Sage Hobbit movie advice for PJ?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Numerous comments have been made about the pluses and minuses
of PJ's LOTR movies. How about some preemptive suggestions, which
he would no doubt be grateful for on making The Hobbit.

Here ar some possibles:
1) make it a two-part movie, more time to cover the story, but
more importantly, lotd more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (or pounds) (or euros).
2) Part one ends with Thorin and Co. entering Mirkwood and the
White Council taking Dol Guldur.
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).
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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 believe the changes above are less intrusive (philosophically) then PJ's LOTR
changes, and I'm actually about 70-80% serious about them. Any comments
and/or other helpful hints for PJ, which he is no doubt eagerly awaiting?

[Encaitare]

Most of your points seem to be the "logical" thing to be done for a film (or pair of films) but I really wish he'd stick closer to the text this time around. I like the idea of Bard having a girlfriend or love interest, but not Aragorn and Arwen meeting then. And although your point about Legolas probably having met Gandalf earlier, I don't want ol' Orlando in this one... no more rabid Leggy fangirls, thank you.

[lotrfreak90]

Peter Jackson is no longer aloud making the Hobbit because of the way he changed some of the text. Tolkiens son specifically made the deal that he could make the movies as long as he changed NOTHNG so when he changed all the little bits and bobs that he did young tolkien called the deal off and is not letting him do the hobbit.

people can be real ignorant

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lotrfreak

Peter Jackson is no longer aloud making the Hobbit because of the way he changed some of the text. Tolkiens son specifically made the deal that he could make the movies as long as he changed NOTHNG so when he changed all the little bits and bobs that he did young tolkien called the deal off and is not letting him do the hobbit.

Actually, Tolkien's estate had no say in the making of the LotR films, and they have no say in whether The Hobbit will be made as a film, since Tolkien sold the film rights during his lifetime (hence the cartoon films). There is, however, a dispute between New Line and the studio which owns the rights (I forget which). However, given the potential money to be made, I have little doubt that this will be resolved.

Jackson has expressed an interest in making a film of The Hobbit, although it will have to wait until he has finished filming his re-make of King Kong. Ian McKellan has also expressed an interest in reprising his role as Gandalf. I recently read an interview with Iain Holm, however, where he reluctantly conceded that he is (being in his 70s) too old to play Bilbo (although charmingly he added that he would not be too old in Hobbit years).

people can be real ignorant

Dangerous words.

I like some of your ideas, Tuor of Gondolin. Including the White Council's attack on Dol Guldur is a great idea, and has been mooted elsewhere in this forum. Having it at the end of the first film would work well and nicely dispose of Sauron to set up Smaug as the main villain for the second (although perhaps Sauron could remain as the "controlling force" behind the Goblin Army).

Difficult to see where the love interest will come from other than with Bard (perhaps with an Elven maiden from Thranduil's realm), unless they make some of the Dwarves female. Of course, given the statement made by Gimli in TTT concerning Dwarven women, it might be difficult to tell which is which.

And talking of the Dwarves, it has been suggested (in another thread here) that they might cut down on the number to avoid confusing the audience. That would be a shame, but I can see the logic of it.

Personally, I think including Aragorn and Arwen would be a mistake, since they would not be the focus of the film and too much additional story and film time would be taken up giving them greater roles. But a young Legolas in a cameo role would be fun. Or perhaps an older Orlando Bloom could play Thranduil (and John Rhys-Davies could play Gloin, although he is unlikely to fancy that make-up job again). And no prizes for guessing who is likely to play Gollum.

One further thought. Having Christopher Lee reprise his role as Saruman would be great, if the film is to include scenes involving the White Council. Having him play the innocent at the Council while plotting behind their backs (and giving Gandalf the "evil eye") would be great.

