Thread: Clues to the Hobbit
  >>
[url=http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2010/05/18/36642-primula-and-other-casting-clues/:1zhel7ud]TORn story about auditions for the role of Primula Baggins[/url:1zhel7ud] (nee Brandybuck).
[quote:1zhel7ud]We have no idea at all if this actress will get the part but it does give fans a few clues:
[list:1zhel7ud][*:1zhel7ud]The part of Primula is in, providing a few hints about preserved pieces of the plot[/*:m:1zhel7ud]
[*:1zhel7ud]Auditions and casting are active, prepping the production for official pre-production[/*:m:1zhel7ud]
[*:1zhel7ud]It gives us an idea of what type is being sought for Primula and an approximate ’Hobbit’ height[/*:m:1zhel7ud][/list:u:1zhel7ud][/quote:1zhel7ud]
At least [i:1zhel7ud]something[/i:1zhel7ud] is happening.
Yeah, I caught that at OneRing too Eldo. Some positive info in my book.
I don't remember any Primula Brandybuck/Bagginses in The Hobbit! I smell a rat! Is the OneRing business a joke of some sort? (Actually, I didn't know there were any Primula Brandybuck's until Wisey met one - and that's just spooky! Is there something weird going on?)
Primula Brandybuck, Frodo's mother. When I suggested ideas for how the films might be directed, I proffered the notion that a young Frodo might be present, perhaps being told the story of Bilbo's adventure. Methinks Del Toro and Jackson may be thinking along the same lines, and even showing a bit of Frodo's backstory with Primula and Drogo Baggins. They might even show their drowning and leaving Frodo in Bilbo's care. Depends on how they tell the story.
Aaaarrrrrrrghhhhhh! Frodo wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye when Bilbo set off, was he? And how the hell do we segue a Frodo-family-history into The Hobbit? A frickin' Prologue???? Aaaaaaaaarrrrrgghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
I've always been rather fond of the 'telling a story to his nieces and nephews' idea, especially as it could possibly be used to justify to uninitiated audiences the more fantastical elements of [i:etrnt50x]The Hobbit[/i:etrnt50x], but I don't think showing Frodo's parents drowning would work with that. Unless ... they were going to do continual cutting back and forth from the main tale and the storytelling time, like [i:etrnt50x]The Princess Bride[/i:etrnt50x] but with longer breaks. Then again, [i:etrnt50x]TPB[/i:etrnt50x] was more or less a comedy, so I don't think that model would work for [i:etrnt50x]The Hobbit[/i:etrnt50x].
I was thinking they might most likely be brief cut-scenes rather than extended sequences--much like the few very brief scenes with Isildur in LotR--not much more than a few minutes altogether really. If so, it's not really worth anyone getting their Purist knickers in a bunch
And as Eldo says (and I've always said), the technique of telling the tale through Bilbo's "narration" to his nieces and nephews (including Frodo) would be the best way of segueing the distinctive tone of the Hobbit into the larger world of LotR.
Its yet another unnecessary complication. Why can't they be satisfied with adapting what Tolkien wrote, why this constant need to stamp their own distinctiveness and story telling on top of it? (And killing it in the process).
TH is not about Frodo, has nothing to do with Frodo. Tolkien had not even begun to conceive of Frodo when TH was written and published. I have no problem with Primula making an appearance as Bilbo's sister, perhaps at the auction at the end but no story time should be given over to setting Frodo up. It is unnecessary.
If they had adapted LoTR properly and included the conversation in the Ivy Bush with the Gaffer the audience would already know all about Frodo!! So maybe if they just stuck to adapting what's written it would all be a lot better.
The voice of [i:29ylevw7]Reason[/i:29ylevw7] never so lucid!!!
More like the voice of Crabbity if you ask me
. Including a bit of Frodo's back-story doesn't diminish Bilbo's in any way.
I would not say GB introducing Frodo's backstory into TH dimishes Bilbo's story in any way at all. It diminishes the entire Hobbit!
It would be contrived and shoe horned in and its only purpose is to justify the fact they didn't successfully adapt LoTR and put the information there where it belongs.
