Two films for The Hobbit? Invented materials to "fill in the gaps"?

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

When ever a book is made into a movie it will be an intepritation, you will never get Tolkiens LotR or The Hobbit.

Of course this should not keep us from bashing the films

I disagree, a movie can be very true to a book if done correctly. The story, the characters, and the overall feel of a film can easily mirror that of the book upon which it is based. PJ's LOTR mostly failed in this respect, even though they are good films.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Of course they can be true, but they will always be an intepritation! We all read books differently, if you and I read the same book and was to make it into a movie and stay true to the books, there would still be different outcomes.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Magnificent post by Boromir above. That cuts to the heart of the matter: Yes, it would be cool to see all this other stuff, but we want to see The Hobbit. That's why I still hold that there should only be one movie, and that while you might include a couple White Council scenes, the focus should be completely on the Quest of Erebor.

Quite frankly, if you want J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, read the book. You won't get it in a movie, whether made by PJ or anyone else.

And finally, let me just stop everyone to point out that neither MGM nor New Line have even contacted PJ about helming this project yet, so we have absolutely no evidence that he will even be involved. That being said, I seriously doubt the companies will settle for anyone other than him as director, but for the moment, he's not (yet) part of this project.

But is anyone else THRILLED about this thing? There is not another movie in the world, whether real or imaginary, that I would rather see than The Hobbit. (Since LOTR's already been made, that is.) Assuming it's made by PJ, of course. You can talk about being excited about a new film, but I would not camp out at the movie theater waiting for midnight, for any other movie. I will do that and more, if necessary, for The Hobbit.

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

Quite frankly, if you want J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, read the book. You won't get it in a movie, whether made by PJ or anyone else.

I was not speaking of a page by page and word by word film treatment for goodness sake! I simply want to see a faithful adaption of the book, so sue me! Am I wrong for wanting a Hobbit film that follows the storyline of the book? Gee...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, the LOTR movies follow the storyline of the books. Whether they are a "faithful adaptation" depends on your point of view. I'd say they are, but I know there are plenty (even among those who love them) who would disagree.

I just think it's harder to be "really" faithful to the book than one might think. I'm often like you, Trotter; I wonder why Frodo and so many other characters were weakened, why Saruman forms the Uruks out of some primordial glop, why Aragorn has to fake his death falling off a cliff. And I still wonder why, sometimes. But, even though I know you hear this all the time, let me repeat it, that a movie is a totally different medium than a book, and has to be treated differently.

I think LOTR is an immensely difficult book to adapt into what ends up being about 11 hours of film. And I think The Hobbit, while not quite as monumental of a task, certainly poses its own challenges and difficulties.
So when we go into the theater in 2009 or whenever it may be, I think we can expect to see Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Gollum, Smaug, and Bard. We'll see the spider-battle in Mirkwood, the finding of the Ring, the Bilbo-Smaug conversation, and the Battle of Five Armies. But there will be changes from the book, and rightfully so. The important thing is whether it's still a story that we can call The Hobbit without cringing and wondering if JRRT is rolling in his grave. And if it is, I think PJ will deserve yet another round of applause.

[Trotter]

What really confuses me is when book scenes that would have transfered wonderfully to film are rewritten or cut altogether. There were many times in ROTK, during the siege of Minis Tirith, where I said, "what has he done? Why on earth didn't he keep the scene from the book? It would have been stunning, dramatic, and tense!" I have some idea about how the medium of film works, I have directed several small-scale productions myself, and through trial and error I have learned what works and what doesn't. Of course, I have never directed or written anything as big as LOTR, but from where I stand I do think that some of PJ's decisions were, to say the least, sloppy and totally uncalled for. These mistakes could have been avoided had the book been followed more closely.
My worry with The Hobbit is that PJ will make the same mistake, cutting wonderful scenes that would have transfered well in favor of scenes that he himself creates.
The bottom line is, he, and the other two writers, could have made a more faithful adaption of LOTR and it would have been just as popular as the one we got. It was like they chose LOTR as a foundation to build their own ideas upon, and as a result we got PJ's LOTR, complete with all of its plot holes, bad characterizations, pointless scenes, stupid dialogue, and bits and pieces of Tolkien's LOTR thrown in. And, no doubt, they will treat the The Hobbit in the same manner.
Don't get me wrong, PJ made good FILMS, BUT they could have been better had they been closer to the books. They most certainly would have been very different films altogether. Personally, I would like to see another director do The Hobbit, with a new cast and a different way of looking at Tolkien's works.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Trotter

The bottom line is, he, and the other two writers, could have made a more faithful adaption of LOTR and it would have been just as popular as the one we got.

