Thread: Lets talk directors vision
<<        >>
to attempt to bring this back to something like topic I was mulling over how TH film might open. Its a famous opening to the book but not very typical for a blockbuster film as it doesnt start with ten minutes of breathtaking action to set the mood. So I wondered whether it would be such a bad idea to start with a prologue of sorts, showing Smaugs arrival, the escape of the young Thorin and the destruction of Dale. Should get the pulse racing and set the mood nicely.
Although if they are going to do some sort of prologue for Necromancer I suppose Gandlaf finding Thrain (that the right dwarf?) in the dungeons and being given the map and key would be a likely part of it. Perhaps a flash back scene during the party when Gandalf produces them would be better?
I think a Thrain (the right dwarf, btw) flashback would be most logical way to show the two storylines as somehow related, if the filmmakers decide to do that. I would assume they will, though I'm not sure it's the best idea. If we're talking about our own preferences though, I'd like the White Council to just not show up at all.
[quote:3msm4mbj]Perhaps a flash back scene during the party when Gandalf produces them would be better?[/quote:3msm4mbj]
Flashbacks would make a lot of sense to me, though the filmmakers opted to show a lot of history in the LotR prologue, while they could have easily shown it as flashback during the Shadow of the Past. I think wanting a Bond-esque opening action scene is part of the reason for that.
'more child-like' does not actually need to mean childlike. I agree that although Tolkien started the Hobbit as a children's book, it did grow darker than he probably intended at the outset.
BTW for anyone unfamiliar with del Toro's 'Tuatha de Danaan' and possibly the direction his Elves [i:q7ybdubc]might[/i:q7ybdubc] move in, here is a link
Those songs are by turn dark and horrid (goblins), excitingly scary (goblins with howling wolves), light and frivolous and gently ironic (elves), teasing and discomfiting (dwarves - 'chip the plates'), moving and evocative (Far over the Misty Mountains, and that Withered Heath Song), cheeky and insulting (Attercop! Lazy Lob!), but they are never [i:1s4pd1mb]actually [/i:1s4pd1mb]silly.
A 'Silly" song would be pure farce or pure nonsense - Tolkien's songs don't actually fit that category! Each song in the book relates directly (and excitingly!) to the action at hand.
Calling the songs silly is like saying the Wizard of OZ songs were silly. They aren't! They make us smile, yes, but their words are insightful and poignant, even if amusing as well.
Think of Stage Musicals. Do people really sing while serious things are happening? Even an amusing song in a Musical is rarely silly, Indeed humor is usually a foil for the seriousness of what's happening and acts to accentuate it.
Say 'amusing' songs if you must - that is, they 'amuse' you, GB - but don't separate them from the content or context of the action! Used well, they could be an excellent feature of the Movies - maybe give them the same thrilling [i:1s4pd1mb]freshness[/i:1s4pd1mb] that they supply to the book.
Tolkien tried extricating the songs from his failed rewrite (yes, I've read his draft) and the story was killed stone dead! Get The History of The Hobbit: Return to Bag End. You'll see what I mean.
And NO, I'm NOT SAYING THE HOBBIT MOVIES SHOULD BE MUSICALS!!! They should be movies with occasional songs in them (like the beloved book!)
(What [i:1s4pd1mb]do[/i:1s4pd1mb] they teach children at schools nowadays????)
I'm tempted to start a new thread. [i:3vo5eiua]How might the songs in The Hobbit be staged to best effect in the Movie? [/i:3vo5eiua]
But I forgive you (this time anyway).
NB The word [i:aoptrvoa]nonsensifying [/i:aoptrvoa] came up as spelled incorrectly. Do you know how it's actually spelled?
For some excellent discussion on the difficulties of shooting scenes with many actors I recommend listening to the commentary track on John Carpenters The Thing, plus if you like that sort of thing its a great film.
I know there will be line of sight and other issues to contend with, but this should be no more difficult than in the original movies. Think of Bree and all those humans wandering about. Shots from Bilbo's perspective could be things as simple as the actors playing dwarves standing on boxes. The camera simply looks upward at them from Bilbo's eye-height. Or body-doubles being used left, right and center, when proper close ups are not necessary. And so on, and so on...