TH is not in any way, shape or form connected to Frodo save distantly through Bilbo being his uncle.
It is Bilbo's story from when he was a relatively young hobbit heading towards boring middle-age who then had an adventure that changed his life. That's all it's about. That's all it needs.
It is its simplicity that makes it work as a children's book and would make it work as a children's film adults can enjoy (just like the book).
At the rate they are going TH story is going to be a side show pr-eambling LoTR's. It has to stop somewhere and should have stoped long ago.
Crabbity enough for you GB?
I agree with petty - it's not Bilbo's story specifically that would be diminished. Adding Frodo's backstory would just make the films more like the mercifully abandoned "bridge film" idea: a collection of only marginally related plotlines and backstories to LOTR that are artificially joined together. There are no narrative links between The Hobbit and Drogo/Primula beyond the very basic ones that link all of the Hobbit stories, and adding them would only dilute the story and its focus.
Even forgetting about the faithfulness to the book for the moment, I think it'd be a horrible idea. They should tell a story, not try to make an anthology on screen.
Well put Eldo. I'm sure we have GB squirming in the firm grip of the purists now.
He's a slippery one, though.
(All in good fun)
Another audition news bit: [url:y982w2s6]http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/3721835/I-ll-be-Hobbits-dwarf-says-Bailey[/url:y982w2s6]
Interesting bit of news/gossip Beren. Not opposed to the idea at all but a curious thought did occur when reading it. Gimli had a (sort of) Scottish accent in LoTR so will Gloin have to have one too? Is it supposed to be a family accent or one shared by all the dwarves of Thorin's company?
It's so refreshing to hear such Pure and Respectable views.
You know, conversations are always more Respectable when a certain Beard (I'm not saying who) is not around.... Well, I won't be a sneak: I mean GB.
Guys, I actually have a plan of how to deal with him. The salient fact is, and I think even us Purists agree, GB is totally adorable and we must NEVER let him go away permanently. So what I suggest we do is make up a LIBERALS THREAD. In this way GB can stay on the Forum and we can go visit him regularly - it will be like visiting a beloved family member at a Lunatic Assylum. (This would also give other Liberals a place to congregate). To make him happy, we can even have debates with him over his looney-tune ideas!
Now, as to all the other Vulgar Threads (and Wisey's Respectable Threads) we could just ban GB from them. That way we could have sensible discussions without all GB's histrionics and plainly ridiculous ideas confusing things.
This plan would be excellent as there would be no losers, just winners. It would also make a better organized and neater Forum all round, I think!
What do you guys think?
Oh I can't wait for the films to come out and give all you Purists a conniption
. We'll see who's squirming then. Frankly, I'm enjoying all the histrionics from YOUR end of things. As long as the changes and additions in the adaptation are consistent with the previous films and the essentials of Tolkien's stories, I'll be delighted.
((If we had a Liberal Thread we wouldn't have to put up with this kind of thing, guys - think about it!))
I could be a Liberal like you and I still wouldn't like the Primula idea, GB.
You know, I never actually claimed to be a "Liberal", nor entirely non-Purist. I'm just not a Fanatical Purist (I'm not implying that YOU are Eldo, but certain others seem over-zealous in their Purism
). I DO become quite disappointed when films don't cover at least 50% of the essentials of any given story, but I am very happy when they manage to cover at least 70-80%.
What percent would you give TT and RoTK GB? Just curious.
Overall, I give the entirety of the LotR films about a 70% adherence to the essentials of the Book. That is far superior to most film adaptations of books.
wow! That's far superior to what I would rate them obviously. In particular the last 2 films I cannot see how you could justify such a high rating for. Characters are different, Aragorn, Theoden, Faramir for example. The plot diverges from source often, warg attack, Aragon falling off a cliff, lack of ents (bar Treebeard), and there is less than 20% I'd say of original dialogue left, if that. And that's just TT.
Who were all those Ents at the Entmoot then? And the ones battling Saruman?
