If you could change ONE thing in The Hobbit triology

[Michael Murry]

My thanks to everyone for resurrecting this thread for additional discussion. With the unfortunate film butchery of The Hobbit now consigned to the dustbin of history, it will probably take a long while before someone comes along with any appetite -- let alone studio funding -- for another go at a film adaptation. Yet, as we all know, many classic tales have seen mutliple remakes over time as generations change and different directors bring different viewpoints to the telling of the same story.

I think I recall another person mentioning the original Robocop, by Paul Verhoeven. Someone made a remake of that classic film a few years back and after seeing only a few scenes, I quit even trying to watch. But I still go back from time to time and watch the original: a very well made film. Great social satire eviscerating the Reagan Era, too. The same goes for The Time Machine, by George Pal. I saw it three times at a walk-in theater back in my junior high school days. I have DVDs of the original plus a remake starring Guy Pearce. Some better updates on the technology in the remake, but not a better story. Again, the original far outshines the remake. On the other hand, I very much prefer the remake of The Count of Monte Cristo, starring James Caviel and Guy Pearce. Really crackling dialogue, great acting, and some interesting twists on some basic elements of the story. Here, in my opinion, the remake far outshines the original.

Sorry for going on at such length setting up my answer to the orignial thread question, but if I could change one thing, I would go back to the original production idea of making The Hobbit as a single film with a follow-on "bridge" movie -- or several of them -- taking the story through sixty-some odd years from the ending of The Hobbit to the beginning of The Lord of the Rings. Specifically, I once imagined The Hobbit ending with Gandalf and Balin visiting Bilbo at Bag End for a little reminiscing -- as in the book -- then switching to a final scene of Smeagol/Gollum emerging from beneath the Misty Mountains, filled with rage and longing for The Precious, snarling and gulping:

"Where is it Presciousss? Where is The Shire? Where is Baggins? Thief! We hates it! We hates it forever! And we will find it, won't we precious?" Something like that. And then Gollum slinks off into the night, setting up the beginning of the next film with Smeagol/Gollum as the primary character and Andy Serkis doing the voice work as only he can. Come to think of it, someone could probably just skip remaking The Hobbit and get right to The Adventures of Smeagol/Gollum, with those other characters like Aragorn and Elrond, et al, in supporting roles.

Anyway, probably not a chance of any of this ever happening, but if I could change one thing, I would change back to the original concept of a single, self-contained Hobbit followed by a "bridge" movie, or several of them, depending upon audience hunger for more of Middle Earth and especially more about Smeagol/Gollum who pretty much stole the show in The Lord of the Rings in my opinion.

Anyway, my thanks again for bringing back the discussion of changes, remakes, etc.

[Faramir Jones]

I agree with you, Michael, in wanting more adaptations of Tolkien's works, in the same way that there are many adaptations of the works of other authors. Only then will we be able to put the Jackson adaptations in any kind of reasonable perspective. I admit to being prejudiced by the hype surrounding those adaptations, including too many people saying, 'Isn't Peter Jackson wonderful!'

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Michael Murry

My thanks to everyone for resurrecting this thread for additional discussion. With the unfortunate film butchery of The Hobbit now consigned to the dustbin of history, it will probably take a long while before someone comes along with any appetite -- let alone studio funding -- for another go at a film adaptation. Yet, as we all know, many classic tales have seen mutliple remakes over time as generations change and different directors bring different viewpoints to the telling of the same story.

As I mentioned elsewhere:

It will take a lot more than someone else wanting to produce Tolkien's works.

They will have to pass the Tolkien Estates Purity Test in order to gain the rights to any of his works, and they would have to accept the Estate's retention of Veto Rights on anything to do with future productions.

I got to speak with a representative of the Estate in the process of other academic work in 2013, and the discussion briefly veered into the territory of the movies.

At that time they were already really upset by Jackson.

And when I spoke with the representative again in 2015 it would be difficult to describe the anger they expressed over The Hobbit in civil language. It would be even more difficult since technically our conversation was supposed to be on a completely different topic.

So, unless a Production Company is capable of describing to the Estate how they (the Estate) Interpret JRR Tolkien's views regarding Middle-earth, and the importance of various things (such as Authorial Primacy) that Tolkien himself felt important....

It is unlikely that another movie or movies will be made.

And appealing to the "They like money like everyone else" would be missing one of the key aspects of the Tolkiens:

That their religious beliefs trump pretty much everything, and that those beliefs are not for sale for any amount of money.

That is likely to be a hard thing for many people to accept, but I have encountered a LOT of people for whom there were things more important than anything that exists, or could exist (short of the Sacred being made physically manifest).

I am not especially Religious, but having spent most of my life studying beliefs in one aspect or another, it is something I understand pretty well.

Hopefully, when Saul Zaentz license expires, we will see a production of other works of Tolkien that cleave more closely to Tolkien's vision of his world.

MB