The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Tibboh eht: Noissucsid Eivom:
Deadline.com: Orlando to reprise Legolas in 'Hobbit'



News from Bree
spymaster@theonering.net

Dec 8 2010, 7:02pm


Views: 19246
     Deadline.com: Orlando to reprise Legolas in 'Hobbit'

Deadline.com is reporting that Orlando Bloom is expected to reprise his role as Legolas Greenleaf in the upcoming 'Hobbit' films. You may ask, how can this be? Well, quite simply, the character of Legolas was very much alive during the timeframe of The Hobbit. In fact, he was probably several thousand years old at the time of The Lord of the Rings! Since Legolas is the son of Thranduil (The Elvenking), a major player in 'The Hobbit,' one can easily see Peter, Phillipa, and Fran writing him into the script. *MINOR SPOILERS* Not only would he appear in Mirkwood with the other wood-elves, he could very well lead the wood-elf contingent into the Battle of Five Armies! Deadline also mentions the negotiations for Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving and Andy Serkis are still ongoing. [Read On]

(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 9 2010, 1:41am)


Oiotári
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 12:21am


Views: 16435
     I had practically forgotten about the possibility

I remember now discussions from a while ago though

[note that my unread posts in The Hobbit forum is currently reading about 10800, so any recent discussions I haven't read yet Wink]


The wide world is all about you:
you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out

You can only come to the morning through the shadows


Aelric
Erihs Eht


Dec 9 2010, 12:28am


Views: 16361
     Gotta say...

I wasn't expecting this. Galadriel perhaps, but not Legolas.

Can't say I'm not pleased and intrigued.

I've earned my stripes as well as my bread...


Ruijor
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 12:31am


Views: 16346
     All aboard!

The ship to Middle Earth is ready to depart... Tongue


Snaga
Neirol


Dec 9 2010, 12:35am


Views: 16415
     Let me say before all the doom and gloomsayers

I don't think this necessarily means PJ & Co. are going to get carried away with the whole concept inserting people from the first three films just for recognition value. There could easily be room for Legolas to make a short apearance and do it with some amount of integrity to the story. Although one would have to hope this is kept to a minimum.

I noticed one of the stories mentions that his appearance is going to be more than just a cameo. Can anyone here tell me what limits a filmaker would have to stay within for an appearance to be considered a cameo? At one point does it move beyond a cameo? One line? Two lines? Five lines? Is this a subjective standard or has this been quantified by the academy or screen actors guild or a recognized body of artists?

"Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!"

-Faramir


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 12:38am


Views: 16502
     It just struck me "Why no Bard? Who kills Smaug?

They wouldn't, would they?Shocked

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Garfeimao
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 12:48am


Views: 16351
     No, they wouldn't

But in terms of timelines and the long lived lives of Elves, it would actually have been weird to be in Mirkwood and not see Legolas, hence you have to have him there for as little or as much as it serves the story. My guess is he won't get cozy with any of the Dwarves, to stay in line with his opinion of Dwarves 60 years down the line.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Hamfast
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 12:49am


Views: 16325
     hmmmm....

one well placed arrow from Legolas does seem more plausible than a sword strike on a mighty dragon from Bard. I can't believe I have to wait two years for this movie !


gilgalad80
Erihs Eht

Dec 9 2010, 1:10am


Views: 16243
     It wasnt a sword.


In Reply To
one well placed arrow from Legolas does seem more plausible than a sword strike on a mighty dragon from Bard. I can't believe I have to wait two years for this movie !


Bard killed the dragon with a critical arrow shot. Not a sword strike. No way would they do it.. It would change the ending completely..


(This post was edited by gilgalad80 on Dec 9 2010, 1:16am)


Pete
Eerb


Dec 9 2010, 1:36am


Views: 16173
     Awesome!

Now, I'm neither female nor an Orlando Bloom fan but I'd still love to see him in The Hobbit.

I doubt they'd have the son of Thranduil relegated to guarding wine but I'd crack a smile if Legolas is one of the Elves that gets drunk and inadvertently permits the dwarves to escape. Possibly leading the search all the way to Lake-town to regain some pride.

Just no shield-surfing.



Oiotári
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 1:42am


Views: 16161
     Perhaps to counteract

a certain drinking contest with Gimli Tongue


The wide world is all about you:
you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out

You can only come to the morning through the shadows


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav

Dec 9 2010, 1:42am


Views: 16168
     No, they wouldn't

Would they?

