Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Hobbit chat peppered with big news (and little details)

MrCere
Sr. Staff


May 25 2008, 3:21am

Post #1 of 44 (4583 views)
Shortcut
Hobbit chat peppered with big news (and little details) Can't Post

Future “Hobbit” director Guillermo del Toro and former “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson sat down with a world-wide internet audience and answered a lot more than the announced “20 questions” this weekend.
Hosted by Weta, there were a lot of minor details and significant confirmations and revelations about the gigantic production that will yield two “Hobbit” related movies, one in 2011 and the second in 2012.
Peter Jackson said, "2009 will be dedicated to pre-production on both movies and 2010 will be the year we shoot both films back to back. Post productin follows one film at a time with The Hobbit being released Dec(ember) 2011, and F2 (film two) release(d) Dec(ember) 2012."

One of the biggest themes of the chat defined the role of Jackson as producer and writer rather than director. He said, “If we disagree, the director has to win, because you should never force a director to shoot something they don’t believe in. But we’re both reasonably practical and ego-free, and I believe that if we disagree, we both have the ability to express our differing theorys - state our case, like lawyers - and between us, work out what’s best for the movie.”

It was also revealed that Jackson and his team of writers (which includes Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) will be joined in the process by del Toro. The four of them will work out a script according to Jackson. If the director is part of the writing, it means he was there when the discussions took place, story decisions were made … he knows why things are the way they are, and what they need to achieve.

"I see my role as being part of that writing team, which will create the blueprint, and then helping Guillermo construct the movie. I want Guillermo to make his movies, and I want to make sure we end up with a 5 movie series that’s as good as it can possibly be."

Apparently the most popular of the 6,000 questions sent in to chat moderators in the two weeks prior to the big event was about the LOTR trilogy’s actors and if they would return to the films. Those paying any attention to TORn or even Hobbit news in general already knew the answer was “yes” but the two directors went beyond the obvious. del Toro explained it quite definitively, later confirmed by Jackson. Obviously, at this stage, the second film is still being figured out- so the actors that have been approached may or not have appeared in the HOBBIT as a literary work but still may appear in the second film as it “blends” into the Trilogy and expands. Therefore what can be said is: Unequivocally, every single actor that originated a role in the Trilogy will be asked to participate and reprise it. If Health, availability or willingness become obstacles – and only in that case recasting would be considered.

The inclusion of many other production figures such as Alan Lee, John Howe, Howard Shore and the Weta workshops were also confirmed, none of that wasn’t a surprise. Each director loves practical effects and favors them over CGI with del Toro explaining that he would use animatronics for creatures.

Del Toro pasted a rather long conglomeration of his comments at TheOneRing.net’s message boards he made as part of a healthy discussion about the dragon Smaug and that he has an actor in mind for the voice. Jackson said he and del Toro are still at the very early stages of how to present the film’s information to the internet and DVD audience and the use of production diaries hasn’t been discussed.

Much to this writer’s delight, del Toro delivered the first statement of any kind about how the large group of Dwarves from the source material will be handled.

"Tolkien wrote 13 dwarves and I intend to use 13 dwarves. I am, in fact, thrilled to keep them all and have them be distinguishable and affecting as characters. Much of the drama and emotion in the last third of the book and film will come from them."

Editorial comment:HOOOOORAY!


Other tidbits dropped in the course of the conversation:
* The LOTR movies are being worked on for the Blue Ray format but will definitely not be seen this year (Jackson has mentioned the 10-year mark previously)
* The film (distinctly not digital) will be shot in the same aspect ratio as the LOTR trilogy (2:35:1) and not in del Toro’s favorite ratio (1:85) to preserve the continuity with the LOTR films
* Beorn is extremely likely to be in the film, del Toro hinted that, “I also like TB quite a bit…” Could it be?
* del Toro has something in mind for Ron Perlman (suggested by TORn for Thorin)
* Gollum’s role might be larger than just his riddles in the dark, especially in film two
* there are no plans at the moment for filming in 3D
* wargs and goblins will be approached anew from the LOTR films
* Film two will not attempt to document the 60 years between Bilbo’s and Frodo’s adventures
* Film two will focus more on one central “event” from that time frame, perhaps filling in Gandalf’s gaps when he leaves the stage of the Hobbit film
* If it still wasn’t clear to anybody, the adaptation of “The Hobbit” will be one film
* They will look to write with traditional film structure but perhaps finding structure where others might not expect it del Toro, “I am all for trying to preserve every idiosyncrasy the novel has- the very things that seem “unfilmable” and that – in my mind- will make it thrilling as a film.”
* As anybody could have guessed, they will film in New Zealand (not Italy)

TheOneRing.net staff did a live blog commentary of the chat, found right here. It yields some interesting insights and raises pertinent questions and like a true blog, new stuff went on top, so the chat is upside down.

