff, would it still be beloved nowadays? (I'm talking, of course, about the movie here. The book is a bit too flat for me. Hey! Maybe someone should rewrite WoOz with songs in it and make another movie.... oh, yes, that's been done already...! Where was I...? Never mind...) - anyhow, The Hobbit made properly (like the book was writ proper) will be an everlasting classic, beloved by generations. The LotRized version will become very dated very quickly - at least, not universally beloved. Think of posterity, oh ye film makers... Loose yourself from the shackles of your mind-killing hubris! I truly am in fear of what you plan to create, and isn't fear the mind killer... ah...sorry.... wrong book....
[quote="Odo Banks":7rmpcopd]The Hobbit made properly (like the book was writ proper) will be an everlasting classic, beloved by generations. The LotRized version will become very dated very quickly - at least, not universally beloved.[/quote:7rmpcopd]

I'm very reluctant to make predictions about what will happen in the future, but I think it's certain that no matter what The Hobbit films will not be a universal hit. I can't imagine any film appealing to [i:7rmpcopd]everyone[/i:7rmpcopd]. Sadly, I can see a lot of filmgoers, especially filmgoers who also go on the internet, preferring a LotRized version, but I think there are a lot of people (especially kids) who would like a true-to-the-book version.
Childrens stories/fairy-stories done well last forever, Eldo. Hate to say it, but its a 'archetype' kind of thing. The LotRized version of things is doomed... doomed, I say....doomed...! :ugeek:

Hey! Look at Tim Burton. His stuff - after the initial impressiveness of his 'wow' factor color and pomp - is dull - [i:yhzgiijn]flat,[/i:yhzgiijn] dare I say. Too serious. Doesn't smile at himself like Tolkien did. The humor is too clever by half - and shallow. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull.... Alice in Wonderland... yaaaaaaawn (I know this just by the trailers!) Roald Dahl was a genius like Tolkien - or unlike Tolkien, if you like. And Jack Vance.... bellissima!

Where was I? I don't care!
Some fairy stories last forever, but I'm sure others do not. Likewise, some 'grown-up' stories last forever (or at least a long time, like LotR the book has), and some don't. I do agree insofar as The Hobbit's chances for becoming a classic are [i:1hwqyhfe]better[/i:1hwqyhfe] if it more of a fairy-story, because I think it will have less competition from the sci-fi and action genres that way. Plus it will have more book fans, as you have pointed out.
To answer Petty's question: Yes they can sit happily side by side.

Far too much is made of "High" and "Low" Fantasy distinctions. They are frankly so arbitrary as to be rendered meaningless. There are ways, as both Odo and Eldo have suggested, to present the certain critters in a more or less realistic manner. And let us not forget that the Narnia films quite happily have Beavers and Badgers serving tea and crumpets without any cognitive dissonance. This alongside some rather more mature material such as extended battle sequences.

And again, I don't see any real problem for a skilled director such as DT in balancing the tonal differences between the White Council/Dol Guldur events and the rest of The Hobbit.

[b:2jvgoj8f]GB[/b:2jvgoj8f]
Oh GB, you drew forth my (lately buried) love for you when you said:

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":194u1d4x]Far too much is made of "High" and "Low" Fantasy distinctions. They are frankly so arbitrary as to be rendered meaningless. There are ways, as both Odo and Eldo have suggested, to present the certain critters in a more or less realistic manner. [/quote:194u1d4x]

.. but then out comes:

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":194u1d4x]And let us not forget that the Narnia films quite happily have Beavers and Badgers serving tea and crumpets without any cognitive dissonance. [/quote:194u1d4x]

which is well and fine up until:

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":194u1d4x]cognitive dissonance[/quote:194u1d4x]

which is a fancy term for [i:194u1d4x]flatulence of the brain[/i:194u1d4x], isn't it, and so actually distracts one from your argument. I presume you threw it in as plain intellectual [i:194u1d4x]'showing off'[/i:194u1d4x], and you seem indifferent to the said distraction (fore-mentioned) that it causes. And you know how much I hate people showing off!

And then there comes to coo de grass (that's French - relating to cheeky doves, I think):

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":194u1d4x]And again, I don't see any real problem for a skilled director such as DT in balancing the tonal differences between the White Council/Dol Guldur events and the rest of The Hobbit.[/quote:194u1d4x]

...GB, when did you replace [i:194u1d4x]reason[/i:194u1d4x] for[i:194u1d4x] madness[/i:194u1d4x]!? :x ...No, on this issue you've always been a fruitcake with lots of nutty ingredients! :x I mean it kindly. :geek:
[quote="Odo Banks":2g0wqe32]And then there comes to coo de grass (that's French - relating to cheeky doves, I think):[/quote:2g0wqe32]

Now, now, Odo, don't make any fox passes :mrgreen:
Madness??? :o .....No my fine feathered Odo...."Madness? This. Is. SPARTA." :lol:

[b:gi7l2wu3]GB[/b:gi7l2wu3]

PS: I believe YOU meant "Brain Farts", you and your fancy "Flatulence" :P
My goodness! I got the first joke! :lol: But not the second! :oops: Not from a Disney feature film, is it?
Flatulence btw, no matter what some young-boys-at-heart think, is never fancy. :ugeek:
It's a quote from 300 :mrgreen: . Not exactly Disney <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

[b:1jesmed3]GB[/b:1jesmed3]
I never thought I'd hear mention of Disney and 300 in the same sentence. :lol:
[i:22hte2ox]300[/i:22hte2ox] is just a number to me... (though rather impressive in cricket terms, I grant)...