Finally, as I have said elsewhere, my choice for Smaug's voice would most definately be Jeremy Irons.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

"Difficult to see where the love interest will come from other than with Bard (perhaps with an Elven maiden from Thranduil's realm), unless they make some of the Dwarves female.
"-------------------------------------
How about Orlando and a female relative of Gloin's?
It would sure give a new interpretation to the Legolas/GimliLOTR relationship!
________________________
Actually, one of the attractions of doing a movie Hobbit is that you
can make certain improvs like Dol Guldur or Legolas without directly
contravening the Middle-earth world. It's one of the reasons I wish CT
wasn't so hard-nosed about advising PJ and friends. He could have
done a lot to improve the end result.

I kind of like Orlando doing Thranduil (only a minor challenge for WETA)
and Christopher Lee could have some serious fun playing Saruman as you
describe. Once again, it keeps to the spirit of JRRT while giving
scriptwriters and actors some leeway for creativity.

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?"

The Hobbit might be even better suited for PJ then LOTR, a fairly
straightforward, linear, storyline with lots of special effects opportunities
(the trolls, Beorn [could be shown changing], the Mirkwood Spiders,
going down the river in barrels, Smaug, etc).

About John-Rhys Davies. Yes, WETA would have to make major improvements
to get him back. But remember, they were doing some cutting edge
work, so you'd assume they would make a point of improving make-up. I
suggested Thorin to give him a bigger role, and his voice sounds like
Thorin's to me, but you could expand Gloin's role. I suppose the dwarf
number has to be reduced. Would hobbits be added? How about Trotter?

And if Jeremy Irons isn't available, what about Danny DeVito or Bill Murray?

[Sapphire_Flame]

And if Jeremy Irons isn't available, what about Danny DeVito or Bill Murray?

Danny DeVito or Bill Murray? What, are you freakin' kidding me? *shakes head emphatically* I seriously don't see either of them working in that part. I think they should try for Jeremy Irons. Or maybe Jason Isaacs. *nod nod*

I am inclined to disagree with the insertion of Aragorn and Arwen; this isn't a reprise of LotR, and not all the characters from it need be in The Hobbit. The Hobbit is a book with *no* romantic detours whatsoever. It doesn't need them, it's more of a children's book. I don't think PJ would be justified in adding them in.

The idea for showing the attack on Dol Guldur sounds good. I've wondered what that battle would be like...

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Meneltarmacil]

I think that Alan Rickman would be a good choice to play Thranduil, as a lot of his lines in the book would sound great coming from him. Ok, they'd have to give him blond hair, but that's probably the only change necessary.

As for Aragorn, I think (sticking to the book's version of his age) that it might be fun to have Aragorn as a 10-year old show up, act really excited at seeing Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves, and then pester them with questions about where they came from, what they were doing, etc.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Originally posted by Menemtarmacil
"As for Aragorn, I think (sticking to the book's version of his age) that it might be fun to have Aragorn as a 10-year old show up, act really excited at seeing Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarves, and then pester them with questions about where they came from, what they were doing, etc."
=========================
Interesting. But better yet, don't have Aragorn mentioned by name, but
have his mom with him and someone call her Gilrain, and see who notices.

[Gil-Galad]

to me i think that not so famous actors should portay different acts, cause it would be hard to imagine comedy actors taking a serious role...

[Encaitare]

I think that Alan Rickman would be a good choice to play Thranduil, as a lot of his lines in the book would sound great coming from him. Ok, they'd have to give him blond hair, but that's probably the only change necessary.

Ooh, Alan Rickman? Putting him in there would be awesome, although I have a difficult time seeing him as a blond. And he is rather beginning to show some signs of aging, so I don't know how well that would work for an Elf. I do like the idea of putting a young Aragorn in there, and dropping the names Gilraen and Estel just to see who catches it. That would be very spiffy.

Hugo Weaving must return as Elrond (hey, maybe PJ can work the script so he says "DOOOOOOM!" a couple of times ), and Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee are a must, too. I'm sad to hear that Ian Holm won't be returning.. he was such a great Bilbo.

