Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

"The Hobbit" Thread


  • Please log in to reply
592 replies to this topic

#26
ThunderDroid

ThunderDroid

    One Louder

  • Members
  • 4,359 posts
So, where would they split the films, assuming the events of the movies correspond more or less with the events in the book? Scanning quickly over the book, and trying to remember the basic plot outline, my early prediction is that a nice place to end Film 1 might be just after Chapter IX Barrels Out of Bond. Like FOTR, it is a geographically significant place to break the story; the FOTR film ends with Frodo's first true sight of Mordor, and the first Hobbit movie would likewise end with Bilbo's first sight of the Mountain as he floats down the river. Also, the image of the barrels floating down the river out of the forest would be a more light-hearted and fun sort of ending - yet still epic and adventurous - to contrast with the darker, doom-laden tone set by the endings of FOTR and TTT. This would probably mean the battle with the spiders a bit earlier would have to provide the big action climax for the first film. Not sure if that's a meaty enough ending, though. But, this is all just wild speculation, anyway. It's not even clear from the press releases that the "Hobbit Sequel" is in fact just the second part of the book, or something that takes place after Bilbo returns to the Shire.

#27
Ryn

Ryn

    Moonshadow

  • Moderators
  • 28,540 posts
Dammit, I was set against two films, but you do some decent persuading there, TD.

#28
ElfinYoda

ElfinYoda

    Oh my god Becky, look at her Big Book...

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts
I was thinking the same thing TD, that the first film should end with us watching Bilbo float away on the barrel to the Mountain. I'm going to have to reread The Hobbit to get a better feel and maybe more ideas.

#29
Mandard

Mandard

    First Speaker

  • Members
  • 21,336 posts
According to EW, they are NOT splitting The Hobbit, but the second film is in fact a bridge to the rest of the LOTR series:

Jackson and his life/creative partner Walsh have always envisioned the big-screen adaptation of The Hobbit as two movies. The first would deal with the 80-year old novel. The second, imagined entirely by Jackson and Walsh, would link the conclusion of The Hobbit to the start of the first Lord of the Rings book, The Fellowship of the Ring. New Line and Jackson will develop the properties over the next year with hopes of entering into pre-production by 2009 for a 2010 and 2011 release.



#30
D-Ray Kenobi

D-Ray Kenobi

    Back off man, I'm a scientist.

  • Member
  • 15,242 posts
Eh. I'm a little worried by that, then. I just can't see a film made by bits of notes and imagined stuff to be a fitting end to the franchise.

#31
Richcelt

Richcelt

    Musician, Historian, and Stalker Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • 8,375 posts
This goes back to my earlier question. Is there something that happens between these two stories? I know of no dramatic, climactic anything that takes place between the Hobbit and LOTR. Is there one? The Battle of Five Armies is a nice climactic ending to The Hobbit. Is there something like that in between? If not, I don't see what story they could tell and I don't see a need to tell it in that way.

#32
Denman

Denman

    A lot of people hate this hat.

  • Member
  • 3,830 posts
They only things I could find was Gandalf and Aragorn going after Gollum. Aragorn and Arwin fall in love, Aragorn fights in battles for Rohan's King and Gondor's Steward under the name "Thorongil."

My guess is that its a vehicle to showcase Viggo, Liv and Ian.

#33
Richcelt

Richcelt

    Musician, Historian, and Stalker Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • 8,375 posts
Okay, what battles? That might be what would answer my questions. Who were Rohan and Gondor fighting?

#34
Denman

Denman

    A lot of people hate this hat.

  • Member
  • 3,830 posts

Okay, what battles? That might be what would answer my questions. Who were Rohan and Gondor fighting?


Gondor was fighting the Corsairs of Umbar. As for Rohan, I'm not sure if it was the same enemy. In the Extended Edition of Two Towers there is a scene with Aragorn and Eowyn where Eowyn asks him how old he is, because he rode into battle with her grandfather and his reply was that he was like 70 years old.