Divergences and shiftings (Old Man Willow in Fangorn, Shelob pushed to part 3 etc.) aside, the overall thrust of the plot was relatively intact (it's really shocking how many films actually SUBSTANTIVELY alter key plot points, LotR doesn't do that) . The essential characteristics and roles of the characters are maintained. Dialogue changes were largely inconsequential.
Ents at entmoot were just background, no characters, no Quickbeam and barely any Ent Moot to speak of.
The overall thrust was there but all the details were altered or wrong.
The essential characteristics are there- where GB?
Aragorn, man of destiny taking back what his rightfully his with certainty and determination; film version, Aragorn man of uncertainty reluctant to take up his throne.
Faramir is completely different had his character is too (they attempt to rectify this later but the damage is done, he's a different man), Theoden, doesn't look anything like his book equivalent, is substantially younger and is possessed by Saruman- where's that in the book GB?
As to dialogue, Tolkien wrote some great, moving dialogue in a classical style, a style I happen to enjoy and is one of the pleasures of reading LoTR. And they dumped most of it in favour of their own inferior writing skills.
Then there's Aragorn/Arwen intervention and the lack of subtlety in the portrayal of Gollum, who is like a cartoon villain in the films.
I don't use the word "Liberal" seriously; it has just amused me to no end ever since Odo started with it.
That said, my objection to the idea of including Frodo is not solely because I'm a purist.
I don't tend to analyze adaptations based on a percentage of the work included. This is mainly because I'm okay with a lot of cuts, but it's the changes that get to me. I'm also not really sure how to quantify a story. By page number, chapter number, plot point, or what?
I'd thought about calling GB a Tolkien [i:3o77gvl0]Lefty [/i:3o77gvl0]- but I thought that might be a bit close to the bone...
Hey! Tolkien was a Conservative - and I guess this is why I understand his works better than just about anyone (I say it humbly but truthfully
) Sadly, there are not many of us jenuine Conserves left... Not True Conserves anyhow... (Actually, I'm a member of JAM = Jenuine Anti-Moderates - though we usually call ourselve Purists - or sometime [i:3o77gvl0]Purees[/i:3o77gvl0], mainly because it fits better with the Conserves joke - just a bit of Tory humour, what!
By modern American Political and Religious standards, Tolkien and Lewis were a couple of Treehugging, Renaissance Fetishist, Fairy Loving, Universalist, Occultist, Intellectual, Boozing and Smoking, Socialists (okay, that last one is a bit of a stretch, but not by much in an era wherein a sober thoughtful Centrist can be cast as some kind Raging Stalinist Radical
yep, and what's even worse is that several people in my generation haven't even HEARD of LOTR, which makes me so sick!
There used to be a time when it was funny to sit and watch American madness, as they spoke of democracy and replaced democracies with tyrannies where it suited them. As they ridiculed anyone who dared criticise the American way and lampooned anyone who questioned the wisdom of unfettered capitalism, but the joke is wearing a lot thinner now that sort of thinking has started spreading to my own shores.
I watched 9/11 unfold live on tv with a friend, I was visiting his house at the time. And what struck me as remarkable was that (on Brit news at least) every member of the general US populace they spoke to ( and for weeks afterwards even) had 2 questions they could not fathom the answers to. Who would want to do this to us? And why?
Compare that to the comments made between myself and my friend as it became apparent watching it that this was no tragic accident but a deliberate attack; I said, "Well, that's been a long time coming." To which my friend replied simply, "Oh yeah. Surprised its not happened before."
I do hope in these days of a new govt in America that it's people have taken a wider interest and a more complete view of their countries role around the world, please tell me this is so?
What bothers me more Tin is there's a generation out there who think LoTR are those long boring crap films they fell asleep through.
.. you mean it wasn't just a nightmare after all....??
With TH still to come Odo I fear not. The nightmare is not yet over.
Here's an idea: AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE!