I'm no expert, obviously, but I'm sure there will be plenty of old tricks to use, and old technology (even the once-new technology they devised in the LotR movies plus all the now old-technology others have developed since then). Maybe they'll utilize a bit of new and innovative stuff, but probably more so to be [i:1550m0aa]cutting-edge[/i:1550m0aa], rather than because the expertise and technology is not already available to make great movies. In terms of what they have to do, they can make things as difficult or as simple as they like.
Scripting is the hard part, I think - and if they stick as close to the book as possible, that shouldn't be too difficult either.
I really want the effects to take a back seat. No wow-factor, please! Other than what it takes to make the world and creatures authentic.
However there is a reason you don't see too many films with a main cast numbering in double figures- its just time consuming to shoot and time is money, in film especially. The trick with the party scene will be that they will have a few full shots with everyone present in frame, one at start and one at end and maybe a couple in the middle- these will "sell" the lie- that everyone is in the room together- the rest will be shot independently and edited in. This is normal even when shooting a scene with only 3 or 4 same sized actors, a scene with 14 of differing heights is much lengthier to do.
I thought the same thing for Lord of the Rings, especially with Balrog! How could they put that epic scene onto screen? I think that would be the most challenging and weak scene of the movie! However, I was completely wrong, it was, in my opinion, the strongest in the entire movie, and was portrayed brilliantly. Luckily, we have some of those same people working on the Hobbit, you never know what they are going to be able to do!
I suppose you might have to have a backround narrarator like in the book, maybe Bilbo or Gandalf. But whatever the case, STICK TO THE BOOK!!!!
Agreed! To the latter, anyways. I don't think they need a narrator throughout the whole story, in fact, I don't think they even need to pull a Galadriel thing at the beginning like they did in LOTR, because the Hobbit is supposed to be an intro in itself, according to the directors. The Hobbit is an adventure, put into words, not a narration of an adventure, in my opinion.
If you change the mood at all, the whole movie will be out of sinc. It will be a challenge to match Bilbo's perspective, I understand, but the movie will just not be a great movie. [/quote:3edrkwus]
I suppose underestimation leads to over-satisfaction? My stakes are high, though!
[quote:3edrkwus] The scene should in fact be frightening if you do the scene right. You don't have to make the creatures any less menace-looking either, you just have to give them a more human like personality. [/quote:3edrkwus]
Giving spiders a human like personality? How would you go about that, I wonder? I imagine them to be just a little bit less-horrifying as Shelob.
GOOD FREAKIN LUCK!!!!![/quote:3edrkwus]
Looks like someone is taking [b:3edrkwus]GB[/b:3edrkwus]'s advice! Sort of O.o
Tartoros! You have expressed my exact feelings exactly how I would have [i:v8p1hnc7]loved [/i:v8p1hnc7]to have expressed them myself! Bravo!
NB Mr Durin clearly chose not to respond to your [i:v8p1hnc7]awesomesauce[/i:v8p1hnc7]. I found that a little timid of him, personally.
[quote="Tartorus":1tw2cl4q]I am a little scared that the hobbit movie won't be good.[/quote:1tw2cl4q]
I'm not particularly. I thought King Kong was rather weak, but I believe Jackson did a fantastic job making LOTR an entertaining movie. Unfortunately I haven't seen any of GDT's work but I've heard a lot of good about it. I [i:1tw2cl4q]am[/i:1tw2cl4q] worried that it won't be very much like the book, but I think that's a separate issue (see below).
[quote:1tw2cl4q]It will be a challenge to match Bilbo's perspective, I understand, but the movie will just not be a great movie.[/quote:1tw2cl4q]
I think it could be a great movie even if its not very much like the book - judging movies by how entertaining they are from a purely cinematic point of view. Such an unfaithful adaptation would, however, be very disappointing to me. Nonetheless, I will assess the films' faithfulness to the story as a distinct issue from their qualities as entertainment. I think The Hobbit has the potential to be an amazing movie with or without substantial changes, but I hope for an awesome movie that is also able to stay true to the source material.
[quote:1tw2cl4q]And you are absolutely right when you say that it's the same world as Lord of the Rings, just a totally different mood.[/quote:1tw2cl4q]
One of my biggest concerns about the films based on what we've been told so far is that the mood of the films will be much more like that of TLotR - more mature, darker, and concerned more with the wider geopolitics of Middle-earth. That was great for TLotR, but The Hobbit is smaller in scope. I like both kinds of stories, and hope that the filmmakers won't just make LotR, Mk. II, but instead something more like the charming nature of TH.
Well, this is a different person, so it's fully possible he didn't see GB's advise to BOrgeron.