You can read the full official transcript of the chat right here.

I have no choice but to believe in free will.

The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie
The cake is a lie




(This post was edited by MrCere on May 25 2008, 3:27am)


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


May 25 2008, 3:32am

Post #2 of 44 (2710 views)
Shortcut
Nice summary MrCere! [In reply to] Can't Post

I liked the Italy part Tongue... I still don't know why the moderators let that one through...

Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!

Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!


Patty
Immortal


May 25 2008, 3:40am

Post #3 of 44 (2608 views)
Shortcut
Really! [In reply to] Can't Post

Why oh why waste precious time with the only question to which everyone already knows the answer?

Hanging out with the Lonely Isle elves.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 25 2008, 4:24am

Post #4 of 44 (2674 views)
Shortcut
I have the perfect answer for producer/director disagreements: [In reply to] Can't Post

"One, two, three, four, I declare a thumb war."

All arguments will be solved within 20 seconds.

(I did like how PJ said he'd claim the brilliance of releasing the Hobbit film on the 10-year anniversary of FOTR!) Cool

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


May 25 2008, 4:28am

Post #5 of 44 (2603 views)
Shortcut
Haha! [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved the part when Guillermo said they both agreed that New Line should hire more "round directors with funny accents."

Which, together with the thumb wars... makes a funny picture!

Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!

Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 25 2008, 4:47am

Post #6 of 44 (2617 views)
Shortcut
I got such a sense [In reply to] Can't Post

that Guillermo is a really, really fun and geeky guy who gets so much pure enjoyment out of being a fan of fantasy - and the thought of him and PJ being in the same room indulging their inner child just makes me smile hugely. Whoever is lucky enough to be involved in this project with GDT and PJ is going to have an experience to remember!

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


Starling
Half-elven


May 25 2008, 5:26am

Post #7 of 44 (2630 views)
Shortcut
Agreed most certainly [In reply to] Can't Post

I got that sense too. Even though there must have been some pressure during that chat, it was still so much fun.
I loved the shrimp-eating story (and you can still eat something yummy with one hand while thumb-wrestling with the other.)


ROD BAGGINS
Registered User

May 25 2008, 8:44am

Post #8 of 44 (2629 views)
Shortcut
PJ and GDT are truly... [In reply to] Can't Post

filmmakers who have grown up with films from a fan and geek's point of view and they understand what sensibilities are shared with other fans and geeks.

I don't think Sam Raimi would have been a good choice of director had GDT turned it down or if the rumours were true.

I look forward to more of these live chats :D


FrodoEyes
Rivendell

May 25 2008, 10:03am

Post #9 of 44 (2664 views)
Shortcut
Bombadil! [In reply to] Can't Post

Anyone else excited that GDT likes Tom Bombadil?!
At the very least I hope they film his scenes for a future LOTR dvd release. Then when they're done with the Shire they can destroy it and film the Scouring!
It's nice to dream...


mae govannen
Tol Eressea


May 25 2008, 10:29am

Post #10 of 44 (2542 views)
Shortcut
Yes, the two of them together [In reply to] Can't Post

are quite something!!! Laugh

'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


Smeagirl/Girllum
Gondor


May 25 2008, 12:42pm

Post #11 of 44 (2556 views)
Shortcut
Yes! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm happy that GdT likes Bombadil! Even if this is something that never gets filmed, it tells me that his heart is in the right place. Or at least the same place as mine. Wink


Ruby-Rose
Registered User

May 25 2008, 1:42pm

Post #12 of 44 (2547 views)
Shortcut
I was [In reply to] Can't Post

surprisingly happy after the "chat" last night. I have been extremely concerned about who would direct The Hobbit etc. But having heard Del Torro's fondness for Bombadil last night etc., I am relieved and am so looking forward to the next 4 years ...just watching it all unfold. I am particularly pleased that Howard Shore will be back (though I can't imagine how they could not have him...or Alan Lee/John Howe back either). Just looking at all the tidbits that were mentioned...Beorn, Gollum possilby having more than just the riddles bit, and the Dragon to top all other dragons ..WOW. I have to say my expectations are extremely high but I am fairly content that the GDT/Jackson team are not just going to roll out a mediocre film just because they can.