I think there were some cases where Peter Jackson changed things for the sake of brevity and to introduce a more modern point of view. Introducing Bombadil would have been a dramatic digression, much more so in the movie than in the book. Putting Glorfindel in there would have introduced another character and removed the ability to make Arwen a more central character.

But I agree, for all of these, there are many other cases where Peter Jackson changed the story for no good reason--two best examples: 1) Gandalf and the Witch King, and 2) the handling of the scenes between Faramir and Frodo.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Trotter

I disagree, a movie can be very true to a book if done correctly. The story, the characters, and the overall feel of a film can easily mirror that of the book upon which it is based. PJ's LOTR mostly failed in this respect, even though they are good films.

I beg to differ. PJ's films WERE Middle-earth. Yes there were differences, but the story characters and plot were mainly faithful to the book.

PS - look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - that was very faithful to the brilliant book, but became a very boring movie!!!

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Essex

I beg to differ. PJ's films WERE Middle-earth. Yes there were differences, but the story characters and plot were mainly faithful to the book.

PS - look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - that was very faithful to the brilliant book, but became a very boring movie!!!

The characters faithful!!?? What about the reworking of Frodo and the total maligning of his courageous character? What about the butchering of Noble Faramir? What about the toned down and unsure Gandalf? What about the complete degrading of Gimli son of Gloin? The list is endless my friend. No, PJ's LOTR was NOT faithful to Tolkien's characters. Call me a nitpicker if you will. It is true though that PJ's characters accomplished the same things as the book's characters, but the way they went about doing that was different. Yes, I have heard the arguements about how the characters had to be made more conflicted and unsure for the films, but I disagree with them. I know that a film should avoid being boring at all costs, and granted, changes must be made, but there is a line to draw my friend, and PJ never did that as far as most of the characters were concerned.

P.S. I really do enjoy PJ's films, as PJ's LOTR. But I still hold to the belief that they could be done better as far as characters and story goes. I do applaud PJ and his team for their stunning costume, effects, and music work though, no problems there.


Trotter

[Essex]

The characters faithful!!?? What about the reworking of Frodo and the total maligning of his courageous character?

Movie Frodo WAS courageous. I admit, for example, that movie Frodo does not stand up to the Nazgul at the Ford. Movie Frodo was next to death's door and unable to reply - it doesn't make him a coward nor malign his character - I mean, the most courageous thing he did by far was crossing Mordor and making it up Mount Doom. This is included in the film.

But I put it to you that it was Frodo's COMPASSION towards Gollum and therefore his, and Middle-earth's, REDEMPTION that is a thousand more times important that his Courage. His compassion is what is important - that is what the whole message of Lord of the Rings is to me. And we see this Compassion and Redemption in the films.

What about the butchering of Noble Faramir?

If we strip the Change down to its bones, Faramir and the Hobbits took a detour. Movie Faramir needs the position made clear to him. Jackson puts in a detour to Osgiliath which I am not condoning, but have now realised it for what it is. A detour. We still seee Noble Faramir in his decision at the end of movie TT, and we see his nobility shine through in movie ROTK too.

What about the toned down and unsure Gandalf?

Don't you think book Gandalf had doubts about what he did in sending Frodo to Mount Doom? PJ has emphasised these points, yes, but why not? I would love all the movie characters to say and do exactly what they did in the book but we do not have the 54 hours required to fit all this in. Roll on the Mini Series of LOTR for this!

What about the complete degrading of Gimli son of Gloin?

Fair point, but then let's be honest, he doesn't have a lot to do in the book either does he? not much of a major character.... But I do cringe at his 'comedic' perfomance sometimes

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Trotter

The characters faithful!!?? What about the reworking of Frodo and the total maligning of his courageous character? What about the butchering of Noble Faramir? What about the toned down and unsure Gandalf?

These bother me, with the presentation of Frodo bothering me more and more as I see it again. In the book, Frodo is shown as feeling the heavy heavy weight of the ring and its evil power, but he doesn't descend to the point of having to be urged on by Sam the way he does in the movie. Look at the scene right before they catch the coneys for lunch--Sam comes across as the only one leading him on, the only one seeing what is happening to him, while in the book, Frodo never loses sight of what he needs to do and is well aware of the evil power of the ring (this is why he is able to feel pity for Gollum, since he sees that he will descend to this in the end). And then later, he is conned in the movie by Gollum, sending Sam away. I thought a big part of the book was the essentially noble spirit of Frodo and that he was the main one who completed the quest, while in the movie, it seems like he is a basket case from the Dead Marshes on.