[the phantom]

If you're going to include Aragorn, Arwen, the White Council and everything it wouldn't be a separate story- it would just be a fourth Lord of the Rings movie.

I'd rather have it be just like the book and not include all the extra stuff. If PJ wants he can make a movie called "Aragorn" and have it follow old Strider from birth till death, or he can make "Olorin" and cover Gandalf and the Istari from beginning to end- but if PJ makes "The Hobbit" I want it to be "The Hobbit".

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?

I think it'd be cool to see some of those extra things (Sauron in Dol Guldur, Aragorn in Gondor, etc) but honestly, after some of the sins PJ committed with LOTR I would just like to see him do a Tolkien book THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN!!

[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.

[the phantom]

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.

You don't think previews showing giant spiders, goblins, and trolls will get people into the theater?

And that's not even counting the dragon. Toss in a little Smaug action- I think the seats would fill up just fine.

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.

I disagree with this notion. I have never sat down to watch a movie and thought "There'd better be a love interest." If people don't know the story then they don't know what to expect and if the movie is good I doubt the idea of a "love interest" will even occur to them.

Like I asked before, did any of you, while reading Bilbo's tale, actually stop and notice that there was no love interest? If you didn't, why would you assume other people will?

Does anybody really go into a movie with a checklist?? 1)must have a love interest 2)must have a major battle 3)main characters all must have a major flaw 4)must have a prominent female character 5)must have a crazy surprise at the end- etc.... I know I don't. I go and watch the movie and if it's good then it's good. Who cares if some things weren't included? Every story/movie isn't the same so why should every one of them need to include the same stuff?

When you take a perfectly good story and try to add unnecessary things it just ruins it because the additions rarely mesh cleanly with the original (just like my example of me trying to add to a Bach concerto).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by phantom

I disagree with this notion. I have never sat down to watch a movie and thought "There'd better be a love interest."

I'm not talking about what you, or I, or anyone else here expects from a film. I am talking about what the general film-going public expects from a film. Or, more accurately, what the film studios and financiers think the general film-going public expects from a film. But you would expect them to get it right, given the amount of money at stake and the resources that they have to gauge public opinion.

Like I asked before, did any of you, while reading Bilbo's tale, actually stop and notice that there was no love interest?

It was written primarily as a children's tale (albeit one which adults can enjoy too). As I said, if the film is made as a children's film, the question of love interest won't arise.

Personally, I would be quite glad if they did a film of The Hobbit without shoe-horning in a love interest, particularly as it is difficult to see where and how it would work. But I have my suspicions.

When you take a perfectly good story and try to add unnecessary things it just ruins it because the additions rarely mesh cleanly with the original ...

I don't disagree with this as a general proposition, although it can work. I thought that some of the additions in the LotR films worked very well.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

originally posted by TSM
" I thought that some of the additions in the LotR films worked very well."
------------------------------

Yes. Boromir was a more appealing character (I don't recall the Lorien scene
being in the book?), and even XenaArwen generally made movie sense
(except for excising Frodo's line at the Ford) and her initial scene was the
sexiest bit in the 3 movies.

And you have to be realistic. A PJ big budget movie will incorporate elements to
have it appeal to as wide an audience as possible. I can understand the
phantom's frustration, though. A personal irritation to me is the almost
inevitable car chase/fight put in movies to appeal to young "Nascar sons"
(it was absurd in Will Smith's movie version of I, Robot).

And one more suggestion for PJ: In an echo of the well-done prologue to
FOTR, how about one in which Gandalf goes to Dol Guldur, meets Thrain, and
gets the map and key to the back door of Erebor?