Ruby-Rose


Mirabella_Bunce
Rivendell

May 25 2008, 1:58pm

Post #13 of 44 (2552 views)
Shortcut
Oh my, I just love this guy now! [In reply to] Can't Post

I always knew he was brilliant, but I didn't realize he had such a great sense of humor. I hadn't expected to find myself laughing out loud during the chat, let alone doing it so often! I'm really glad the "may Cthulhu give me more shelves to put them on" was the last remark in the chat because I literally had to put my head down on the desk until I stopped laughing. Laugh

What a delightful fellow. I want to hug him more than I wanted to hug Peter Jackson 'way back then. And he has a point there, he IS a Dwarf, isn't he? A Dwarf and a Hobbit working together on the Hobbit movie - we are in for a real treat, we are!


Mirabella_Bunce
Rivendell

May 25 2008, 2:00pm

Post #14 of 44 (2496 views)
Shortcut
You know what? [In reply to] Can't Post

I think perhaps GDT is Bombadil... hmm.... anyone catch what color his boots were?


deej
Tol Eressea


May 25 2008, 2:17pm

Post #15 of 44 (2504 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for summing everything up so well, MrC. [In reply to] Can't Post

I hope this helps to assuage some folks' concerns about GDT directing the film - it was pretty clear to me that he and PJ will be working very closely together and that both have the passion and commitment to make these 2 films as good as they can be.


"...and back again."



mae govannen
Tol Eressea


May 25 2008, 2:59pm

Post #16 of 44 (2604 views)
Shortcut
How TB could be included: [In reply to] Can't Post

Some time back (on March 13), I tried to see a way of having Tom Bombadil somewhere in the films to come.
Remember the interest Gandalf had in him?
Gandalf said that he had visited him before.
Perhaps it could be that visit of Gandalf to Tom, before the time of the War of the Ring, that we could be shown?
Here is what I imagined then:

It would be a slightly different Tom Bombadil than expected: still the same, but with a somewhat sober appearance and a less amusing behaviour, as it would be Gandalf he would meet, not just Hobbits straight from the Shire... Another side of him could be shown, that would explain Gandalf's enduring interest in him and wish to meet him from time to time.
And I would love to see Goldberry, his charming and beautiful 'lady of the River', who so fascinated Frodo...!
For a deeper appreciation of Ecology and Nature in their mysterious and 'magic' aspect, this so special pair could be a real hit if it was well done, with the same quiet flow of sensitivity and esthetic refinement as in the book balance out and complement with their gracious dance the apparent pure buffonery of the ridiculous Tom Bombadil as usually perceived - although a touch of that too would have to be shown for the full picture to be there ...
After all, it is in that place that Frodo had his dream-vision of the 'white shores' and the 'green country'... There must be an inner reason for that, I am sure.
I am sure also that PJ, Fran and Phllippa could find that reason, and express it well enough in the films to come.
Well, perhaps someone could even suggest that whole idea to them!... Laugh


'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)


Patty
Immortal


May 25 2008, 4:49pm

Post #17 of 44 (2500 views)
Shortcut
Well, I will say this... [In reply to] Can't Post

TB fits in better with The Hobbit than he ever did in LotR. *dodges all the book purists and Bombadil fans.* Actually, I don't dislike him as much as I used to.

Hanging out with the Lonely Isle elves.


leo
Rohan


May 25 2008, 7:56pm

Post #18 of 44 (2497 views)
Shortcut
If you put it like that... [In reply to] Can't Post

it is actually quite a list ;-)

But to be honest, I thought there was very little real Hobbit-related news. I guess that's because they weren;t done with the scripts (and didn't really tell us anything about them) and they denied approaching castmembers. I think it might have just been too early for a chat like this, so I hope they'll do more in the future!


Sunflower
Valinor

May 26 2008, 5:06am

Post #19 of 44 (2474 views)
Shortcut
Wow--a "serious" Bombadil [In reply to] Can't Post

Now that you mention it, I remember the scene where he was telling the hobbits stories from past Ages, and finally when he asks to see the Ring....doesn't he have a glint in his eye for a second(or was that Gandalf in Bag End.) He is only dancing around and singing nonsense MOST of the time...but not all.

It would be fascinating to see a subdued Bombadil. In light of who he is (IMO to me he is a living incarnation of Ulmo, Lord of Waters...(his marriage to Goldberry the River-Spirit) . I'm sure I'm not the first one who has gotten an idea like this....but Maia visiting Vala....kind of puts a twist on things doesn't it?


Elven
Valinor


May 26 2008, 8:23am

Post #20 of 44 (2412 views)
Shortcut
Fantastic MrCere - thankyou so much! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Were off to Hobbiton finally!

Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!



