Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigûr
I agree, I think that the number of films (and their length) is fine. For my part, however, I would have made a film of The Hobbit first. Even if this hypothetical "The Hobbit" was three hours long like any of the films of The Lord of the Rings I think it could work. I think an embellished "The Hobbit" PJ-style could also have worked as two films - three being a bridge too far - but that it's unnecessary. Either way, however, I think The Hobbit should have come first, with "The Necromancer" and the mystery of Gollum and the Ring left ambiguous until "The Fellowship of the Ring." I think The Lord of the Rings works far better as a narrative which follows on from The Hobbit than The Hobbit does as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings.
|
Logically,
The Hobbit should have been made first, and I would have preferred it to be either one long film or two medium-length films, though I think I'd lean towards the latter. Having said that, I'm not sure it would work if PJ was the one to do this. Seeing how lightly he takes TH several years after the success of LotR, his 'sequel' of LotR would have been a disastrous commercial blockbuster had his TH turned out well. Unless, of course, he carefully planned
both the stories the way he did with the LotR trilogy.
The idea of an LotR television series is intriguing, but I'm not sure the first part of FotR is dramatic enough to support this. It would be very slow, and things that are appealing page-by-page may not be appealing on screen. On a different note, I think
The Children of Húrin could make a great single film.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think TH would have really appealed to me if:
1. The director stuck to the fact that it's a children's book, not a YA novel. I understand changing the target-group can sometimes work, but it didn't (and, to me, won't) for TH.
2. They didn't include Radagast and Azog, who in my opinion serve only to make the film messier than necessary.
3. In keeping with the idea of a younger audience, there was less fanservice (especially with regard to the Dwarves). I think this draws too much attention away from the protagonist.
4. There were no Silly Romances. 'Nuff said.
5. TH was severely Hollywoodised –*far more than LotR imo –*and I think less of this would have been good for the film, which came across to me as insincere and contrived. I felt PJ tried quite hard to stick to the spirit of LotR, but he didn't have the same respect for TH.
Personally, though, I would for TH focus on these scenes (by 'focus', I mean closely follow the book):
1. Gandalf's meeting with Bilbo.
2. The Dwarves' entry into Bilbo's hole.
3. The troll scene.
4. Beorn's halls.
5. The monumental moment when Bilbo names his sword Sting. I don't think the singing/poetry here would have worked in a film, but taunts would have been fun.
6. The famous escape from the Elvenking's Halls.
Sadly the rest of the book is a bit of a haze for me, but hopefully I'll get back on this.
Basically, I would try to put into TH a simple charm that brings out the child in me, and not an epic air that suggests a looming catastrophe. The tone would have to grow more serious as the story went along, but I don't think it would be as solemn as LotR.