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

Thread: Frodo in the Hobbit

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Frodo in the Hobbit   
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/01 ... more-41520 What are your thoughts on this? I only read it very briefly, but I got the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that Frodo will read from the red book. I'd prefer it if Bilbo was the narrator, but I quite like this idea too. Perhaps he could be seen reading to Sam's children, while Sam is enjoying a pipe in a comfy chair beside them? <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Yeah its been long suspected they would frame the films with a connecting narrative. Bilbo would have been the better choice, an older Bilbo telling a very young Frodo would have been my preferred choice, Bilbo is prone to a bit of whimsy and it would allow for TH's more child like elements, talking troills and purses and the like to be retained without any trouble, as it could be explained as being Bilbo's telling of the tale. A full grown Frodo reading it though? Not so sure- who is he reading it to? It can't be Sam's children, Frodo is gone before even Eleanor is old enough for tales. So when and where are they going to set this narration scene?
Reread the article, it could be taken as Bilbo reading it to Frodo- which is fine except its silly if its an adult Frodo played by Elihjah, Frodo was told the tales as a child by his Uncle as soon as he was old enough and not long after he was adopted, we know this because Frodo tells Gandalf so and that Bilbo told him how he got the Ring, the true version, not the one he put in his journals and told the dwarves. Of course paying attention to the source is not a PJ strong point.
[quote="pettytyrant101":3k3zmrr4] It can't be Sam's children, Frodo is gone before even Eleanor is old enough for tales. [/quote:3k3zmrr4] Good point. And Bilbo telling the story to an adult Frodo would be quite silly. I'll reread the article myself later, I can't see why they would do it that way.
I wouldn't be surprised if they show Frodo reading the Red Book at some point after Bilbo has left, perhaps even after he has returned from his journey. Tying it into the end of ROTK would fit nicely with them making the films as prequels, certainly. I had expected them to show a younger Frodo, but since EW has already aged significantly (he was only 18 at the start of filming for LOTR, remember), I doubt that will be the case. Still, so long as its just a framing device, which is what TORn suggests, I don't have any real problem with this, even if I'm not exactly [i:3vrwx0yf]thrilled[/i:3vrwx0yf]. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />
I can't help but think that if they use Frodo as narrator, the film must have a more serious feel than if Bilbo does. In principle, I agree with Petty here. Perhaps Peter Jackson will have to decide which "atmosphere" to choose, if only for the sake of consistency throughout the two parts of the movie:-Jane
"I wouldn't be surprised if they show Frodo reading the Red Book at some point after Bilbo has left, perhaps even after he has returned from his journey."- Eldo I'm not sure I follow Eldo. What do you mean by 'after Bilbo left'? Left on his quest? Left for Rivendell, or left Middle-earth? I'll assume left for Rivendell as the problems with the other options are obvious; Frodo wasn't born when Bilbo left for his quest and Frodo leaves with him when he leaves Middle-earth. One problem is Elijah, who was very youthful in FotR and such a scene would have to be set during Fellowship, after Bilbo leaves but before Frodo does. Unfortunetly PJ doesn't allow in his vesion much time between Bilbo and Frodo leaving. And the problem still arises, who is Frodo reading to?
I meant some time after Bilbo left at the beginning of FOTR, though thinking on it more, Bilbo took the Red Book with him when he left then. What would make most sense for me is that the framing device is set at the same time as Frodo's writing in the book at the end of ROTK, which is shown briefly, at least in the EE. As for who Frodo is reading to, I don't think that it is as big of an issue as you seem to. They can just use the same reading aloud to himself method that was used in the EE Prologue to FOTR with Bilbo.
I think Frodo reading to himself would be a bit silly. In the EE intro Bilbo is not reading to himself, he is composing as he writes and voiceing aloud what he is writing, which is different. A problem with setting it at the end of RotK is that in PJ's version we see Frodo writing the last words and then immediately handing it over to Sam. So it would have to be a reading from before he finished writing his bit up. Somewhere between the arrival back home and the Grey Havens. It seems an unecessary framing device to me. Bilbo wrote TH bit of the Red Book, he should be reading it. I don't see the sense in it being Frodo.
I agree that its unnecessary and would make more sense to have a younger Frodo - if any Frodo at all - in a framing scene. I don't really think its necessary to have a framing scene at all, personally. However, compared to other changes (say, in cluding Drogo Baggins) I don't think it is a terribly big deal.