(Please tell me that they wouldn't.)

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Oiotári
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 1:45am


Views: 16156
     my thought process exactly

please no Unimpressed


The wide world is all about you:
you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out

You can only come to the morning through the shadows


Patty
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 2:02am


Views: 16130
     I think this would be uber super great!

Bring him on! But don't substitute him for Bard.Unimpressed

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 2:05am


Views: 16194
     Maybe he'll be the Elf-lord who Itaril falls in love with.

Elrond and Thranduil aren't exactly chick-magnets...

What do you think? Is this possible? Oh, to be able to get a glimpse of that script!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




NottaSackville
Aessere Lot

Dec 9 2010, 2:05am


Views: 16075
     I very much think they would. //

 


Captain Salt
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 2:06am


Views: 16079
     Yay!

Hoped for this, but nice to see it confirmed, (almost).

Samuel L. Jackson for Bilbo, Woody Allen for Thorin, Lewis Black for Bard and Gilbert Gottfried for Smaug!

MAKE IT HAPPEN, PETER!!!


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 2:20am


Views: 16131
     You said it outloud.

My stomach hurts.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 2:25am


Views: 16100
     This was my first thought

"the Elf-lord who Itaril falls in love with" then I thought of Legolas who downed a Fellbeast in the dark at a bazillion yards and Bard the Bowman has yet to be cast and I am back at Helms Deep with Arwen.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Patty
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 2:26am


Views: 16010
     Yeah, let's just ...

leave Itaril out of it altogether, say I.

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



gilgalad80
Erihs Eht

Dec 9 2010, 2:27am


Views: 16119
     To be clear..

I have no problem with Legolas returning in the hobbit. In fact I think it's a cool idea. But he's definitely NOT replacing Bard.
We'll hear of a casting for Bard soon enough..


(This post was edited by gilgalad80 on Dec 9 2010, 2:29am)


Patty
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 2:30am


Views: 16112
     Agreed.

And with two movies to play around with I don't think they will need to leave Bard out. I know they did leave Glorfindel out so that audiences wouldn't have to remember who too many people were, but by the time Bard appears in the story (unless they insert a little glimpse of Laketown life before the group gets there) we are already familiar enough with all the main characters that they should feel comfortable inserting one or two new ones for the second movie. I think. I hope.

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 2:32am


Views: 16069
     Wow

Didn't see that coming... cool!


Eruwestial37
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 2:34am


Views: 15977
     My greatest wish

has come true for The Hobbit.

I have to admit, though I DO want Bard to kill Smaug and I DON'T want Itaril to be his lady, anything else Legolas does is just fine by me.

I'm off to grab some Jameson to celebrate!Cool

http://www.nanowrimo.org/widget/LiveParticipant/727338.png


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 2:35am


Views: 16134
     There was a rumor that they were casting Bain.

Who is, of course, Bard's son.

Which means: Bard is indeed in this.

So I strongly doubt Legolas will have the honor of killing Smaug! Smile


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 2:39am


Views: 14126
     Bard gets demoted to master of Lake Town.

Legolas scores Dragon Head Mount for his rumpus room.Evil

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Nimloth
Neirol


Dec 9 2010, 2:49am


Views: 14160
     Great news if true

I would love to see Legolas in The Hobbit and it is feasible that he could be at his father's side at that time. I don't won't to see him in a romantic role with Itaril, though unfortunately it is very likely.


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 3:15am


Views: 14097
     Yecch! No way! //

 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




LordElrond
Llednevir

Dec 9 2010, 3:23am


Views: 14033
     Why?

Why would you think that Legolas will have a romantic role? He's not even in the book so I doubt they'll invent a love story around him.


Hamfast
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 3:29am


Views: 14045
     OMG you're right.

I haven't read the book in a decade. Funny how things stick in your head. For the record, I was just being playful (like I think Kangi was...) I emphatically do NOT want Legolas to kill Smaug.


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 3:38am


Views: 13989
     These are worst case...

The stuff of Nightmares. I do not think that even GdT would have come up with these babies.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 3:44am


Views: 14066
     One love story tends to be manditory these days

and no I would not put it past the writers. In fact in my mind I already see the whole scenario. The only parts that require resolution are "Who Shoots Smaug" and if they leave out the Arkenstone how are they going to lay out that part of the conflict of Bilbo with the Dwarves.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Oiotári
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 3:45am


Views: 13952
     and we no longer have

GdT to come and quell our fears before we get out of hand


The wide world is all about you:
you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out

You can only come to the morning through the shadows


TheGoblinKing
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 3:46am


Views: 14026
     I Think Comes To Play.