Faramir comes across in the end as noble, but not convincingly so. It isn't quite clear to me how the events in Osgiliath lead him to "understand" Frodo, which he could not do before. Anyway, this was a missed chance to contrast Faramir, a human with Numenorean blood and wisdom to resist the lure of the ring, with Boromir (who lacked this wisdom).

Gandalf is messed up to some extent as well, with him providing the doubting point of view in the Last Debate, which goes against everything before in which he is the prime mover against Sauron. And as bearer of the Secret Fire (the Ring), his express mission is to uplift the hearts of those against Sauron, and this scene certainly does not convey this.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I agree the Frodo-Faramir bit is bad, and the Two Towers is overdone in places. And Gandalf should not disagree at Last Debate, nor should he counsel Theoden to ride and meet Saruman (in the book he counsels Theoden to go to Helm's Deep as I remember). But overall the movies were good enough. Look at how bad Harry Potter is, after all! What really bugs me is the near-to-final scene. Frodo should not wrestle Gollum at that last bit, he should just topple over the edge. God, that bit bugged me. Although it does help with the Frodo-being-Courageous problem.

Oh yes, and I think someone other than PJ should do the Hobbit movie. He'll just over-do it with battle scenes and love-stories. It was originally for children after all.

THE SIXTH WIZARD.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

These bother me, with the presentation of Frodo bothering me more and more as I see it again. In the book, Frodo is shown as feeling the heavy heavy weight of the ring and its evil power, but he doesn't descend to the point of having to be urged on by Sam the way he does in the movie. Look at the scene right before they catch the coneys for lunch--Sam comes across as the only one leading him on, the only one seeing what is happening to him, while in the book, Frodo never loses sight of what he needs to do and is well aware of the evil power of the ring (this is why he is able to feel pity for Gollum, since he sees that he will descend to this in the end).

Yes, in the book Frodo is aware that he is almost under its full power, esp near Mount Doom. But the key thing to remember is that book Frodo is under its Power, in the same way movie Frodo is. That is why both book and movie Frodo need Samwise Gamgee to help him complete the Quest. Without Sam, the Quest would have failed too. As well as Frodo's Compassion, we also have Sam's Heroism to help him complete the Quest.

And then later, he is conned in the movie by Gollum, sending Sam away.

Yeah, I know. I don't like this, but I can understand why the scritwriters did this. Sam turns up to save the day but it also too late to save Frodo (and we wouldn't have the stunning scene of Shelob creeping up on Frodo). Also, we wouldn't have the very important interlude between Frodo and Gollum which perfectly shows Frodo's compassion towards Gollum which resulted in the Quest being succesful.

Faramir comes across in the end as noble, but not convincingly so. It isn't quite clear to me how the events in Osgiliath lead him to "understand" Frodo, which he could not do before. Anyway, this was a missed chance to contrast Faramir, a human with Numenorean blood and wisdom to resist the lure of the ring, with Boromir (who lacked this wisdom).

As in the book, Faramir decides to let the hobbits go once he has learnt of the truth of what his brother did. In the book, Sam is cajoled by Faramir the excellent 'interrogator' into giving away the Plan regarding the Enemy's Ring, and his brother's part in it. In the film, Sam berates Faramir into understanding the peril of the Ring by again explaining the effect it had on his brother. In both cases, Faramir lets them go.

Remember book Faramir was also tempted. Let's not forget that it was his WORD that was one of the deciding factors that helped his reasoning on letting the hobbits carry on with thier Quest. He said before he knew what the Enemy's weapon was Frodo carried that he would not pick it up if it lied on the side of the road. He kept to his word once he found out what it actually was. But he WAS tempted to take the Ring. Movie Faramir was 'more' tempted, and made a detour to Osgiliath before realising his mistake.

I'm not saying I agree with the Change, but I have learnt to live with it and see it for what it was. A Detour.

Gandalf is messed up to some extent as well, with him providing the doubting point of view in the Last Debate, which goes against everything before in which he is the prime mover against Sauron.

Ok, I understand this, but its not a real major point. Why can't Gandalf have a bit of self doubt? He's sent two little hobbits on a 'foolish Quest' to get rid of the Ring. He knows it's Middle-earth's only chance, but he has already stated (at the Council for example) that it was full or risks and foolhardy. Wouldn't you have some self doubt in his position too?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, this is a good discussion, and I ain't no mod, but praps we gets it back on topic, yes precious? About the nassty little Hobbit movie?

[Boromir88]

Well, this is a good discussion, and I ain't no mod, but praps we gets it back on topic, yes precious? About the nassty little Hobbit movie?

I second that...that's how things work around here right?