Mecandes
Registered User

May 26 2008, 6:03pm

Post #21 of 44 (2451 views)
Shortcut
An intense PG-13... [In reply to] Can't Post

One noteworthy item which your summary missed is when Peter Jackson says that "the rating will be the same as the Trilogy, PG13 on both movies," and Guillermo del Toro jumps in to clarify that it will be "An intense PG-13."

Are they serious? The Hobbit is a story written for children!

But I guess, from this point in history onwards, this is Jackson's franchise, not Tolkien's. I'm sure the whole point of "film 2" will be to add original characters and situations which can spin off into works (toys, books, etc.) without Tolkien's name on them at all. Then all the money goes to Jackson/New Line, and none to the Tolkien Estate. Clever.


FrodoEyes
Rivendell

May 26 2008, 6:10pm

Post #22 of 44 (2327 views)
Shortcut
Wow! Negative! N/T [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Elizabeth
Half-elven


May 26 2008, 7:03pm

Post #23 of 44 (2412 views)
Shortcut
Revenues from spin-off merchandise [In reply to] Can't Post

are covered under the filmmaker's contract with its designers and participants, not the Estate, I'm pretty sure. The Estate is entitled to a portion of box office receipts. This is no different from the situation in LotR, and whether the characters were invented by Tolkien or not is irrelevant.





Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


debo
Rohan

May 26 2008, 10:08pm

Post #24 of 44 (2387 views)
Shortcut
*Intense PG13* [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree- The Hobbit IS a story for children.

It will be a real shame if we can't take our under-10s to see it!!!UnsureUnsureUnsure

Why does it have to be "intense PG13"? Can't you tell a fantastic and gripping story without it being violent and scary??

Frodo; "What I chiefly need now is courage . . ."


debo
Rohan

May 26 2008, 10:11pm

Post #25 of 44 (2357 views)
Shortcut
It'll be like Spiderman . . [In reply to] Can't Post

Which was a great premise for under-10 boys but just way too scary to take them to see.

So you see, the film-makers will miss out on revenue from this lucrative group. ( Trying to talk *movie-speak*)

Please listen!!!

Frodo; "What I chiefly need now is courage . . ."


Smeagirl/Girllum
Gondor


May 27 2008, 2:36am

Post #26 of 44 (1095 views)
Shortcut
My thoughts exactly! [In reply to] Can't Post

"Can't you tell a fantastic and gripping story without it being violent and scary??"

During the chat, I had actually commented to those within my chat room, saying "I hope it's not too intense!" I have trouble watching some of the battle scenes in LOTR. I really hope The Hobbit can be as non-gory as possible!

"He is a small thing, you say, this Gollum? Small, but great in mischief."



Sunflower
Valinor

May 27 2008, 3:46am

Post #27 of 44 (1085 views)
Shortcut
I highly doubt [In reply to] Can't Post

that this is being done as a cynical spin-off by Jackson to get more revenue from merchandising for his NZ film empire. Some in the media may try to spin it that way; it would be easy to in this world of comic-book spin-offs (Marvel anyone?)

But Tolkien fans by now, even those who are purists, mostly understand that Jackson and now Del Toro are doing these films as a labor of love. Even the 2nd film. It may just be from a desire to see things onscreen from LOTR that time constraints etc they could not put on there. I am reserving judgement until I see Film 2.

We must remember that this is a VERSION of Tolkien's work, NOT the defenitive version. A powerful version, but I don't think Tolkinen's literary legacy is in any danger of being ceded to NZ/films. That was my fear for a long time, but it has passed. The Middle-earth of Jackson may be a "franchise" but the world of The Professor is not. And that world is still very much alive.

BTW, mae govannen, Mecandes! Welcome to the family!


(This post was edited by Sunflower on May 27 2008, 3:47am)


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


May 27 2008, 4:43am

Post #28 of 44 (1117 views)
Shortcut
"A goblin's head was stuck outside the gate..." [In reply to] Can't Post

"...and a warg-skin was nailed to a tree just beyond."

Should the images suggested by that passage from Tolkien's The Hobbit be shown? Or, because an image shown is different from an image suggested by text, would it be more appropriate for the filmmakers to show just Bilbo's expression as he sees those things outside Beorn's house, and have Ian Holm narrate a description? Which is more faithful to the text?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us May 26-Jun. 1 for "The Road to Isengard".


debo
Rohan

May 27 2008, 7:50am

Post #29 of 44 (1086 views)
Shortcut
I guess [In reply to] Can't Post

that actually The Hobbit does have its gruesome moments, as you just quoted.
I don't mind warg skins nailed to fences, its more the scariness of the goblins and their violence. I did find the LotR battle scenes too intense.
Am I wrong to want Hobbit to be less scary than LotR?