[Mithalwen]

A little depends on wether it is done as a prequel to the LOTR films - which would mean it made sense to have all the white council stuff - or as a "stand alone" film which happens to feature characters and elements of the lotr films, where the white council would be a needless distraction. Also if he kept it as a children's film (since The Hobbit it is a children's book ), there is even less need for love interest - and the viloence should be toned down. Personally I would love it to be done as one of those wonderful Sunday afternoon children's serials . There are all the little cliff hangers that would lend themselves to serialisation. to I wouldn't shrink the number of Dwarves, although as in the books somewould be more distinctive than others ... Dori and Bombur for example.

Sadly I think Ian Holm is perhaps too old but would it be too confusing to have Billy Boyd, the oldest and most physically similar of the Hobbits? I am sure with a different accent ... I would like Jason Isaacs as Thranduil, Alan Rickman as the Master of Laketown (and maybe Smaug), Hugh Jackman as Bard the Bowman. Maybe J R-D could do Dain if he didn't want to do a bigger dwarf part - or maybe Beorn. I

[lindil]

No Aragorn or Arwen. Bad chronology and destined only to be cheesy.

Who wants to see posters of the Hobbit w/ Bilbo, Gollum and Aragorn and Arwen!

Emphasizing all of the many threads we find in Unfinished Tales material:

The Thranduil/Celeborn and Galadriel split . Thranduil seemingly inherited his father's anti-Noldorin bent and may have blamed the continuing problem of Sauron on the Ring technology which Noldor [galadriel's cousin [[2nd or 1st once removed?]]. Legolas can enter in subtly I would hope could that is probably more than we can hope for.

The above tension may be why Gandalf never specificaly tells Thorin how to get to Thranduil and out of the Forest [the trail ended mysteriously in the swamps after the last earthquake].

...Opening scene...

We would begin w/ Gandalf stealthily in Dol Guldor sneaking into the HQ to find Sauron [disquised as a wringwraith?] catching a peak of Sauron and meeting and receiving the map from Thrain in Dol Guldor, Sauron sends Orcs and such to follow the fleeing Gandalf down to the Anduin where and elven boat whisked him away as stray arrows whizz about, or better yet a rolling white mist aids the escape [and echoing Eorl's being aided by Galaldriel].

Gandalf is then seen conversing with Galaldriel and the White Council.
Saruman's dissembling hinted at.

Celeborn asks what can be done about driving him out, and Sauruman asking [slyly taunting?] why his kinsman Thranduil will not help especially as Sauron is in his Forest. Yes we all know the stated 'boundaries' of his realm, the forest north of the Old Road. 'Outside of it we no longer have for the concern the Exiles of The West, Eldarin and Edain have caused and stirred up. Period.


"Surely some way can be made to reunite us with one of the few allies in this region we should have, and for the Second Age did".
Perhaps a Glorfindel or Elrond... That kind of thing, but much better written I hope, and then as we see



Gandalf saying he would follow a few leads and then we cut to Bilbo at Bag End and Gandalf coming up the path and bidding him good day as Bilbo begins a painful and pitiful process of making a fool of himself in front of Gandalf and soon here after the Dwarves.

And so on.

I would stick pretty close to the book and re-use the Dwarf and Orc armies PJ will already need in the end to give us a meaty flash back of the basic events of the War of the Dwarves and Orcs over the execution of the Thror [my grand father says Thorin and the last King under the Mountain].

We would see the Dwarves do their ensemble and Baritone/Bass/Contrabass harmonies [I would make it somewhat reminiscent of the 3 part harmonies of the Georgian Orthodox Church. Angular, sonorous, but taking suprising turns, i have ne ver heard the folk music there. But it might be even more similar.

Should the destruction of Erebor be shown yet and Smaug the Magnificent be revealed early on, via's Thorin's recounting? I say no. Maybe a rush of wings and distant fire and hurrying refugees, perhaps a destructive sweep of a tail through clouds, battering the towers of Dale...

Gandalf and Thorin arguing [from The Quest for Erebor] once Bilbo was carted off from his fit....