NB Mr Durin clearly chose not to respond to your [i:3aiz1h14]awesomesauce[/i:3aiz1h14]. I found that a little timid of him, personally.[/quote:3aiz1h14]
Fine. Uhm. Tartorus!
One thing I forgot to mention was that they were going to make Bilbo's part in the story much less noticable, and have much more backround about Middle Earth. In fact, they were going to have so much extra stuff to include, they have to make it a two part movie. (correct me if I am mistaken, but it was something like that.) I am just like... what would that be like? How would that be incorporated with the main story? All of that is just making me exited.
I read back further and I also noticed a lot of just plain stupid comments about a variety of things, for example, the beards being blue and the scenes with lots of people in it. I understand that you are just making comments about it but it's just like.... there are experts out there who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. They are not going to make beards girly blue and spend millions years to make one scene. That is for them to figure out any way.
I think that having Peter Jackson step out of his main role and help out was the best thing they could have done. He did a wondrous job on The Lord of the Rings, but I'm not sure he would make the Hobbit like it should be just because he already made the LOTR world like it is.
Oh and don't watch any of the Hobbit trailers. They are all fake.
I sometimes have a hard time believing it after other online communities I've seen. I hope this forum stays nice.
So not even Sort of.
And Tartoros - colored beards are MORE THAN FINE by me! They don't have to be garish! And JRRT not once said they were [i:1hj14nqy]'girly blue'[/i:1hj14nqy]! As if any self-respecting dwarf would have a [color=#00FFFF:1hj14nqy]'girly blue' [/color:1hj14nqy]beard? I mean to say! It was venomous of you to even suggest it!
I remember back to when this forum was a [i:1hj14nqy]nice[/i:1hj14nqy] forum.
Well, it [i:kxsnb69c]is[/i:kxsnb69c] a discussion forum. We have a lot of fun here doing that sort of thing.
[quote:kxsnb69c]In fact, they were going to have so much extra stuff to include, they have to make it a two part movie. (correct me if I am mistaken, but it was something like that.)[/quote:kxsnb69c]
I remember when the two film announcement was first made, and the plan then was that the first film would cover the events of The Hobbit and the second film would be a "bridge" to TLotR, covering events in the intervening years. There was a lot of discussion about what would be put in the bridge film, but there was really no underlying story to tie them all together. I think, though I'm not sure, that this is why a while back the filmmakers revised their plan so that both films will cover the events of The Hobbit, but with the "expansion" of the story, referring to the White Council storyline.
[quote:kxsnb69c]I am just like... what would that be like? How would that be incorporated with the main story? All of that is just making me exited.[/quote:kxsnb69c]
I assume that they will simply follow Gandalf south when he parts ways with the Quest. They may have some introductory scenes before that though. All in all it will be more like LotR in jumping between different storylines.
[quote:kxsnb69c]I read back further and I also noticed a lot of just plain stupid comments about a variety of things, for example, the beards being blue and the scenes with lots of people in it.[/quote:kxsnb69c]
Care to explain why these comments were so stupid (I'm not sure how the filmmakers knowing what they are doing makes the comments in this thread stupid) instead of just insulting the people here?
[quote:kxsnb69c]I think that having Peter Jackson step out of his main role and help out was the best thing they could have done. He did a wondrous job on The Lord of the Rings, but I'm not sure he would make the Hobbit like it should be just because he already made the LOTR world like it is.[/quote:kxsnb69c]
This could help a lot, and GDT has brought some good new ideas to the table (he said he'd be redesigning the Wargs, for one ). However, both PJ and GDT have discussed making TH and TLotR part of a greater whole - GDT once called it a pentology - and that worries me.
[quote:kxsnb69c]Oh and don't watch any of the Hobbit trailers. They are all fake.[/quote:kxsnb69c]
I would hope everyone realizes this already since filming hasn't even started yet, but thanks for the reminder, I guess.
Yeah I wish that people could also remember that we have all read the book and loved it (most people), and are just expressing our hopes and opinions about the movie. That is the whole purpose of the forum, right?
I think everyone here remembers that. We're not always going to agree on what we want for the movies (I don't know if you're new to the online Tolkien scene, but the so-called Purists and Revisionists have a long history of arguing with each other), but at the end of the day we're all (mostly?) fans.
Oh no, the filmmakers better make those beards blue! I shudder to think of the destruction and chaos should they not.