Frodo; "What I chiefly need now is courage . . ."


Huan71
Lorien

May 27 2008, 9:47am

Post #30 of 44 (1049 views)
Shortcut
get real [In reply to] Can't Post

Being chased and attacked by Goblins is supposed to be scary. going into battle, especially the swords and shields type, is violent, vicious, bloody and terrifying. Having giant spiders and huge slavering wolf type creatures attack you is not a very nice thing to happen.
Pretending that the world, real or as reflected in mythological lands, is "nice" and that when horrible things happen it's really not THAT bad; is a joke, a con and an outright lie to those who have never experienced it.
There is a difference between glorifying violence and giving something a semblance of realism.
There is a difference between shocking people to disgust and letting a scene have impact.
In this modern world (especially the west) there can be a tendency to hide from the truth; to dilute facts, to make things seem better and nicer than they really are. Then, when faced with a harsh dose of reality (that for many is the norm), life shocks the guts out of people.
I've been mugged by gangs, beaten up by gangs, been in some pretty threatening situations and had a loaded gun pointed at me. Let me tell you folks.........It's no laughing matter!!
Our lives in the "west" (so to speak) have been pretty peaceful since summer 1945. We've grown up in a very nice bubble thank you very much. Something Tolkien didn't have the luxury of. His writing may well have been influenced by the things he saw, not a way of hiding from it.
Well, things look like changing, big style, over the next 30 or 40 years. Lets not do these films a disservice and use them as a way of escaping from reality. Let them, like the books, be a way (for young and old) of tackling the nasty stuff head-on.

"Futility is the defining characterisic of life. Pain is the proof of existance."


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 27 2008, 10:13am

Post #31 of 44 (1074 views)
Shortcut
I agree Huan [In reply to] Can't Post

In my opinion, I'd rather have children watch a movie that shows them the horrors of war but that teaches them pity, mercy, love and understanding, than have children be part of the "innocence" of such things as Miley Cyrus (no offense to her, Disney, or fans of either) and other things that will have no meaning to their lives, other than make them victims of the crass commercialism of these days.

Being a person from India, a country that witnesses poverty, starvation, and bomb blasts every other month, I couldn't agree more with you - we need to open our eyes and be more empathetic to the realities of those who suffer rather than shut a blind eye to it all and selfishly enjoy our lives while we can.

There is a difference between glorifying violence and giving something a semblance of realism.
There is a difference between shocking people to disgust and letting a scene have impact.

I don't think Tolkien ever tried to "tone down" The Hobbit. It has some pretty brutal realities to it and as someone mentioned here, its not so much about the graphic portrayal of it, but rather the subtleties - a couple being Bilbo betraying his friends by hiding the Arkenstone from them and giving it away (a "noble" gesture); and Thorin cursing his friend Bilbo before the gate of the Lonely Mountain, then having that curse backfire.

What you said is right. As long as the movie doesn't justify the act of war and glorify mindless brutality and fighting, it can be very affecting. Today's children are much more mature and aware of the world's realities than we give them credit for - and I think a Hobbit movie probably has much more to teach them than any of the reality TV shows of today.

Sad but true Unimpressed

Crows and Gibbets! What is The House Of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll around on the floor with their dogs! You are but a lesser son of greater Sires.

(This post was edited by Earl on May 27 2008, 10:16am)


Mirabella_Bunce
Rivendell

May 27 2008, 1:19pm

Post #32 of 44 (1028 views)
Shortcut
They are very much alike, really! [In reply to] Can't Post

I have always thought that Beorn was really a kind of "prototype" Bombadil. They are practically the same character, really, when you think about it, just that Bombadil is more grown-up for LOTR. Well ok he's jollier, but his sheep walk around and do sheep things, and do not serve food at banquets... :) Or perhaps we could say he was more mature in a cosmic kind of way: wise enough not to sweat the small stuff, knowing that it's all small stuff.

Sometimes I think of Beorn is the guardian spirit of the Hobbit story, and Bombadil is the guardian spirit of the LOTR story. But I'm not sure that analogy holds up really well under close examination!

In any case it does seem as if there was another story going on at the time, and I think it went like this: Once upon a time there was an author named Tolkien, and he had a certain character knocking at the back of his mind that really wanted to come to life. Tolkien thought the character was pretty cool so he agreed to write him out and give him life, but he (the author) still hadn't worked out yet, by the time he wrote the Hobbit, who and what and where and why exactly this character was. So he said, "Well, maybe I can let him be one of that race of shapeshifters I have half-formed in my unfinished tales." So he wrote Beorn into The Hobbit. But, though the shapeshifters are very cool, they didn't quite fit the personality of whatever person was trying to come out. So by the time he wrote LOTR, Tolkien broke down just let Bombadil be a completely anomalous character with no explanation of his origins, just like he had wanted to be all along. (Characters frequently do refuse to conform to your own internal "rules" about how things should be in your own stories!)