Bree would be an interesting way point and a chance for us to see how isolated Bilbo has been as he encounter the Big People in Breeland, and maybe a last stop at the forsaken Inn and a glimpe of serious Ranger activity and perhaps a Troll alert posted on the front of the Door to the Inn!

After that a way most be figured out, i think to make use of the mockery of Thorin and Co. ,but eliminate the actual lyrics and childishness of the elves.

I would do it pretty straight from the Book till the Caves of Thranduil and hopefully PJ and Howe and Lee can catch the Avarin/Sylvan(east Elf) feel of the Elves there. Legolas can perhaps lead the band that captures the Dwarves...

Well something like that I would like, but my expectations are much lower.



to those who suffered through the first draft, my apologies...

- L

[Tuor of Gondolin]

"Gandalf and Thorin arguing [from The Quest for Erebor] once Bilbo was carted off from his fit...."
-------------------------
I like that concept as a way to bridge the children's Hobbit and adult LOTR.
I rather doubt PJ has read works like UT (especially footnotes, too much work )
but I think there are hints that P. Boyens and/or Fran Walsh have. It could
work as a prologue, especially to get non-book attendees up to speed on The
Hobbit and its connection to LOTR.

Suggestions like Ian H's of a tv limited series would work well but I think there's
just too much $$$$$ in movies (and more scope for PJ's pyrotechnics, which is
both good and bad- since he seems to get carried away with battle scenes).
Still, the Battle of Five Armies is almost tailor-made for him, especially with the
big finale with Beorn.

[Encaitare]

After that a way most be figured out, i think to make use of the mockery of Thorin and Co. ,but eliminate the actual lyrics and childishness of the elves.

Oh, goodness me, yes. Please, no "tra-lally-lally, down here in the valley"! Poor Elrond must have been driven mad by all that infernal singsong, no wonder he went over the Sea!

[the phantom]

I'm not talking about what you, or I, or anyone else here expects from a film. I am talking about what the general film-going public expects from a film.

We are the general film-going public. I understand that in respect to this specific movie we are not terribly typical movie fans, but aside from Middle-Earth movies we are the general film-going public, so what you and I expect from movies in general is no different than what others expect.

And I, for one, am not expecting anything from this movie other than what I expect from every other movie I watch. Every time I sit down to watch a movie I expect just this- a good movie. I think you do too. I think everyone does- and I also think most people are like me in that they don't care what's in the movie as long as it's good.

If a movie has no violence in it but is entertaining then the lack of violence doesn't matter. If a movie has no developed male characters but is entertaining then the lack of a developed male character is not noticed.

The same thing goes for movies that lack a love interest.

I posted-

Like I asked before, did any of you, while reading Bilbo's tale, actually stop and notice that there was no love interest?

and you answered-

It was written primarily as a children's tale....

I don't see how that has anything to do with my question. Perhaps it answers why there isn't a love interest in the story- but it doesn't address my query in the least.

I ask again, did anyone (or would you expect anyone to) read The Hobbit (or any enjoyable book) and note the lack of a love interest? If a book is blah then I might think "This book needs something, maybe a love interest" but if the book is good then I think "This book is great...I can't wait to see what happens next." I don't notice anything that isn't there if I'm into the story.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

"Gandalf and Thorin arguing [from The Quest for Erebor] once Bilbo was carted off from his fit...."
-------------------------
a tv limited series would work well but I think there's
just too much $$$$$ in movies (and more scope for PJ's pyrotechnics, which is
both good and bad- since he seems to get carried away with battle scenes).
Still, the Battle of Five Armies is almost tailor-made for him, especially with the
big finale with Beorn.

I know that the movie money means that this is unlikely to happen - I just feel that it will be so simplified to get it down to a child friendly length and that the story as it stands would fit the format so well. I quite agrre about the battle scenes being excessive - I mean they spent more time on the cave troll than Lorien

[Zebedee]

There should be no Arwen in it, but 10 year old Aragorn making an appearence would not be bad at all, nor would Legolas making an appearence. Maybe at the Battle of Five Armies?"
Also, the Wargs should look more like the wolves they are.

