Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[Sauron the White]

Folwren
I do get your point. And I do respect your opinion on this. I do however feel that they certainly did do as you wanted and

had stuck at least MOSTLY with the book

Obviously there were changes. But the vast majority of the film came from the books. I defend the movies here but even I object to some of the changes. I still cringe with the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead Army sweeping the Pelennor clean rendering the previous scenes of the Rohirrim all in vain. I hated that. I certainly am no fan of body noise jokes or Gimli being the butt of the humor. I never would have done it that way.

But in the end they are still movies I love. Over thirty years ago I used to be in cars with others driving to conventions and fan gatherings and we used to kill time by speculating on a possible LOTR movie. I do not think any of us thought it would be as great as it was. Perfect - no. But then what is?

I am very happy to have the books to reread again and again. And I am happy to have the films to watch again and again. I have little trouble telling the difference.

[Lord Halsar]

I think that some of us are straying off topic here (no offense, I just call it as I see it).
Anywho, I do admit that I am both looking forward to, and loathing the idea of a "The Hobbit" movie. I myself doubt that the serving animals will appear in anything but the extended/uncut version (If there is one and I believe there will be). Beorn himself on the other hand, is likely to take his place(s) in it. The fact that he tore through Bolg and his men (or is the term goblins... orcs maybe?) may or may not be too great of a part for PJ to ignore (But then again, we never know who's going to do what. Hollywood has shown us that time and time again).

[Sir Kohran]

I expect Beorn will be included, if for no other reason than he makes for some great action - imagine a massive bear smashing a path through the Orc ranks and literally crushing Bolg.

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.



The reason the Narnia movie wasn't that good was, IMO, simply because it tried to make the book into something it wasn't - the book was not meant to be a huge LOTR-style epic, but an enjoyable fairy-tale with some Christian subtext. Unfortunately the makers ignored this and tried to recreate Jackson's movies and whilst not failing, ended up with a rather average result.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.

This is the point (& its also the reason that Tolkien failed to re-write TH 'in the style of LotR') - TH is a children's tale &, as such, contains much that an 'adult' tale cannot get away with. None of those things would be out of place (if handled correctly) in a children's movie, but they wouldn't work in an 'adult' movie aimed at fans of the LotR films.

But, as Tolkien realised, if you try to re-write TH in the style of LotR the whole tale collapses under a weight it was not designed to bear. Lose the whimsy, the fantastic element, the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves & 'cockerney' Trolls & you have a different story, because the mood, the spirit, basically the heart of the tale, will be gone.

Lose the serving animals, the talking eagles & wolves, the camp Elves & comedy trolls & you haven't got The Hobbit we know & love. TH is a fable, a fairy story for the young. This has nothing to do with 'movies & books are different media', its to do with whether greedy adults should be allowed to snatch away childrens' candy, just 'cos they're bigger than them & fancy stuffing their faces.

Originally Posted by StW

So if we had Tom Bombadil singing his cheery doggerel dressed like a bad hippie dream, then the film would have
- made more money than the $4 billion US dollars that it did ????
- won more than the 17 Academy Awards that it did ?????
- been more critically praised than the high level that it did ????

That would depend on the skill of the director. Tom has always (to my mind) been one of Tolkien's greatest, not to mention most fascinating & mysterious, characters. The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by davem

That would depend on the skill of the director. Tom has always (to my mind) been one of Tolkien's greatest, not to mention most fascinating & mysterious, characters. The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

I agree totally. Nothing is wrong with Bombadil. Just another great character from a great writer.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Finduilas

I agree totally. Nothing is wrong with Bombadil. Just another great character from a great writer.

I disagree totally. Bombadil reads like an anachronism - his bizarre behaviour, his bumbling attitude, his strange speaking habits - all in all he reads more like a character from The Hobbit than LOTR. His insertion into the tale seems entirely random and somewhat tedious, and I'd say this one of very few points where Tolkien's writing falters somewhat.

To put him into the movie? Oh come on - introducing the Old Forest, taking on Old Man Willow, entering Tom's house, the conversation, the sequence on the Barrow Downs - you're already talking ten minutes at the very least, on a character and segment that has relatively little influence on the story overall. That simply isn't worth it. The movie is already over two hours (over three hours in the extended edition) as it is. Also, showing him laughing at the Ring would destroy all the sense of danger that has been built up around it previously. Finally a man in yellow boots singing a tree to sleep is frankly ridiculous, especially when put into movies that have been praised so much for their realistic view of fantasy.

The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

The movies had a sense of mystery, in many ways more than the books - at one point Gandalf mentions 'the old wisdom born out of the West' - for a movie-viewer this wouldn't make any sense as nothing is told of the downfall of Numenor in the movies, yet it helps to create a sense of mystery as to what exactly happened back then. We just tend not to notice this because as book readers we already know all the answers. Also mystery is harder to convey in movies, where things are actually shown, instead of just written about.

[Sauron the White]

Sir Kohran captures my feelings about Bombadil excellently. I would agree and state that he was not even a good character in the book. But on the screen he would have killed the movie in its very tracks. JRRT was a great writer. But he was not perfect. No human is and no human endeavor is flawless.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I disagree totally. Bombadil reads like an anachronism - his bizarre behaviour, his bumbling attitude, his strange speaking habits - all in all he reads more like a character from The Hobbit than LOTR. His insertion into the tale seems entirely random and somewhat tedious, and I'd say this one of very few points where Tolkien's writing falters somewhat.

This from a post of mine in the Chapter by Chapter read through:

So, what stories does he tell the hobbits, exactly?

He begins, with the place they’re in - the Old Forest. He tells them its nature & history, the stories of its inhabitants, giving them an insight into the place they’re in. then his stories take them out from the forest into the hills of the Barrow Downs. He takes them, also, back in time, back through the history of the Land, but his stories don’t stop there:

They have been transported from the everyday world, with the earth solid beneath their feet, back to the begining, where the stars of Elbereth shine in the silence. But still, Tom is there, his voice speaking out of that silence. And he is going to tell them something important, something vital - he tells them to ‘mark my words, my friends’:

What Tom is telling them is that his ‘stories’ are not simply stories - they are his own memories - he is telling them of his own experiences. But this visionary experience doesn’t end with Tom standing in the fearless dark, beneath the stars, something else is to culminate the whole mystical experience:

We’ve gone back to the begining of the world, guided by Tom Bombadil, & who do we find awaiting us, bearing a light in her hand, echoing the Secret Fire, telling us that new waters are flowing under the stars, but Goldberry, the River Daughter!

Finally, what do we make of Tom’s verse:

This is a kind of ‘invocation’ - Tom is called by invoking the elements of the Land - water & earth, the living plants & trees (including the ‘dread’ Willow!), the (the ‘Secret’?)‘fire’, & finally, by the lights of heaven, the Sun & the Moon. They are to call on the elements of the Land beneath & the heavens above them, to bring Tom to their aid, & if they do so, he will come to them.

Originally Posted by SK

Also, showing him laughing at the Ring would destroy all the sense of danger that has been built up around it previously. Finally a man in yellow boots singing a tree to sleep is frankly ridiculous, especially when put into movies that have been praised so much for their realistic view of fantasy.

No it wouldn't - anymore than it does in the books. One of the main differences between book & movies is Tolkien's subtle exploration of the nature & power of the Ring, as opposed to Jackson's over-simplification of it.

The movies had a sense of mystery,

No - they just had an air of confusion.