So I will be perfectly pleased if Beorn comes out with a lot of Bombadil's lines in the Hobbit movie, and will be truly tickled if he's wearing a blue jacket and yellow boots. :)


Idril Celebrindal
Tol Eressea


May 27 2008, 4:34pm

Post #33 of 44 (1075 views)
Shortcut
Same here... [In reply to] Can't Post

My opinion about film violence and darkness is that less is more, because it gives them more of an impact.

I'd especially hate to see the first film ("The Hobbit" adaptation) be turned all darky-dark. There are certainly some violent and scary moments in the story, as there are in any good tale out of faerie (the goblin mines, Gollum, the spiders, Smaug, etc.); I'm concerned that they will be focused on so lovingly that they'll overwhelm the rest of the movie.

With caffeine, all things are possible.

The pity of Bilbo will screw up the fate of many.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

(This post was edited by Idril Celebrindal on May 27 2008, 4:35pm)


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


May 27 2008, 4:36pm

Post #34 of 44 (1060 views)
Shortcut
Should Thorin curse with four-letter words? [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
and Thorin cursing his friend Bilbo before the gate of the Lonely Mountain, then having that curse backfire.


Should the orcs use four-letter words? Tolkien wrote in the appendices to LotR that his presentation of orc speech intentionally avoid the language the orcs would really have used. Should audiences be exposed to that reality?

Tolkien included several scenes of nudity in The Hobbit and LotR. Should those be portrayed onscreen?

For that matter, the violence Tolkien describes is sometimes more graphic than what Jackson chose to show. Did Jackson cop out?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us May 26-Jun. 1 for "The Road to Isengard".


Patty
Immortal


May 27 2008, 4:45pm

Post #35 of 44 (998 views)
Shortcut
"Should the orcs use four-letter words? " [In reply to] Can't Post

No, no, no! In the first place, thank the good professor, Middle-earth never used those four letter words to which I think you are referring (?) I'm so glad ME is embodied in a movie I can go to and NOT have to hear those words, unlike most other movies today.

Nevertheless, I think Jackson, GdT et al will come up with dialog that evidences evilness, malice, anger (or whatever those words are used for, I don't use them) without resorting to the cliche of actual 4-letter words.

Um, Middle-earth cursing. * goes off to think about it*...

Hanging out with the Lonely Isle elves.


Lunamoth
Rohan


May 27 2008, 6:29pm

Post #36 of 44 (1028 views)
Shortcut
Not as such [In reply to] Can't Post

It always draws me out of a story when the writer plops in *our* "bad words" when they don't actually make sense in that story's universe. Anything blasphemous in our world, well, doesn't work. And I realize that vulgarity crosses all language boundaries, but what some cultures find offensive, others don't quite as much. Know what I mean? It's difficult to illustrate without actually using those words...

In my own writing, especially when world-building, I include strong language as it would have evolved in that universe. I think it's important that in this case, it be handled similarly.

After all, maybe when Thorin "cursed" Bilbo, he might've simply said something like "may the hair on your toes wither" or somesuch. "Curse" doesn't automatically = 4-letter words.


(This post was edited by Lunamoth on May 27 2008, 6:30pm)


Mirabella_Bunce
Rivendell

May 27 2008, 6:46pm

Post #37 of 44 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Just so they don't play the creepy-crawly card to death [In reply to] Can't Post

Even in LOTR I rolled my eyes at the scene with all the bugs crawling out of the tree when the Black Rider came near. I guess I understood in an analytical kind of way that this was meant to mean "wow, this thing is so evil even the bugs are bailing," but the part of myself that was trying to experience the movie was thrown out of the story by it and all "Geez, what a cheap and tacky gimmick to throw in to try to creep people out!" It seemed very un-PJ to me at the time! But that was at least semi-within the scope of the story at hand.

Then I saw King Kong and somewhere toward the middle of the movie I felt just plain bogged down in the midst of all this sudden reliance on tremendous quantities of insect legs to get people to gasp. What did all that have to do with the story, anyway? At that point I thought PJ did "focus lovingly" as you said, on those things for far, far too long. It really got tedious after awhile. I was like, oh, wow, another giant insect / mutant insect / swarm of insects *yawn* can we please get on with the story at some point before the movie ends? I normally love PJ's work and I guess I had come to expect better of him. If you need to add things like that to creep people out, then maybe you need to re-think how to make the scene scary for what it actually is?