Unless you guys are Masochists
. In which case your Nightmares will be SELF-INFLICTED
You can always sit things out for 20-30 years until someone else takes a crack at it. Probably be in 4D by then
The thing with adaptations is that the more you fiddle with them, the more you have to fiddle with any sequels or in this case prequels. Tolkien wrote some fairly well put together stuff, while there maybe one or two places in his entire works that some people may consider plot holes, to coin a popular modern phrase, it was consistent. The adaptations by PJ changed a few aspects of this created world and mythology, and like throwing a couple of rocks into a lake or river, you can never tell how the ripples will play out. So we have the prequel 'The Hobbit' and the ripples are finding their way to it.
The old adage comes to mind "Don't fix what isn't broken"
Some adaptations do cross the line and irreparably damage a story that isn't broken. But no-one has yet convincingly demonstrated to me that Jackson's films have done so.
The Gnostic Jesus saith: "Those who have eyes don't see, those who have ears don't listen, and some who think they love Tolkien don't know what love is." I wonder if Jesus was referring to Tolkien Liberals when (allegedly) He said this?
Have you actually READ the Gnostic Gospels? I have!
I suspected as much...
I've read them GB. Do I win a prize? Is the prize a bag of intellectual superiority- I do hope so I could do with some I'm not nearly smug enough about all the stuff I've read. Clearly so much to learn!
[quote="Gandalfs Beard":28a1hs2k]Some adaptations do cross the line and irreparably damage a story that isn't broken. But no-one has yet convincingly demonstrated to me that Jackson's films have done so.[/quote:28a1hs2k]
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by damaging a story, but Jackson's version of LotR definitely messes up the finely-tuned nature of Tolkien's story. Jackson's attitude towards geographical consistency (including the time it takes to travel) is carefree, to say the least. A well-known example is the speed with which the Elven reinforcements reach Helm's Deep from Lorien, but there are many others where Jackson disregards the maps that he shows onscreen. His changes also make characters act like idiots (like the movie-Witch-king defeating Gandalf but leaving him to deal with the Rohirrim, instead of leaving before even fighting Gandalf; in the movie he had time to give the killing blow for leaving the enemy's most important leader). This results from Jackson not wanting to change too much (i.e., having Gandalf die at Minas Tirith) but having made other changes.
I don't think these and other issues are enough to make PJ's trilogy bad films, though I can understand why some would. I find it annoying to have to ignore certain elements of the movie, though.
I have to say i think they do qualify as bad movies. As I have stated before most non-Tolkien fans I know have seen them found them over long, dull and uninteresting. That's PJ's fault, no-ones else's.
How many non-Tolkien fans do you know would pay to go see the films multiple times, as many did with Star wars say? I doubt the numbers would be very high.
I can't even begin to say, petty. There are plenty of people who had never touched the books before seeing the movies, but on the other hand there were those who were put off by the movies. I can't imagine those who found the movies too long and dull would have had a better opinion of the books, though. PJ's story moves at a considerably faster pace than Tolkien's did. That said, there might be those who would find Tolkien's greater emphasis on things other than battle to be more appealing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there were a lot of different reactions to PJ's films and I'm reluctant to identify any one reaction as representative of an overall trend.
[quote="pettytyrant101":18irwv68]I've read them GB. Do I win a prize? Is the prize a bag of intellectual superiority- I do hope so I could do with some I'm not nearly smug enough about all the stuff I've read. Clearly so much to learn!
Indeed, you have read much,my well read person I know. Although oddly not a lot of fantasy... Unless you are counting various ancient books /scrolls etc?
Of course you are correct, you do have much to learn..
Oh I'mready to accept bookings on the Smug Training course I've started up...
I used to read a lot but now I've given up childish things.
Yes, there is a prize
. It is the Medallion Shield of Smugness, which is used to deflect a Smug Attack from a Pseudo-quoting Wise-acre.
Didn't you know, GB? When you're [b:12qxq0c0]Wise[/b:12qxq0c0] like Wise Odo you don't have to read or quote, you just [b:12qxq0c0]know[/b:12qxq0c0]!
  >>
Oh Eldo! Was there ever a truer word said in jest?
(((...channel.... channel... channel...)))
Nope! [i:1u93py7e][b:1u93py7e]Never ever![/b:1u93py7e][/i:1u93py7e]