#35
ThunderDroid

ThunderDroid

    One Louder

  • Members
  • 4,359 posts
So, would hobbits even have a role in the second film? It's just so strange the way that EW worded their article. If the first film "deals with the 80-year old novel" and the second film is "imagined entirely by Jackson and Walsh", then it must stand to reason that the first film ends with Bilbo back in the Shire, with the ring, after his adventure, just like the book.

But, if that's the case, then how can it be that Jackson and Walsh have "always envisioned the big-screen adaptation of The Hobbit as two movies"? They haven't. They have envisioned the big-screen adaptation of The Hobbit as one movie, if the distinction made above is accurate.

Maybe what they're trying to say here is that PJ/FW have always envisioned using The Hobbit production as an opportunity to film a second, "entirely imagined" film that would serve as both a sequel to The Hobbit and a prequel to LOTR.

Seems like a miscommunication somewhere in there, either on the part of EW not understanding the nature of the project(s) with regards to the book, or someone from New Line or MGM not doing a very good job explaining it, or both.

Edited by ThunderDroid, 20 December 2007 - 05:59 PM.


#36
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
Yeah, ThunderDroid, I'm hoping we just have some misinformation being handed to us unintentially. Because while I'm perfectly understanding to the fact that Jackson had to take certain liberties in making films out of Tolkien - to basically make up your own "Tolkien" movie?!? Hmm...No, sir - I don't like it!

The reports are self-contradictory enough and Jackson has done such a wonderful job so far, though, that I'm going to try and just be happy with the news that it's going to finally happen and ignore the rest of it until we learn more. Of course, like many of you I question the need for two movies (regardless of how it's done), Jackson's done enough to earn our trust, I think. Though I'm confused why it's even possible he might not direct (or why that topic wasn't even mentioned in the releases). :confused:

#37
TuskenRaider

TuskenRaider

    decommissioned

  • Member
  • 32,568 posts

Yeah, ThunderDroid, I'm hoping we just have some misinformation being handed to us unintentially. Because while I'm perfectly understanding to the fact that Jackson had to take certain liberties in making films out of Tolkien - to basically make up your own "Tolkien" movie?!? Hmm...No, sir - I don't like it!

The reports are self-contradictory enough and Jackson has done such a wonderful job so far, though, that I'm going to try and just be happy with the news that it's going to finally happen and ignore the rest of it until we learn more. Of course, like many of you I question the need for two movies (regardless of how it's done), Jackson's done enough to earn our trust, I think. Though I'm confused why it's even possible he might not direct (or why that topic wasn't even mentioned in the releases). :confused:



This is why:

"Many fans have been left wondering if he or the often rumoured Sam Raimi would sit in the director's chair.

Jackson's manager Ken Kamins tells Entertainment Weekly that "Peter won't be directing because he felt the fans have waited long enough for The Hobbit. It will take the better part of every day of the next four years to write, direct and produce two Hobbit films. Given his current obligations to both The Lovely Bones and Tintin, waiting for Peter, Fran, and Phillippa to write, direct and produce The Hobbit would require the fans wait even longer."

No decision has been made says New Line's co-chair Robert Shaye - "There is obviously a small but significant number of directors who could handle two films of this magnitude, but we have no commitment to anybody. Now that Peter is an integral part of the decision-making process, we all have to see eye-to-eye on any candidate we try to enlist."

#38
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts
Hmm...well, I say he needs to get his priorities straight! :nono:

#39
Darth Dude

Darth Dude

    terminal crazy

  • Members
  • 13,972 posts

to basically make up your own "Tolkien" movie?!? Hmm...No, sir - I don't like it!


Stupidest idea ever. If Peter really wants to milk it, just make a damn Silmarillion trilogy.