What the dickens is [i:22hte2ox]300[/i:22hte2ox]?
[url:1h8vsstn]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film)[/url:1h8vsstn]

It was a fairly major war movie a few years back, based on a graphic novel that was based on the Battle of Thermopylae. Quite [i:1h8vsstn]loosely[/i:1h8vsstn] based, I must add. :? It's the film that gained a good deal of fame on the Internet because of the line "This. Is. SPARTA!"
P.S. The line in question can be seen [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmOH5f1J1Uc:16fhi9xw]on YouTube[/url:16fhi9xw].
Thank you. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
what's going on here???hello...???OK hobbit's creatures...silly or not???? good question some of them are silly and some of them are not <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' />
trolls are not silly but spiders...you know they can talk in TH book...I think that's funny!!!!and silly of course I don't like it... :?
Perhaps they are somewhat silly, but they are also quite sinister. In any event, I [i:2z1xx2ue]do[/i:2z1xx2ue] like it as part of the 'fairy tale' nature of The Hobbit. I also think it could be handled in such a way as to be, if silly, at least not farcical.
Arogog talked in Harry Potter without seeming silly at all. Just especially creepy :shock: .

[b:ab6l6jux]GB[/b:ab6l6jux]
I wonder would Shelob have been scarier or less so if she had talked?
Due to foggy memory I can't quite remember but do the eagles in TH talk? I know they do in LoTR and they just ignored it and left that out the film, presumably because they thought it would be silly or too difficult (how do you lip-sync a beak to english?).
Aragog didn't lip sync.

[b:vwcm1ckx]GB[/b:vwcm1ckx]
Didn't Aragog just move his mandibles? I think that would work for the spiders in The Hobbit.
Precisely :!: !!!! And no worries about "lip-syncing" Eagles either. Parrots and Mynah Birds speak perfect English without "lip-syncing" :P . Eagles could too.

[b:1sbicx3m]GB[/b:1sbicx3m]
Are there [i:p2j3yenr]any[/i:p2j3yenr] lipped animals in TH that would be speaking? I don't believe Beorn's servants did, though I don't have a copy of the book handy to check.
Non-talking Eagles? Non-talking spiders? Non-Odo-going to the movies! I want to go on an adventure, but will the film makers try and stay safe? Talking eagles are cool, almost a noble folk, if somewhat wild. And talking spiders, not actually silly, a semi-intelligent race whose intellect is closely centered around eating, which may seem silly to us, but not to most living creatures. The fact they talk is a common old fairy story device, rarely invented in the old tales for purely for amusement. They were more often included to increase the wonder of the tale. To make it otherworldly. Hey! In making The Hobbit [i:3kpvxb1h]more [/i:3kpvxb1h]realistic, let's remove all the wonder altogether! Call it [i:3kpvxb1h]Braveheart[/i:3kpvxb1h]. Mr Tyrant will tell you that that's a fantasy, and a bad one. A few silly songs and a haggis or two would have increased the wonder and made it no less ridiculous!

Hey! Elves don't exist. Talking elves, therefore, don't exist. Are they sillier then at face value than talking spiders?

We are dealing with a fairy-story! Hasn't that already been said? If we don't want to watch The (actual) Hobbit, then go watch Avatar, or LotR, or Clash of the Titans. They're fantasy films. They don't have talking creatures or quirky (but quite serious) songs either!
Actually they have all of the above if you know where to look <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

[b:3kn9heyy]GB[/b:3kn9heyy]
Perhaps, I should have thought out my last remark properly before I typed it in - but as you know, GB, that's just [i:zwhq53l3]not[/i:zwhq53l3] my usual working method!

Let's just film the actual book - that's my [i:zwhq53l3]furious[/i:zwhq53l3] point!
I think the heart of the matter is that most LoTR fans (the books) myself included are drawn in by the solidity of its world; its languages, landscapes, histories. the glimpses of older worlds. Its not quite our everday world but its as familiar, it has rules and these are as predictable as or own worlds.
But when we take TH as written suddenly its disjointed, suddenly we can see where the world has been altered over writing, we can see early ideas that would later be absent, its got things that don't quite fit. And the problem with this is that it breaks our fantasy, it gives a glimpse of the hand of the writer and we're confronted with the fact that its not real, its not history, its a story made up by someone and therefore flawed. It breaks the illusion a little.
I think a film version of TH exactly like the book would be as disjointed from the films of LoTR as the books from each other. And that's a dilemma for the film makers, TH, the film of the book, could stand as a great film, but not as an extension of LoTR the films, so I think we will lose a lot of the fairytale and get more of the grit which will be a shame.
But that could easily be dealt with by posing Bilbo as the narrator of HIS part of the tale from the beginning. Then when cutting away to the White Council, Dol Guldur etc. the film can broaden out the "Real" Middle Earth. Just one idea of how to handle it, but it could be done. Again, I don't see the distinctions as so great that they can't be bridged through various techniques.

[b:1tp95rzj]GB[/b:1tp95rzj]
That's a good idea GB- I could see that working. Gandalf would be an obvious choice for 'telling' the WC bit or Galadriel (if they want to tie it to the LoTR seeing as she narrated the history of the Ring.)
  [1] [2] >>