So maybe it's fortunate that we've got some new blood on the team now. From his work that I've seen so far, I find that GDT has a very judicious and intelligent approach to bugs and battles and things like that, and doesn't tend to wear them right out just for the sake of having them, and hopefully will keep them appropriate to part of the story they are in, as part of the story, and not a long side-trip away from it.


Empedocles
Rivendell


May 27 2008, 7:22pm

Post #38 of 44 (1015 views)
Shortcut
I totally agree with Huan71 [In reply to] Can't Post

A riddle contest inside the darkest, deepest places of a cave with a fish-like creature who is basically telling you that you're going to be eaten if you don't win is not a funny situation, it's as scary a situation as you can probably be in and so I believe that it should be portrayed accordingly. The same theing with battles.

I think one of the biggest mistakes of Hollywood and the game industry is this tendency to show that being in the army is like a vacation where you can travel around the world and kill people that are supposedly evil, and that you're actually being a patriot by doing so. I'm no goint to get political here and say that it's done on purpose (which I think it is) but it's worst for kids to grow up thinking that war is an adventure and then enroll in the army and repent all their lives for doing so, than show the brutality of a batlle on screen, and let them see for themselves, at least in an imaginary world, that in war there's blood, there are dead friends, there's suffering, etc.

Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


May 27 2008, 7:39pm

Post #39 of 44 (997 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien uses "dung". [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that we may take Thorin's curse to be presented as it really is. I'm thinking more of the orcs, because Tolkien specifically writes, in Appendix F to The Lord of the Rings, that:


Quote
...Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong.



Does this mean that "dung" and "filth" were Tolkien's representations of "****" and "****", that I must not use on these forums? Should the films show what was "really" said, or Tolkien's bowdlerized version?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!

Join us May 26-Jun. 1 for "The Road to Isengard".


Huan71
Lorien

May 27 2008, 11:36pm

Post #40 of 44 (1006 views)
Shortcut
A matter of perspective (to quote pratchett...) [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess words could be made up for Orcs, Goblins and the like to use as swear words. Whose to say they wont be taken and used in every day language, being deemed vulgar and offensive 100 years from now?
Don't laugh. That could be true of some of the words that offend you!
I don't expect the Hobbit or F2 to have obviously offensive language in it.
Equally i don't expect there to be any gratuitous violence included.
I just think, for the sake of some semblance of credibility, a film (even a children's one) shouldn't be afraid to show some of the darker, harsher side of life. Just as the beautiful and wondrous should be shown!
I'd hate to see it descend into an expensive episode of the telly tubbies with loads of 20 and 30 something mums taking little jenny and johnny (age 6 and 7 respectively) along, laughing "at the little furry feet...look mum!"
If someone gets cut, they bleed....even the darling kids, and they know it!!
It can be shown, briefly, following a less is more thought, because that's what happens!!!
It cant be allowed to turn into another "Lion, witch...", that had just one really powerful scene when Jes.. sorry, Aslan was put to the...erm..stone.
I'm not sure what the youngest target age group should be for these films. But i do know that every household in the world has different standards, morals, norms and tolerances.
Not everyone will be pleased...(i may be one of them?)

"Futility is the defining characterisic of life. Pain is the proof of existance."


debo
Rohan

May 28 2008, 12:53am

Post #41 of 44 (986 views)
Shortcut
After thought [In reply to] Can't Post

I think I will wait til the DVDs come out before my littlies see it. Its less scary on a small screen.
I see everyone's points and I guess the filmmakers have to make all 5 films have the same "feel" ie. rating.

Frodo; "What I chiefly need now is courage . . ."


Huan71
Lorien

May 28 2008, 8:59am

Post #42 of 44 (1014 views)
Shortcut
good point [In reply to] Can't Post

That's an interesting, and very good, point. The whole big screen Vs little screen thing.
I'm interested to hear any thoughts you've got on what the bottom age of the target audience should be.
When people use the term "Children's movie", what exactly do they mean.
Down to what age are parents thinking they'd want their kid's to be when bringing them along to watch the Hobbit at the cinema? 10? 8? 6??
Not forgetting, of course, that the VAST majority of people who have read the book are over 18.
In fact, if the rest of the world's like it is here in the UK then very few under 18's can even be bothered to read!!

"Futility is the defining characterisic of life. Pain is the proof of existance."