I think its to show everyone knew and respect Bilbo or in this case the Name Baggins. So Legolas in the movies seems logical to me. Like Dain maybe comes at the Battle. Legolas could be on scouting duty and returns home in time to help his father to fight who he assumed was Dwarvs.


Elentari03
Llednevir

Dec 9 2010, 3:50am


Views: 13963
     So exciting!

I am glad he will have a substantial role. Smile

Keep the announcements coming!


Ethel Duath
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 4:45am


Views: 14063
     They wouldn't (all together now!)

If we all repeat it incessantly, maybe it'll work the same way that "no place like home" worked for Dorothy!


Gandalf'sMother
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 4:49am


Views: 13980
     Nooooooooooooo!

Not necessary. At all. George Lucas-esque. Shrinks the universe. Etc. Etc.


Amandil
Erihs Eht

Dec 9 2010, 4:50am


Views: 14014
     Larger roll totally feasible

It's great to know Legolas will be back. I have no problem with it being more than a cameo and actually think it very appropriate and not contradictory to the book (assuming Bard kills Smaug...please...more on that later).

Any fans feeling hesitation should remember that he was the Elvenking's son - a Prince. I do not believe we'll see him as one of the drunk guards letting Thorin's Company slip away, as one suggested. Rather I picture him standing by his father's throne as he interrogates the dwarves and sends them to the dungeon (..."Throw the book at 'em Daddy!"...okay, so this is why I'm not a script writer...anyway...).

For the same reason, if he shows up as one of the leaders in the Battle of Five Armies, that also may not be far fetched at all. Tolkein had his Silmarillion stories he had worked on since his youth, in one form or another, and then had the Hobbit, written more for the entertainment of his children than as a coherent part of the larger mythology. Lord of the Rings was not in his mind when writing the Hobbit and Thranduil's family is not mentioned. Once Tolkein later bridged the gap and made Legolas his son, in my opinion at least, I don't think even Tolkein would deny that Legolas would have been involved in the Hobbit story, though unmentioned. It is more a matter of lack of info in the Hobbit than it is a contradiction, something simply inherent in the chronology of the creation of Legolas.

Just one other thought to keep the above thoughts a bit in check... While he was a Prince at the time of the Hobbit, and I'm sure had established a high reputation fighting neighboring spiders as well as orcs or evil men intruding on the borders of their kingdom, I believe it was surely his deeds as part of the Fellowship, and in the defeat of Sauron, which would have proved him ready to rule when his time came and elevated his reputation to it's peak. While, as I stated, exploits in the Battle of Five Armies for Legolas were quite feasible and could have helped his standing as well, I surely don't think anything of such extreme note as the slaying of Smaug should be portrayed and I think would be contradictory to his character in both the LOTR books and movies. It is in the Fellowship that he comes into his own and becomes a hero of proportions that span beyond Mirkwood -- not at the feet of Mt. Erebor.


Mooseboy018
SnevaH Yerg


Dec 9 2010, 4:51am


Views: 13939
     Cool!

I really hope they use this as an opportunity to show more of Legolas' distrust of dwarves. It would make his eventual friendship with Gimli even more significant.Cool


Rodu
Llednevir

Dec 9 2010, 4:58am


Views: 13936
     agreed

At least he has a reason to be there, hopefully they won't have Aragorn too, that would be too much


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav

Dec 9 2010, 5:05am


Views: 13992
     I really don't think they would

If for no other reason that they would not want to pass up the only opportunity to have a human hero.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 5:44am


Views: 13938
     This may be ok if

they just stick to the book as much as possible. Stray too far off the path of what Tolkien wrote and you end up wandering the darkest parts of Mirkwood without a light. By the way, are they planning on making the first film be the entire book of The Hobbit and the second film
pieced together from Tolkien's writtings as the bridge to the trilogy or are they planning to split the Book in half adding the extra stuff to stretch each one out? I really hope it's not the later. The first film needs to be The Hobbit, as written, in it's entirety. The second film I'm not as worried about. If it didn't work, I can be happy just watching The Hobbit and the trilogy. Sadly, splitting the book may be the way they will want to go and force us to pay for both like the last HP book. :chews fingernails and furrows brow:

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!