#40
Ryn

Ryn

    Moonshadow

  • Moderators
  • 28,540 posts
Or Lost Tales. There's plenty of material for Jackson and company to flesh out enough if they want to make things up.

#41
Denman

Denman

    A lot of people hate this hat.

  • Member
  • 3,830 posts
There's alot more to the timeline between Hobbit and LOTR.

Obviously there was interaction between Bilbo and Gandolf. Frodo was born and after his parents' deaths adopted by Bilbo. Gandalf went off pursuing Gollum and Aragorn tracked him down in the Dead Marshes. You would also include Gandolf expelling the Necromancer (i.e. Sauron) from Dol Guldar. The RingWraiths retaking Dol Guldar. Sauron reclaiming Baradur. The dwarves try to recolonize Moria.

#42
gescom7

gescom7

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,246 posts
there's a lot that could happen... i wouldn't stress over it until we get an official explaination of the 2nd film. let's put it this way, we've already got LOTR. if they make the hobbit then i'll feel complete. a 2nd movie is just extra cake... if it's bad or good - who cares.

#43
ElfinYoda

ElfinYoda

    Oh my god Becky, look at her Big Book...

  • Members
  • 7,184 posts

there's a lot that could happen... i wouldn't stress over it until we get an official explaination of the 2nd film. let's put it this way, we've already got LOTR. if they make the hobbit then i'll feel complete. a 2nd movie is just extra cake... if it's bad or good - who cares.


Because, why make a fifth movie if its going to tank? Lets say the Hobbit is just as good as LotR (or even better if possible) and then they make the Prequel or whatever you want to call it and it sucks... what would be the point? Why drag down the whole series with a crap flick? Folks tend to remember the crappy flicks, especially if they were blatantly crappy!

Thats just how I look at it. I would not spend millions of dollars on a flick after the Hobbit; unless stories are used from the Sil or Lost Tales. But then again, am not in the movie biz and right now, who can tell what's really going on in PJ's head? I won't dislike LotR any less if the Hobbit and other installment suck, just be very disappointed. For me, at this point, its kind of like SW when it was announced that Lucas was doing the 3 prequels... I was so hyped up for the movies, mine expectations got the better of me. Oh, I liked them well enough, just not what I expected (and lets not get into that here, aye? ;) ).


I'm happy that the Hobbit is being made, finally. I will be even happier when they start announcing the actors for this undertaking. And until they make an announcement for the second flick, it is not even in mine vocabulary right now.

#44
Guest_The_return_of_thanos_*

Guest_The_return_of_thanos_*
  • Guests

According to EW, they are NOT splitting The Hobbit, but the second film is in fact a bridge to the rest of the LOTR series:

Jackson and his life/creative partner Walsh have always envisioned the big-screen adaptation of The Hobbit as two movies. The first would deal with the 80-year old novel. The second, imagined entirely by Jackson and Walsh, would link the conclusion of The Hobbit to the start of the first Lord of the Rings book, The Fellowship of the Ring. New Line and Jackson will develop the properties over the next year with hopes of entering into pre-production by 2009 for a 2010 and 2011 release.



I wouldn't have a problem if they have a totally original sequel to the Hobbit, if Christopher Tolkien was involved. But PJ just dreaming up a totally new sequel on his own? WTF? That's crazy talk.

#45
Undome Telcontar

Undome Telcontar

    Home.

  • Members
  • 13,400 posts
surely it has to be made from tolkien's notes, otherwise how could he know what went on in the intervening time? hopefully, if he goes it alone then tolkien estates will veto it. unless it's really good. which seems unlikely if he doesn't have the arda bible to hand.

#46
Darth Lohr

Darth Lohr

    Voodoo Chile

  • Member
  • 16,969 posts

For me, at this point, its kind of like SW when it was announced that Lucas was doing the 3 prequels... I was so hyped up for the movies, mine expectations got the better of me. Oh, I liked them well enough, just not what I expected (and lets not get into that here, aye? ;) ).