Its the cumlative effect that worries me Eldo. Just Frodo reading, just Drogo being in it, just Legolas, just the White Council, just the Necromancer. How about just The Hobbit? That would be nice.
I largely agree, I just try to prioritize. :lol:
Another of my predictions for how the film will be made has come true (sort of). I always knew Frodo would have a small part, I just expected it to be a younger version. But from even before this forum formed, I was posting this in the comment section on Ady's blog. I have always promoted the idea of Bilbo reading from There and Back Again to a young Frodo, with the films beginning and ending that way. However if it's an older Frodo (Elijah Wood) reading from Bilbo's book, I am just as thrilled with the notion. :mrgreen: [b:1817y3ui]GB[/b:1817y3ui]
Having though about it a bit, I think I would prefer a younger Frodo with Bilbo doing the narration, but I'm trying to be open to the possibilities. I was watching a bit of the LOTR movies the other day when I was sick in bed, and re-watching the films always make me feel a bit more optimistic about the chances of me enjoying The Hobbit regardless of changes. 8-)
Sadly watching PJ's cuts of the films whilst ill in bed would not improve my malady! It is possible PJ will produce two entertaining films. But so far they don't sound much like TH the book, which more and more feels like just a part of this bigger film PJ is constructing. For those of us who love the simple, childish tale of the small Hobbit discovering the world and himself and having excitiing adventures along the way thats a pity. <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' />
It's a pity for me too, for many of the same reasons you mention, but I've been able to appreciate and enjoy the positive elements of the LOTR films even while being disappointed with them in places as well (both for deviations from the book and for bits that just don't make sense). The Hobbit does seem to be shaping up to be even more different than LOTR was, but I still have hope that it won't be too bad that I can't see the good as well. More worrying to me is that they're trying to make the films as clear prequels, as those usually disappoint. The Hobbit, the book, is not a prequel, and therefore free of many of the limitations that so often plague prequel efforts.
Personally, I like that they're trying to bring more into it. Sometimes, I like it when those "What if..?" questions are answered in films. And the more Tolkien they're bringing into it, the better, whether its relevant to the story or not.
Ah indeed Tin, but you hit the nail upon the head when you say 'And the more Tolkien they're bringing into it, the better'. But are we getting more Tolkien really? Given the very few available sources for WC stuff etc and the legal questions hanging over the available material in UT and the like what are we getting? Is it really from the pen of Tolkien? Or are we getting more PJ and the Coven, more writing of the standard of Faramir dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, more Frodo sending Sam away, more Treebeard being an idiot, more characters reduced to 2d cutouts, more ludicrous acrobatics from Legolas etc, etc. Is that standard of basterization all we have to look forward to? I fear it will be.
Aaaah! What would this forum be without the same old tired Grumping and Whinging? :lol: At least Eldo has the good sense to be optimistic. <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [b:1o16oj56]GB[/b:1o16oj56]
True Petty, but what movie IS perfect? and even if they just bring in other characters that were there at the time (or after the time, since I'm assuming they're making this an extensive prequel to LOTR) it's still more Tolkien BASED (not neccessarily the original thing, but a variation of it.)
If the LotR films had given any signs of competence at writing in Tolkiens style I might have some hope on the Tolkien based bits. I really like Born of Hope, I think the charcaters and dialogue in it show far, far better than PJ's efforts how to write from Tolkien based material whilst preserving the overall style. But on previous evidence I don't think the Coven can write that way, or if they can they choose not to in favour of some modenrist agenda with the language. For example in the LotR films they lost a lot of my favourite Sam lines and moments because they didn't want Sam to seem subservant to Frodo, more like mates. No! The releationship between them is what it is, their social standing is what it is- changing that releationship doesnt make it more interesting, it makes it less so. All the more so because its a type of releationship that is no longer so common. But this attitiude PJ and the Coven have that they can make changes because they know best gets my goat!! And if they cannot resist making huge changes to the bits Tolkien did write how can I have faith they will do any justice to bits Tolkien never put pen to paper about?