Mooseboy018
SnevaH Yerg


Dec 9 2010, 5:47am


Views: 13932
     the "bridge" film

The "bridge" film was abandoned quite a while ago. It's going to be The Hobbit Part 1 and Part 2.


Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 5:52am


Views: 13948
     as long as it's just from the Hobbit

otherwise I'm back to worrying :(

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!


TheGoblinKing
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 5:54am


Views: 13981
     Wonder If Will See Aragorn.

Cause if Legolas has a cameo so shouldn't Aragorn cause seeing him at the end of the Hobbit too films be great. Maybe we could see Young and Old Aragorn in the two movies.


lurtz2010
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 6:42am


Views: 13930
     So you're against the DolGuldur storyline then?

I for one am so glad they are expanding the story to show the events of the white council.


Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 7:01am


Views: 13908
     It'll all probably be ok

Yeah. I'm curious to see everything Tolkien ever wrote on screen. I'm just very fond of the books and really just want to get the Hobbit as I know and love it and not change the feeling of it or be taken out of the adventure I'm on with Bilbo and the Dwarves. I know I'm in the minority on this and the 3D issue but I just have to vent on some of these issues once in a while. Ya gotta please as many people as possible or you probably won't have a hit.

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!


Finrod
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 7:19am


Views: 14068
     It's more than a bit offensive to equate females with Orli worship


In Reply To
Now, I'm neither female nor an Orlando Bloom fan but I'd still love to see him in The Hobbit.

I’ve been silent about this for years now on this board, and for whatever reason, this kind of “everybody’s like me” mentality is just too unfair and insensitive to let it sneak by. I have to speak up for those who are afraid to speak up for themselves. They deserve it.

It just isn’t right to assume that all females will like the Legolas types but no males will, nor is it it right to assume that all males will like the Eowyn types but no females will. And there are of course some who admire both in that half-lascivious way. That’s how humanity really is: a great mixture.

This 1930s style he-man stuff just isn’t how it works in real life, even if it fit a story-book fantasy (which never existed—but anyway). Pretending it works this way actually hurts people. It marginalizes them and makes them think you think there is something wrong with how they were born, something they can no more change than their skin color.

We accept religious belief as involate and sancrosanct, even though that is entirely a personal choice, unlike sexuality, which is not. It is terrible to reject things that aren’t anybody’s false, like being born tall or blue-eyed or Jewish or black—or gay. It really hurts people, so bad that it actually kills people.

Kills. I’ve seen it. I never want to see it again. Ever.

We’ve lost kids in my community because of this hatred; it is the most tragic thing imaginable, something that should never have happened. See that a few times and even the most hard-hearted soften their tone. It makes you cry. Please don’t do anything to promulgate it, even unintentionally. Perhaps especially uninitentionally.

Sure, I know you don’t mean it, but it really does. And I don't think you mean to hurt anyone.

I remember when we took our church youth group to see The Lord of the Rings, almost all kids who’d not read The Book. One of them was a gay youth who hadn’t wanted to go because of the Tinkerbell stereotype of elves. He was afraid that he’d be made fun of. But I assured him that Tolkien didn't appove of the Disneyfied elves either, and finally got him to come with the group anyway. And of course, he really dug Legolas. It was a positive role model for him, not some gruff Boromir Hagar-the-Horrible stereotype, but a sensitive, perceptive, other-worldly, and yes, hot role model. He’d had no idea elves could be like that, strong and positive, not weak and flighty. The next year he went out for archery, and did pretty well in it. He'd never been in sport before, because of the general jockish opprobrium. It was a very positive experience for him. He grew from it, became a happier and strong personl

I and the rest of my family try hard to raise our kids not to be bigots, and not to make a big deal out of this kind of thing. When one came home and “confessed” to us that one of his best friends was gay, we told him any friend of his was always welcome in our home. Lest there be any doubt, he’s getting married — to a woman — next month.

It just isn’t a big deal to kids of the current generation. And it shouldn’t be. But whenever I see on these boards this unwarranted assumption that heteroseuality is the norm, the acceptable assumption, it makes me sad. I remember the kid I had to work sio hard to come see the movies with us because he was afraid of stereotypes, how surprised and glad he was, and how much it helped him that he overcame that fear of stupid stereotyping.