Actually, Elfie, one of my first thoughts was that if they just "make up" a movie, it'd be like if someone somehow got the rights to SW and they decided to make a movie set between Ep III and Ep IV. On the one hand, you'd be thinking, "Well, it's another SW movie, so it could be cool. On the other hand, there's just something about it that...doesn't feel right. And they are just as likely to **** it up!" :hmm:

#47
RangerGal

RangerGal

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,542 posts
I was getting ready for work when I heard it on the 6am news, and stopped dead in my tracks. I had to ask my husband if I'd heard correctly..."Did they say they're making The Hobbit?!"
"Yeah..."
"But I thought they'd had problems getting the movie rights."
"Seems like money can do a lot of things."
"Holy Cow...!!!"
I had to stop for a moment and think.
"Wow!"

So here I am...reading that there will be two films.
Uh, oh.
I must agree - the "link" film theory is indeed a possibility.
Everyone knows I'd enjoy the idea of following Aragorn in his epic (though not too often talked about) journey from Elrond's House to Moria and back through nasty untamed lands, dragging Gollum to Thranduil's woods.
But for non-Aragorn fans I think this might be a bit boring, eh?

True, my biggest hope is the scene with Smaug - a good voice will indeed make or break Smaug.
I would always agree to Jeremy Irons. I was so happy for him to win an award for "Elizabeth" (with Helen Mirren) that I shouted "Good for you!" at the television screen. He is rarely celebrated for his wonderful, round words.
Recently I saw "Ratatouille", and was mightily surprised at Peter O'Toole's role as the food critic. He was marvelous, and would be my second choice. What?! You all say, why not Alan Rickman?!
Alan tried valiantly in "HitchHiker's Guide", and failed as Marvin, The Paranoid Android. He just didn't have the strength of voice in the role. So sorry, Alan, Jeremy wins.
Wait, wait - I'd even take Julian Sands - he's another great pronounciator. Just think "Warlock", and you'll hear it.
Well, if not him, then Richard E. Grant - the "witch hunter" from "Warlock"...he's got a particular accent - yes, well, he's another pronounciator-type.

Oh, somebody stop me. I could go on for hours. ;)

#48
Organic_Spudwalker

Organic_Spudwalker

    Head orc

  • Members
  • 5,071 posts
Well, well, well... this has indeed been a long time coming!
No Jackson in the director's chair? Thats a real shame. Ultimately, the Hobbit just wont feel the same as the rings trilogy. I reckon you could compare it to the differences evident in the Harry Potter films if you like.
Not that this is (or could be) a bad thing: there have been discussions aplenty over these Tolkien-droughted years over the merits (or not) of a completely different 'feel' to a Hobbit movie where the younger target audience of the book is catered to.

A sequel to the Hobbit though? Thats strange news. My hunch is that this might be some sort of Shire based hobbit adventure starring Bilbo. As odd as this sounds, any film claiming to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and FOTR has to be centered on the Ring. And the Ring was in Bilbo's posession all that time was it not?
I look forward to hearing more news on this as it comes.

I must say, I think the best thing about this news is that it brought some of the LOTR oldies out of lurking. (myself included!!!) :D

#49
ThunderDroid

ThunderDroid

    One Louder

  • Members
  • 4,359 posts

A sequel to the Hobbit though? Thats strange news. My hunch is that this might be some sort of Shire based hobbit adventure starring Bilbo. As odd as this sounds, any film claiming to bridge the gap between The Hobbit and FOTR has to be centered on the Ring. And the Ring was in Bilbo's posession all that time was it not?

