Sage Hobbit movie advice for PJ?

[gorthaur_cruel]

1) make it a two-part movie, more time to cover the story, but
more importantly, lotd more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (or pounds) (or euros).

I don't want the story spoiled for more money. LotR was 3 books, so 3 movies. The Hobbit is 1 book, and a short one at that, so 1 movie.

3) Part one romantic interest (okay, a little playing with Middle-earth
history is involved in some of these ideas), Aragorn and Arwen's first
meeting (yeah, he was really about 10, and not yet invented when the
Hobbit was written, but PJ makes him 20).

Enough tampering with the story! Arwen and Aragorn's story has a conclusion in LotR; they marry. But why show the two meet, when nothing happens after? A meaningless inclusion, IMO. Even the love-story lovers wouldn't like having a couple meet when they have absolutely no place in the story and nothing happens to them. Perhaps a cameo appearance, but no more.

4) Since it's unclear who actually was in the attack on Dol Guldur, and
knowing PJ's battle scene fetish, include elves and Dunedain in the
attack (Aragorn can "earn his spurs" and impress his mates). Also
have the hint of tension between Gandalf and Saruman.

All right...I'll accept that, except Aragorn. The attack on Dol Guldur and the White Council can show what Gandalf's doing...sort of a side story.

5) In Part II Legolas is present. If he had been invented it's very
possible Thranduil's son would have been involved and in LOTR I don't
believe there's any "Oh hi, Gandalf, we've never met before, I'm..."

I don't mind him being present...after all, Bilbo sees a lot of the Mirkwood Elves. But I don't think having him appear too much is good. Perhaps he can appear next to Thranduil, be one of the Elves who ship the barrel, or perhaps Thranduil's ambassador to Esgaroth (the one that declares Thorin to be a vagabond Dwarf).

6) Part II love interest, either Bard has a girlfriend (he shoots Smaug
just before she gets really hot, or Legolas with any available
elf or Laketown girl.

Again, a love that has no conclusion will satisfy nobody. Not the love-scene lovers nor the Tolkien purists.

7) Part II bits with Aragorn fighting for Gondor, and a young Denethor
getting steamed with Aragorn's success. Again, dates and the ages of
people are a bit off but I think it sticks, at least in the movie
universe, closish to Middle-earth events, and it allws especially
non-book people to relate to more characters.

This is a completely different story from Bilbo's adventure. The attack on Dol Guldur relates to Gandalf's leaving. Aragorn's adventures are completely off the track. You're suggesting way too many side-stories. I mean, imagine Bilbo fighting against the spiders, then suddenly Aragorn's fighting for Gondor, while Gandalf is meeting Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel. Too confusing, IMO.

8) Casting--- Unfortunately, Ian Holmes would probably be not only too
old for Bilbo, but not up to the almost total screen time the character
would call for. But movie Aragorn, Arwen, Gandalf, Galadriel, Agent Elrond,
John-Rhys Davies as Thorin Oakenshield, Smeagol, etc.

I actually think Ian Holm could play Bilbo. After all, Bilbo was over 50 in The Hobbit. Seeing how the average life span of a Hobbit was about 100 (Tolkien says they reached 100 as often as not), and our life span is about 80, there's not too much of a difference. So Bilbo has to look to be about 40. With some young-looking WETA make up, Ian Holm could look to be around 40, I think. Don't ask why they chose a 20 year old for Frodo...I've got no idea.

One reason for suggesting Aragorn/Arwen is so non-book readers
won't be asking during the film: "Where's that cute elvish babe?
"Yeah, and what about hunky Aragorn?"

You could reply: Hunky Aragorn is 10 years old at this time Arwen could make a cameo appearance, I guess.

[Essex]

I don't think 1 or 2 movies would work for the hobbit. even though it's a kid's novel, it would still require a fair bit of dumbing down. why not, as Sir Ian has mentioned, have it as a tv mini series? The way the book is written (to me anyway) would lend to this idea, as the chapters seem 'episodic' in their construction.

ps no doubt this has been mentioend before, but there's only 1 person who could play Beorn, and that's Robbie Coltrane.......

[Encaitare]

You could reply: Hunky Aragorn is 10 years old at this time Arwen could make a cameo appearance, I guess.

No, because Arwen was in Lothlorien at the time.

And why does everyone think there needs to be a love interest? There wasn't a love interest in the book but you still enjoyed it didn't you? Did anyone read the book and suddenly stop in the middle and notice, "Hey, there's not a love interest in this book"? The thought never even occurred to me. If the story is good then do you really notice or care if there is a love interest?

It depends. If it is aimed at children like the book was, then a love interest isn't all that important. But if it's made out to be a huge story, then why would it hurt to give Bard a love interest? He ends up having a son, so why not include his future wife?

[gorthaur_cruel]

No, because Arwen was in Lothlorien at the time.

My bad. I forgot about that. Well, anyway, I wouldn't mind that much twisting of the story by PJ, compared to his corrupted Faramir, an eyeball Sauron, and ghostbuster armies.

It depends. If it is aimed at children like the book was, then a love interest isn't all that important. But if it's made out to be a huge story, then why would it hurt to give Bard a love interest? He ends up having a son, so why not include his future wife?

Well, all right. It slipped my mind that he had a son(stupid of me, I know). I suppose a bit of love could be put in, if only to satisfy the non-purists.

[the phantom]

then why would it hurt to give Bard a love interest?

It would hurt because when people add extra stuff to Tolkien it's seldom as good as Tolkien. It would be like me trying to stick a few bars of my own into the middle of a Bach violin concerto. I've had some experience so it wouldn't be too bad- but it certainly wouldn't be on level with the rest of the piece.

I suppose a bit of love could be put in, if only to satisfy the non-purists.

And non-purists are more important than purists? You have to pick one or the other, because if you put something in to satisfy non-purists it's automatically going to annoy the purists.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by phantom

And non-purists are more important than purists? You have to pick one or the other, because if you put something in to satisfy non-purists it's automatically going to annoy the purists.

Well, given that Tolkien purists are a massive minority of the potential film audience and are likely to go and see the film anyway, I should imagine that it will be the non-purists that they will primarily aiming to entice into the theatres. It's all about bums on seats, my dear boy.

I agree with Encaitare. If it's done as a children's film, then a love interest won't be needed. But if it's aimed at a wider audience (which seems more likely given the incredible success of the LotR films) they will undoubtedly look for a love interest. The problem with Bard is that he doesn't appear until near the end so, unless they expand his role to feature throughout, he won't really work as the peg onto which to hang the love interest. Can't see what else would work, though ...

[Encaitare]

phantom-- If Bard were to have a love interest it wouldn't have to play a huge part in the story, nor would she have to be a Xena character, as was seen in the movie-version of certain other LotR ladies... *cough cough* But it could be included just as a little side bit, to lend some emotion and show what everyone has to lose should they be defeated.

The problem with Bard is that he doesn't appear until near the end so, unless they expand his role to feature throughout, he won't really work as the peg onto which to hang the love interest. Can't see what else would work, though ... --SpM

Oh, yes... I'd forgotten that he wasn't even there most of the time... drat. Must reread the book.