I'm sure that The Hobbit will do well whatever they do.

[Gil-Galad]

It'll probaly start like Gandalf meeting thorin and discussing about Erebor, then like gandalf saying "i'll find your new member" or something, then it cuts to Bilbo just waking up and having a regular time then he hears the knocks on the door

thats what i think might happen...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

We are the general film-going public ... what you and I expect from movies in general is no different than what others expect.

You an I are a miniscule percentage of the film-going public. If the film studios suspect that "love interests" sell films, then there is probably something in it. Perhaps you and I (and most here no doubt) are slightly out of kilter with the majority in this regard.

Perhaps it answers why there isn't a love interest in the story- but it doesn't address my query in the least.

Of course it does. Most people first read The Hobbit as children. If not, they are quite aware that it is a children's tale when they do read it. So, either way, the reader does not expect a "love interest" to be present in it. This would apply equally if The Hobbit were made as a film for children.

I tried to think of successful "adventure" type films that have no "love interest". It's present in all the Star Wars films, the Indiana Jones films, the Terminator films, Spider-Man and The Hulk. All I could come up with off the top of my head were some war films (such as Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down) and some horror films (such as the Alien films, if we overlook a slight dalliance between Ripley and the Charles Dance character in the third film). The Hobbit would, as a film, fall into neither of these categories (although war and, potentially, horror would feature as aspects of it).

But I wonder whether I (and others) have pinpointed the issue quite as precisely as we might. Perhaps the absence of a "love interest" would not matter too much. There are probably a good number of films in which this aspect is absent that I have overlooked. Perhaps the real issue is the absence of any strong female characters (indeed the absence of any female characters of note at all). Save for the aforementioned war films (and others in the genre), I cannot think of a single film that does not have at least one female character in a fairly major role. And it's difficult to see how this might be addressed in The Hobbit without including the White Council scenes and playing up Galadriel's role in them or changing the gender of at least one of the major characters.

Ms Thorin, anyone ...!!?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

If romance MUST be incorporated into The Hobbit, than limit it to perhaps some innocent frolicking at Elven parties in the woods. You can have all of the touching parting shots you desire, as the villiagers prepare to go off and kill stuff. "I'll miss you, be careful." and all of that. You could have some innocent flirting in taverns along the way, or ANYTHING like that, but for Pete's sake, don't add romance where it doesn't belong.

Aragorn was TEN. A cameo, perhaps, of him with Elrond when the party arrives in Rivendell. "Run along, Estel." That sort of thing. No premature aging; Arwen wasn't even around at this point.

For Beorn, I fully agree with the Robbie Coltrane idea. He is the only man for the job. Although I can see where this wouldn't be a good idea, as I really liked the idea of using generally unknown actors in LotR.

Other recommended cameos are these: include Legolas, but not as a big role. Have him enjoying himself at a nice woodland party. Or he could be the one in charge of the Dwarves when they're captive. I would laugh a lot if he was one of the drunken guards. Saruman: I love the idea of including the sacking of Dol Guldur. Shots of the White Council would not only explain where Gandalf takes off to, but it would be a nice gift to 'Rings fans to see Galadriel and Co. in their pre-War of the Ring days. Gimli absolutely must make an appearance. That's just one of those things. The Sackville-Bagginses. I'll be horrified (although not much surprised) if Bilbo's homecoming is left out.

Andy Serkis IS Gollum, correct?

And for my last (and the only unserious part of this post) comment: If they don't include the song "Tra la la lally", I will be very put out. I fully think that Glorfindel should make an appearance singing it in the trees.