I think that's the main point that's being overlooked amid all of the speculation about what this second film might be; it almost certainly has to be about The Ring, but most importantly, it has to be about hobbits in some fashion. The speculation about the sequel has mostly centered around picking out things from Tolkien's chronology -- most of it occurring beyond of world of hobbits -- that could be adapted for film, and surely Jackson and Walsh will be considering all of that history when they make their film. But, if the language used in that EW article cited earlier in this thread is to be considered accurate, this sequel is supposedly "imagined entirely" by Jackson & Walsh. And, if we consider that the LOTR films are told primarily through the eyes of hobbits, and that The Hobbit proper will surely be as well, then it seems almost impossible to imagine a bridging film that strays too far from The Shire, or relegates hobbits to mere spectators and bystanders. I think a new Bilbo adventure is very likely for the sequel.

In fact, as I've been typing this, I've began toying with an idea for what these films might be about. I'm sure it's absolutely, 100% wrong, primarily because I think it's just too simple a solution to all of the questions about these upcoming films, and just too completely obvious. But, it's a solution that preserves the original Hobbit story line in the first film, almost exactly as its told in the book, while providing Bilbo with a second, related adventure that flows quite logically from the first adventure, and provides plenty of opportunity to expand on all of the White Council subplots that are surely going to be explored, while transitioning smoothly into the events of LOTR. I think it may even resolve some of the conflicting statements made in that EW article that I had such problems with. It's the simplest possible adventure to imagine, and it's already addressed in the Hobbit book. Granted, it's barely discussed, but it's actually part of the title of the book itself: There and Back Again.

We all know the "There..." part. As for the "...and Back Again" half of the story, well...

He [Bilbo] had many hardships and adventures before he got back. The Wild was still the Wild, and there were many other things in it in those days beside goblins; but he was well guided and well guarded -- the wizard was with him, and Beorn for much of the way -- and he was never in great danger again.

The Hobbit - Chapter XVIII: The Return Journey

And, that's basically it. There's a bit more in there, but it all gets pretty much summed up for Bilbo's return trip in that brief excerpt. The story gently winds down from there by necessity, never really exploring any further peril for Bilbo on his way back to the Shire.

So, it's always been the "And Back Again" part of the title that has been neglected for the most part, in terms of adventure. I realise that "And Back Again" refers primarily to Bilbo's changed sense of himself and the world once he gets back, as its written, and not really about the adventures on the way back themselves. But, those adventures are there for the telling, and they could be anything, and involve anyone. And, assuming the part about Bilbo being "never in great danger again" during his return journey is open to some flexibility, here we have the seed, planted by Tolkien himself, for a "new" story about hobbits and the Ring(s), which could tie in with the events at the end of the Third Age of Middle-Earth. Is this where Jackson and Walsh are hoping to expand the story, while still staying true to the book? Is this why EW has offered the seemingly contradictory statements that I pointed out in a prior post? Is this why there has been a general vaguenss about the nature of these films as they relate to Tolkien's works, because no one knows whether to call them 2 movies about The Hobbit or 1 movie about The Hobbit + 1 sequel to The Hobbit? Maybe Jackson and Walsh truly have envisioned The Hobbit, or There and Back Again as a tale requiring two films to tell, while still making the essentially accurate claim that the second film is an "invented" story:

The Hobbit - Part I (There...)
The Hobbit - Part II (...And Back Again)


It can't be that simple, can it? It's too symmetrical and neat. But, it guarantees a hobbit-centric adventure for the sequel, related to the ring, which does not require pulling Bilbo out of the Shire a second time for some contrived purpose (as if the original reason were not contrived enough), and it provides ample opportunity to include Gandalf, Sauron, Gollum, Saruman and lots of other potential LOTR characters into the larger story that leads into LOTR.

"So, this is the answer to all the riddles."

Faramir, The Two Towers

Probably not. But, I like it, and not just because I thought of it. ;)

Edited by ThunderDroid, 24 December 2007 - 01:37 PM.


#50
Ryn

Ryn

    Moonshadow

  • Moderators
  • 28,540 posts
From the Movies forum:

i wonder what they'll call the 2 parts...

"There" and "Back Again"

That just might work, TD.