I just ask that there be a little bit more understanding and sympathy, a little less red-blooded he-man stuff. It really makes those who weren’t born that way feel terrible. These kids have it bad enough. Let’s not through callous disregard make their lives even more miserable. Let things fall where they may, and let positive roll models take hold.

It’s ok if some of the teenage guys are more interested in how cool Legolas is than how dreamy Arwen is. Maybe it’s a passing thing, maybe it will change, and maybe it won’t. But please let’s not judge these kids, nor make it seem that we are doing so because we never consider what it is like from their standpoint.

There are too many teen-age suicides already. They deserve our unconditional love and acceptance; we should charish them for who they are, however they are.

Please think of this next time. Let’s help our kids, not hurt them. We owe them that. Let’s help make a better future for them, and for everyone.

…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.
The Silmarillion, pp 150-151
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 9 2010, 7:23am


Views: 13951
     They would.

This feels to me as a clear Glorfindel/Arwen exchange. Actually I'm quite OK with it.

Or second thought, I don't want it to happen, but I can see why it could happen - Bard is a very undeveloped character in the book who sort of pops out of nowhere really.



The only question is, will he find a shield to surf on during BOFA? Cool



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 9 2010, 7:26am)


Eledhwen
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 8:16am


Views: 13918
     Well ...

while what you say about the faults of lumping everyone into a group is true, it is accurate to say that when the LOTR movies came out we on TORN were pretty much deluged with teenage girls who were your stereotypical Legolas fangirls ("Oooo, Orli is so dreamy!!!"). There were simply more girls who expressed their love of Legolas than guys. I don't think Pete was suggesting there's anything bad about men liking Legolas types - after all, he didn't say "Now, I'm not female so I'm not an Orlando Bloom fan". Statistically girls are more likely to be the ones that like Orlando, but nobody has suggested that they are the only ones. I think you're making quite a lot out of a very small innocuous comment. TORN is a very, very inclusive board. We have people here of all genders and faiths and sexualities who do and have spoken up for themselves when necessary, and I don't think there'd have been any comment if a guy had come on and declared his appreciation of Orlando (or Viggo, or Sean Bean, or Elijah, or anyone). I'd like to think TORN is not a board that would marginalise anyone.

Penguin walking


Junesong
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 8:16am


Views: 13990
     I agree sort of

I know what you mean. I hate the idea that kids grow up feeling like outcasts just because they might be different than the majority of kids around them. Everyone deserves love and acceptance and happiness.

But everyone IS different even while we're all the same and we all see our own view of the world. It is normal for a heterosexual male to think of Orlando Bloom as a guy who girls find attractive because he's only ever thinking of who GIRLS find attractive, because he spends most of his time thinking about girls.

Is it not possible that we're reading a little too much into the post? Are we supposed to cover all our sexual orientation bases every time we talk about people being attractive?

I'm happy enough that TORN's maintenance ensures clean, hate-free boards (rare for the internet) where we can share our love for Tolkien and our anticipation of The Hobbit in peace. No one is trying to exclude anyone.

So I agree with you. But I think it's a mountain of an issue in a mole hill of a post.

"Tim... Canterbury... Canterbury Tales... Chaucer."


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 9 2010, 8:53am


Views: 13992
     Finrod, you are stretching it too far

Pete's post wasn't an unfair claim. Sure you have some points, but for instance, I can safely assure you that more females than males likes the "Twilight" series. This isn't a guess or a generalisation or whatever, it's fact.

Yes, everyone is different, but it's not very farfetched to claim that more females likes Orlando Bloom than males.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Garfeimao
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 9:21am


Views: 13953
     Wrong target

The generalizing and stereotyping wasn't about sexual preference, it was about the Fanboy/Fangirl experience. The younger, exuberant fans that deluged these boards and LiveJournal and other fansites and just raved and raved about whomever their current crush was. Rational discussions often went out the window when any possible criticism was leveled at their current crush. You see it now with Twilight, and in the recent past with Harry Potter and with LOTR and with Lost, and with a lot of fandoms. Maybe it's ageism, rather than sexism, but it is a phenomenon. And in a theater or at a convention or premiere event when any of these actors appear, the decibel level definitely rises. I've seen many a story of how someone's movie going experience was ruined by screaming fangirls, and it's quite possible that some of them were actually screaming fanboys. Heck, at comic con, I've heard a room of men and women squeal in delight at geeky announcements. Hollywood doesn't really care if if it's audience is heterosexual or homosexual or anything inbetween, as long as they cast actors with the widest appeal possible to pull in the largest amount of paying viewers. But the rest of us viewers aren't always happy with some of that audience. I do have a tendency to shy away from sitting near groups of teen girls for this reason.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 9:36am


Views: 13998
     At the risk of sounding like an old fogey

I wish I could invent a tiny device that dampens the sound of screaming, because it bugs the living heck out of me.