Fea

[Tuor of Gondolin]

". Perhaps the real issue is the absence of any strong female characters (indeed the absence of any female characters of note at all)."
--------------------
SPM has hit on a key point, one I was probably subconsciously debating.
All of the films he cited are predominantly male, but they all have one or
more strong females, usually with a love interest connection, except for
(believe it or not- Ripley). But how to incorporate such a figure
in The Hobbit? Have some female dwarves? (Hey, they're so similar to
non-Khazads that perhaps Bilbo didn't notice.
A partial solution is Galadriel and the White Council.
And perhaps Bard has a girlfriend in the Home Guard. Galadriel and
Bard's fiance would bracket the movie(s) but wouldn't be a movie-long
presence, perhaps G is back at Rivendell on the return.

And why not have Legolas as a major figure? As the king's son he would
probably have been there if he had been invented, and there's nothing in
The Hobbit to contradict it, such as a naming of Thranduil's lieutenants.

The general principle I'd like to see followed by screenwriters is to try to
not contradict the book but rather make use of ambiguities and/or
areas not covered, such as the exact nature of the attack on Dol Guldur.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Movie schmovie. I think it should be a television series. A half hour for every chapter of the Hobbit.

It can be done. Totally.

An Unexpected Party, Roast Mutton, A Short Rest, Over Hill and Under Hill, Riddles in the Dark, Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire, Queer Lodgings, Flies and Spiders, Barrels Out of Bond, A Warm Welcome, On The Doorstep, Inside Information, Not At Home, Fire and Water, The Gathering of the Clouds, A Thief in the Night, The Clouds Burst, The Return Journey ...

It'd be awesome to see an epic, quality miniseries comprised of all 18 Chapters.

But then, I can see where the condensed format of a three and a half hour movie would be better, for consistency, and being able to keep some parts shorter (like A Short Rest) and some parts more focused and central.

Anyway, I have a few ideas.

The first being, NO WAY should Robbie Coltrane be Beorn. That's severe typecasting, and plus, I never imagined Beorn as jolly, and that's something Mr. Coltrane is just full of, that stuff they call joll.

He's Hagrid. Beorn ... Beorn isn't twelve feet tall, he's six foot something, and jacked. There has to be some unknown muscle man with a deep booming voice and freckled skin who can play him to a tee. A big bushy black beard and long black shaggy hair aren't enough to make the character, he's got to be able to take an axe to an enemy.

I'm sure there's somebody out there.

Ian Holm as Bilbo, Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Hugo Weaving as Elrond and Andy Serkis as Gollum, naturally.

As for actors ... I'm not exactly a pro when it comes to knowing names, but I'd like to see Billy Connelly as Balin, the same actor they had for Gloin's cameo back, and several other burly Irish, Welsh or Scottish actors playing the dwarves (so they mesh seamlessly with John Rhys Davies' portrayal of Gimli, of course!).

Remember how Stuart Townsend practically had the role of Aragorn, but Viggo was just too good to pass up? I'd say, Townsend would make a pretty mean Bard the Bowman.

Not to totally discredit myself, but I threw the idea of Jack Black playing Bombur at my sister. Bombur is the fattest of the 13 dwarves, he's a good comic relief character a lot of the time, and with Jack Black cozy with PJ because of King Kong, I can see it. It's not anything I'm pulling for, but hey, it could work.

And lastly, I'd like to see Orly pop in as Legolas, even if he's just standing by Thranduil's chair in his great hall, looking pretty, while Thranduil has Thorin locked up. That would totally validate Gimli's "NEVER TRUST AN ELF" comments in The Fellowship, since Elrond established that Gimli is 'son of Gloin', and we'll be seeing exactly who Gloin is ...

That's my two cents.

[Imladris]

With great hesitation I make this post. I've started making it two times already....

Why do you want to leave out the elve's cheerful singing? That would be a deliberate omission of the elvish character because they weren't always solemn and sad as the LotR movies correctly portray them.

Granted, I am not advocating a full blown musical number. That would indeed be in poor taste. Rather, wouldn't it make a nice background song as the dwarves are crawling over the beard and elf playfully insults them?