Well, there are SOME lines that aren't etrocious. I feel they got every Bilbo line spot on, and there are some others, too. And then there are some that just make me cringe and hide my face into a pillow <img src='/images/smileys/vevil.gif' border='0' alt='Very Evil Smilie' /> And arguably, the Coven could say that films are made differently than books. Films do have more limitations story wise than books do. So what's lackiing in one, they make up for in the other; which is the visual aspect of that story. People don't really go to see films of books for the same exact thing they read. They want to see it come to life, or at least, the exciting parts...
"I feel they got every Bilbo line spot on"- Tin Yes but that's because almost all Bilbo's lines are from the book Tin. Nicely illustrating my point that when they used Tolkiens genuine dialogue its perfect (even when its out of place such as Wormtongue's speech to Eowyn which in the book Gandalf says of her in the Houses of Healing). So why, beyond their own egos, they felt it necessary to alter lots of the rest of the dialogue is beyond me. And the change to the relationship between Frodo and Sam is pure politcal correctness- which I hate. There is no limitations of film which accounts for that, it was a delibrate choice to alter the releationship for pc reasons (ie crap reasons). To think I sat through , what 9hours of film, to get to my favourtie comic lines in the entire book, and they weren't there! No doubt PJ and the Coven felt they were not pc enough either (for the curious its the bit at the end where Sam goes to fetch the Gaffer and they arrive at the Cottons and the Gaffer says '..while you're been trapessing in foreign parts, chasing Black Men up mountains from what my Sam says, though what for he don't make clear, they've been and dug up Bagshot Row and ruined my taters!'). If only they had cut all the Faramir Osgiliath rubbish and all the rest of the made up nonsense they added we could have had time for the proper ending!! Now I'm all crabbity again just thinking about it. <img src='/images/smileys/sad.gif' border='0' alt='Sad Smilie' />
The saddest aspect of Peter's movies (for all that I like them) is his lack of understanding for how important the Scouring of the Shire is to Tolkien's vision - including the Gaffer's taters. Indeed, it saddens me when people say the Scouring was unimportant and/or plain boring. I guess that's why there is so much much "B" Grade fantasy on the bookshelves nowadays - low expectations, mundane desires, mass appeal, superficiality:-Jane
That's why I'm torn. When I read a book, i think, "This would be fantastic if I could see it!" And I start imagining in my head how I would do it in a movie. But then, I think how I'd skip over so much so as not to complicate the plot. You can't show how someone is thinking, so most of those parts are scratched. Anything that's not key to the plot and climax have to be scratched for times sake. In the place of those scratched scenes, you have to make fillers that, although completely made up, continue the story smoothly. It's a horrible thing, but they have to accommodate for ALL audiences. No wonder rated R movies always win Best Picture; they're not afraid of limits!
Normally Tin I would broadly agree about characters thoughts in books either needing to be scrapped or altered into actions for film for it to work. But LotR isn't actually very big on being inside characters heads. Its not Tolkiens style really. Most of what or who a character is in the books is given through their dialogue and actions- it should make it perfect for film- it works perfectly on radio where its all they have to rely on given they have no vsuals at all. So as an excuse for PJ and the Coven it doesn't wash with me. They didn't just alter to suit a different medium they wholesale changed for reasons (whatever they were) that cannot soley be justified as just a change in medium.
You're right, they can't. And to PJ's credit, he took the pages and pages of descriptions and made them into some stunning graphics, though he did have the help of Alan Lee and John Howe.
Frodo excited about The Hobbit http://www.totalfilm.com/news/elijah-wo ... bbit-cameo
Is it just me or is what Elijah says completely contraditctory? “There only would have been reservation about taking the part if there had been something that had infringed upon the integrity of the original book." Which sounds all well and good, but the very next line is; “I haven’t even read the script.” What? Then how does he know it doesn't infringe on the integrity of the book given Frodo isn't even it?
I assume Wood means that he's been briefed on what his role will be like even though he hasn't read the script. It is a strange comment, but it could mean that Frodo will only be included in a framing device, postscript, or some other scene like that. I think that would fit the criteria of not infringing on the original book (unlike some of the other changes we've heard about). <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Yay Frodo! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [b:vht2baxq]GB[/b:vht2baxq]
Yay Frodo! <img src='/images/smileys/bigsmile.gif' border='0' alt='Big Smile Smilie' /> [b:1jh5ra2m]GB[/b:1jh5ra2m]