In Reply To
in a theater or at a convention or premiere event when any of these actors appear, the decibel level definitely rises.



When did screaming become the de riguer way of showing approval? And is there any way we could return this annoying habit to the hell of overexcitement from which it came?

Now excuse me while I tell some kids to get off my lawn.

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


Bound
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 9:50am


Views: 13902
     Beatlemania...

That's where it seemed to come from. There's something so insane about woman (for the most part) screeming and crying and faiting because some dude is close to them . ... Tongue


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 9:53am


Views: 13905
     I'll bet you're right!

The news clips showing screaming fans at Beatles concerts looked like crowd hysteria.

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


Bran
Neirol

Dec 9 2010, 10:12am


Views: 14016
     Don't let Legolas kill Smaug

I hope that's right. Personally, I think Bloom's Legolas overplayed the character - I particularly didn't like the snowboarding clip (wasn't overly keen on JRD's dwarf tossing nonsense, either, btw).

Show Legolas in the Elven kings halls, let him have some dialogue, no probs with that, but if he has a major stroy altering part, I'll be strongly against it.


Pete
Eerb


Dec 9 2010, 10:28am


Views: 13926
     Wow...

Okay, I can appreciate where you're coming from and I wholeheartedly agree that there are severe problems of discrimination with sexism and homophobia, but seriously what I said wasn't the slightest bit insensitive or hurtful. All I said was that I liked the idea of Orlando having a cameo and that I was neither a female nor an Orlando Bloom fan. I didn't say all females like Orlando Bloom nor did I say all males hate him.

You mentioned that Boromir was a "Hagar-the-Horrible stereotype", well I'm afraid that Legolas as he's portrayed in the movies is an "Eye-candy action hero stereotype". The film makers have said as much in various interviews.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I do truly sympathize with what you're saying but I do defend what I said as a simple statement of fact.

  • I'm not a female.
  • I'm not an Orlando Bloom fan.
  • I'm glad he may appear in these films.

This issue obviously means a great deal to you so I would suggest, Finrod, that you start a dedicated thread expressing your view point. Better then having it muddled up in a casting rumour thread.



macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 9 2010, 10:34am


Views: 13916
     You're right

I think maybe Finrod misread your post.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


NottaSackville
Aessere Lot

Dec 9 2010, 12:38pm


Views: 13826
     You already do - it's called aging....

Not only does our hearing generally get worse, but it's those high pitches that we really lose.

Notta


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 12:59pm


Views: 13832
     Remember the actors only delivered the lines.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Celedor
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 1:00pm


Views: 13832
     Trusting the Elf

I like the idea of Bloom having a juicy part as opposed to a cameo. Apart from the fact that it’s silly to waste a great actor for just a brief appearance. a cameo by Legolas would only serve to be a distraction. It’s better for The Hobbit to tell its own story than to wink at The Lord of the Rings.

-Celedor-
www.jwbraun.com


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 1:06pm


Views: 13768
     Thank you, with all my heart.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 1:12pm


Views: 13787
     Much earlier: I recall newsreels of Bobysoxers screaming and fainting over Sinatra.

It may have always been with us but repressed by stricter social norms.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


StarElf
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 1:19pm


Views: 13894
     A Part of My Soul Just Threw Up in Its Mouth

My friends, this is no longer about making two movies---it's about making one long cast reunion and calling it 'art'. :(

Was the world being born what called me...?
At the bottom of the deep sea, I could hear a voice.



Daisy Gold
Erihs Eht

Dec 9 2010, 1:23pm


Views: 13834
     is it really true?

