[quote="Odo Banks":27f8alz1]I believe that if The White Council is in The Hobbit Movie, it will wreck it. The Hobbit is (nearly) all about Bilbo. Keep it that way. What do fans think?

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.

The problem though, Cbernui, is that if they put in something about the White Council they won't be following the book regardless of how many movies there are.

Well, I guess it depends on what you consider a change. Adding the White Council will not automatically change the details of the story told in the book, but it [i:24nnn09q]will[/i:24nnn09q] change the overall story told in the films by introducing a parallel storyline to the main one of Bilbo.

Then we are agreed.

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":i2gved8w][b:i2gved8w]Most[/b:i2gved8w] 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). [/quote:i2gved8w]

What story? Certainly not [i:i2gved8w]The Hobbit[/i:i2gved8w]!

However did you guess, Odo? I agree with you about [i:339tdh0e]The Hobbit[/i:339tdh0e] NOT being a prequel. I'm not particularly optimistic though, largely for reasons set out in [url=http://the-hobbit-movie.com/forum/expanding-the-hobbit-246.html:339tdh0e]this thread[/url:339tdh0e].

The thing is, it has already been decided that The Hobbit is to be Two Films, including events that take place "off Screen" in The Hobbit (the book).

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.

[b:2jyw0zww]GB[/b:2jyw0zww]

Gandalf mysteriously leaves the quest, to return in the nick of time near the end, with only an extremely unsatisfying and cursory reference to his "comings and goings". It's definitely part of the story, but it's missing. I knew it when I was 7 or 8 reading the Hobbit for the first time.

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.
[b:2rx0was8]GB[/b:2rx0was8]

On other threads people have suggested divvying up the book equally between the two films. Which is something I have been against all along (with some tepid vacillations). For essentially the main reason you guys are saying.

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.

[b:2vgydtwg]GB[/b:2vgydtwg]

Well, I hope for all our sakes they strike the right balance .

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.

[b:32pstc1y]GB[/b:32pstc1y]

I really don't think the White Council will destroy the Hobbit, nor would be including it in a second film otherwise only including the very end of the book. Not only would that not be enough material for the second film (just White Council and Battle of Five Armies plus wrap-up), it would in fact weaken the storyline, by having a break in the balance of flow between the movies.

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.

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":1sflv71h]Gandalf mysteriously leaves the quest, to return in the nick of time near the end, with only an extremely unsatisfying and cursory reference to his "comings and goings". It's definitely part of the story, but it's missing.[/quote:1sflv71h]

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.

[quote="marandahir":2c8gz1gq]IIt's not a disjointed "other event," it's an essential element of the story that will enhance The Hobbit movies[/quote:2c8gz1gq]

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.

Tolkien tried to rewrite The Hobbit to conform better with LOTR. He failed. So will the film makers if they try.

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.

Odo

[quote="marandahir":2daasz0d]However, there are a lot of things that happened during The Hobbit that were retconned by The Lord of the Rings, and to discount them on the count of this being it's own movie and to be pure to The Hobbit is a rather silly idea.[/quote:2daasz0d]

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.

Anyone fancy a pint?

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.

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.

First of all, I'd like to apologize for the rather snarky tone of my previous post.

[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.

I really didn't mean that GDT with aid from PJ could do what the author couldn't and make the story better than the book. The book will always be the superior form, just as the book of LotR is far superior to the movies.

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 G’mli 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 ’owyn 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.

marandahir, I can see your arguments about different groups and they are well taken, except for my aforementioned point that [i:1aaktl9r]the White Council is not part of the story of The Hobbit[/i:1aaktl9r]! I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but seriously, the issue of following different groups around wouldn't be an issue if the filmmakers would just stick to the more or less linear story told in the book (though of course with some minor changes made in the process of adaptation).

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.

[quote="marandahir":1zxhbqk8]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;[/quote:1zxhbqk8]

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.

I'll check back in on that thread GB.

[quote="anaclangon":39aad3sy]First off, LOTR movies, are adaptations, not regurgitations.[/quote:39aad3sy]

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.

I know I've already said this, but I agree with Anaclangon. The White Council and it's related events are all Tolkien's own material that explain the comings and goings of Gandalf. So it's not as if using that material is creating something entirely out of whole-cloth.

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.

[b:3out7fax]GB[/b:3out7fax]

Eldorion, I thought the Army of the Dead did go to Minas Tirith?

Odo