As for romance -- pfft -- the Hobbit doesn't need Romance. It's an adventure, and if they put in a romance it would be very cliche. All the action movies have romance and get the girl. In fact, a romance would probably undermine the theme of "the road goes ever on and on" and I cannot imagine Bard with a girl friend. That seems...so unlike him (yes I know he got married but in the Hobbit he sounds like an old bachelor).

And I totally agree that Coltrain would make a poor Beorn. Granted he's huge, but he is not bear like in the least.

[Mithalwen]

Very much hoping he is still alive (!) I would humbly suggest that when a booming voice is required, Brian Blessed is your man - he was Edmund's father in "The Black Adder" (first series).

Hmm I think I would go for nine 45-60 minute episode - roughly two chapters a pop.... better for scheduling and lots of action and cliffhangers

[Meneltarmacil]

The mental image of Legolas getting drunk was seriously funny.

OK, on to a few things. I've been a lot more lenient about LOTR than many of you on the forum, but when it comes to The Hobbit it's different. That story got me into the world of Middle Earth from the beginning. I'll likely be a lot more purist on this one. So anyway, I don't think an introduction involving Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel etc. should be involved. There is only one way that The Hobbit can start: Bilbo saying "Good morning" to Gandalf and then looking like an idiot. The background can be handled quite easily in a few flashbacks during the party scene. I agree that during said flashbacks Smaug should not be revealed, except for fiery breath torching Dale, etc. It would be a lot better if the viewers only get hints about him until Bilbo's conversation with him.

Regarding the White Council, I really don't think including them would be a good idea. Much as it would fit in with the storyline, I don't think there would really be a good way to tie it together with the main story. And I think it would be good for the audience to have no clue what's happening to Gandalf until he reappears in Thranduil's and Bard's camp near the end. It would just be a great surprise.

Finally, Legolas. I think he could figure in the plot quite well, and not just as a background character. The Battle of the Five Armies would be a good place for him to do a few stunts (although he shouldn't take the spotlight from Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Bard etc.) and he could easily deliver Thranduil's and Bard's "give us the treasure or we'll take it by force" message.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Menltarmacil

Regarding the White Council, I really don't think including them would be a good idea. Much as it would fit in with the storyline, I don't think there would really be a good way to tie it together with the main story. And I think it would be good for the audience to have no clue what's happening to Gandalf until he reappears in Thranduil's and Bard's camp near the end. It would just be a great surprise.

You know, despite what I said earlier, I do agree with you on this in some ways. Especially if (as seems likely) it's done as one film. My first introduction to Tolkien was via The Hobbit, and it would be nice to see it done as it was written. I can see it is a children's film, with much for adults to enjoy. Although that might lose a large part of the "teen" audience, it would bring in the family/younger children audience in a way that the LotR films weren't able. And it nicely disposes of the question of whether there is a need for a "love interest".

Assuming it's done as one film, and even if the White Counsel and the Necromancer aren't included, there would probably need to be cuts. Anyone have any views on what could be cut with the least damage to the story? Personally, I would rather none of it were cut but, if anything, I would (very) reluctantly have to concede Beorn.

[Imladris]

They should cut what wasn't necessary at Rivendell, have the dwarves stumble over one fire in Mirkwood, they probably should cut the dwarves' song , and the lengthy dwarven introduction on Bilbo's porch.

I don't think it would be a good idea to cut Beorn. He's pretty important at the end. He was the one that beat the Goblins basically and saved Thorin.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Imladris

I don't think it would be a good idea to cut Beorn. He's pretty important at the end. He was the one that beat the Goblins basically and saved Thorin.

True, but the turn of the battle could be done with just the Eagles. I would hate to see Beorn cut, but I'm not sure that the matters you listed would be sufficient to narrow it down to the constraints of one film.

[Gil-Galad]

Doesn't have to be cut, they coul make it into a two part movie so theres little cutting...