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


May 28 2008, 10:14am

Post #43 of 44 (984 views)
Shortcut
Good heavens NO [In reply to] Can't Post

When I said "curse", I didn't mean four-letter expletives Blush

I myself don't use language and I cringe when people around me use it as part of their daily vocabulary, not necessarily as swear words, but even as exclamations of surprise and excitement. I just don't get it.

What Lunamoth said was what I had in mind when I referred to Thorin's curse:

After all, maybe when Thorin "cursed" Bilbo, he might've simply said something like "may the hair on your toes wither" or somesuch. "Curse" doesn't automatically = 4-letter words.

Even in FOTR:EE, we hear Gimli "curse" Haldir in Khuzdul, and we know that what he said was something to the effect "I'd spit upon your grave." which is a pretty disgusting thing to say, and in my opinion, has much more effect than if he'd given Haldir a four letter word followed by "off".

And I think it is things like this that the filmmakers can use to make The Hobbit an enjoyable movie for children, while still retaining the layers of depth that us adults will appreciate. A curse like "may the hair on your toes wither" or "may your larder run dry" would be laughed at by children and be passed off as one of the funnier dialogues, yet if said right with good acting amid a tense atmosphere, it could be one of those dialogues that portray not just anger, but the hatred it engenders.

Remember that in the movie, Boromir said "Curse you, and all Halflings." It was nothing more than a statement that used the word "curse" yet didn't mention what the curse was nor utilized an expletive; but his mood and his acting were so spot-on that the line actually sent a chill down my spine to see him behaving that way suddenly. Seeing Thorin suddenly turn against Bilbo could have the same effect.

Also, just some thoughts towards the very interesting questions you posed...

Should the orcs use four-letter words? Tolkien wrote in the appendices to LotR that his presentation of orc speech intentionally avoid the language the orcs would really have used. Should audiences be exposed to that reality?

I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Black Speech or Orc-speech (by which I mean a debased form of the Common Tongue). If it is the Black Speech, unless they made something up, I wonder what they can use since as far as I know, Tolkien's Black Speech never developed further than a few phrases and some Orc names; and I don't suppose David Salo would render modern day expletives into that Tongue Wink On the other hand, if you're referring to the Common Tongue defiled by Orcs, I once again don't think modern day curses and swear words would fit the bill - they simply don't fit into Tolkien's universe.

Tolkien included several scenes of nudity in The Hobbit and LotR. Should those be portrayed onscreen?

I don't recall nudity in The Hobbit, and in LOTR, what I remember is the hobbits running around on the Barrow Downs to warm themselves up, Gandalf returned naked to Lothlorien, and Frodo lying naked in Cirith Ungol. I always wondered Tolkien's intent behind this nakedness, and I realized that all three scenes follow events of death or near-death. I thought maybe it's a tangible depiction of overcoming the coldness of death and having a rebirth (so to speak) that is represented by this nakedness.

Also, I'll venture to speak my thoughts on the Children of Hurin. It is not a story for children - nudity seems to me the lesser of the evils in a story that contains incest. So assuming that the hypothetical movie is targeted towards adults, I don't see a problem with the portrayal of nudity. It depends how it is depicted. I applaud Viggo Mortensen for his role in Eastern Promises - it was intense but not vulgar at all, not by a long shot. I think the nude scenes in The Children of Hurin could be portrayed as tragic scenes, not something that'd get you lusting after the actors, but something that would move you in a profound way so that you look beyond the flesh to see their broken souls on the inside.

For that matter, the violence Tolkien describes is sometimes more graphic than what Jackson chose to show. Did Jackson cop out?

I think it is easier to describe violence textually and get away with it than it is to portray the same thing graphically on screen. Consider the word "behead" and consider what it means to actually see it happening.

Just my thoughts... Smile

Crows and Gibbets! What is The House Of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll around on the floor with their dogs! You are but a lesser son of greater Sires.

(This post was edited by Earl on May 28 2008, 10:18am)


Empedocles
Rivendell


May 28 2008, 12:43pm

Post #44 of 44 (976 views)
Shortcut
Well, it depends on the country [In reply to] Can't Post

I live in Argentina and a movie that is R-rated in the US (like 300) is a PG13 here. Consequently, a PG13 movie in the US is a General Audience movie here. For example, all Lord of the Rings films here were General-audience movies. So, it really depends on the idiosincracy of every country. In Argentina, and basically in all Latinoamerica, they don't care much if there's a little violence (of course, I'm talking "Troy" violence, not "Hostel" violence) or strong language, since you can see that in the news, in video games, songs, all they long in TV, etc. They usually only restrict a movie when it shows nudity or very strong violence.

Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.