I am reluctant to believe this news in case it turns out to be just another rumour. Can we trust this source?
It would be fine to have Legolas pop up somewhere in the film if it does not take away from the Hobbit story. However I would not like the 'fair ground antics' that we saw in LOTR, ie slides down steps on a shield. Nor would I like to see him take on the role that is either meant for Bard or Thranduil. Chatting with his papa or picnicing in the woods is ok.EvilWink


Patty
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 1:26pm


Views: 13866
     Well...

the announced returning cast members are, for me, characters that did exist in Middle-earth at the time of The Hobbit, and are logical to be in the places covered in what we understand the story outline to be. I'm very happy with the prospect. But if they try to return Pippin, Merry, Sam or Frodo, much as I loved them in LotR, all bets are off.

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 1:39pm


Views: 13846
     I agree...

... while "book purists" may ask why Legolas needs to be in the movie when he isn't in the book, as a "movie purist" (and I don't really know what that term means, I'm just throwing it out there!) I'd say it makes sense to have Legolas in the movies simply because it's logical to do so.

Besides, I don't really know what the term "book purist" means. The book will be THE book, and no other interpretation of the story will/can ever replace it, so as long as nothing the filmmakers add into or remove from these films *contradict* the story of The Hobbit, I'm cool Cool



Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 1:40pm


Views: 13828
     Perhaps the post was just a catalyst.

That is how I took it. These things Finrod wrote have been around in him a while. My having a son who is straight, whos best friend is a transitioning transsexual, who marches in the Gay Pride parade each year and of whom I am very proud, has warped my perspective. I am glad he spoke out.

Now as to Legolas' role in the Hobbit: Leggy would have been there in the Forest Kingdom when the Dwarves & Bilbo passed through so I do not see it as a stretch that he would appear. (Aragorn was 10 years old at Rivendell & did not know his own name,) Now once you put Legolas into the movie it is far too tempting to pump up his role. (Returning star power, maybe the beginnings of his change of heart toward dwarves, maybe a bit of romance with a young female elf who is a bit of a tomboy and realy good with a sword (you get the picture). But then you can't just drop Legolas out of the picture. He has to become involved in later events. If the book story line is followed, the Elf host does not reach Lake Town untill the dragon is dead. This would be good. Bard will have been established as will the politics of Lake Town: the dragon will have been done in by Bard and the Elves will arive with help and Gandalf will show up fresh from Dol Gulder. Legolas will either lead the Elf Host or be acting as his father's captain. This will put the shieldboarding Hefalump killer on the battlefield at the Battle of Five Armies.
Besides Gandalf seemed to know Legolas when he showed up for the Council of Elrond in Fellowship of the Ring.

Now all of this is conjecture and none of it might happen.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


acheron
Rodnog


Dec 9 2010, 2:11pm


Views: 13768
     aaack

I was just thinking how I didn't mind this at all, even though I've been adamant about wanting "The Hobbit" and not "Lord of the Rings: Episode 1". But now you've scared me. Shocked

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 9 2010, 2:11pm


Views: 13877
     Excellent Earl, may I borrow the term "movie-purist" for later?

Cool



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


acheron
Rodnog


Dec 9 2010, 2:15pm


Views: 13786
     Really don't mind this

(at least I didn't until I read Kangi Ska's speculation re: no Bard...)

This has been pretty much expected ever since the LOTR movies came out and we began to wonder about a Hobbit film. I would have been a bit surprised if they didn't do this. And it's not completely out of left field, like the Drogo Baggins thing.

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 2:40pm


Views: 13742
     Yes of course...

... I don't claim to be the one who invented the term. Though it's rare I probably picked it up from its being bandied about here Smile



Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 2:47pm


Views: 13754
     My multiple personality disorder

allows me to be both a book purist and a movie purist, to love and scorn both with equal passion. But I never tell any of the others.Evil

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


DiveTwin
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 2:47pm


Views: 13772
     Nicely Put


In Reply To
... while "book purists" may ask why Legolas needs to be in the movie when he isn't in the book, as a "movie purist" (and I don't really know what that term means, I'm just throwing it out there!) I'd say it makes sense to have Legolas in the movies simply because it's logical to do so.

Besides, I don't really know what the term "book purist" means. The book will be THE book, and no other interpretation of the story will/can ever replace it, so as long as nothing the filmmakers add into or remove from these films *contradict* the story of The Hobbit, I'm cool Cool



That pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I only hope they do not change the basic story (such as Legolas shooting down Smaug instead of Bard, as some have suggested might happen). But simply adding someone like Legolas is certainly plausible and does not mean the story has to be altered. I admit I like the idea - but would not have cared either way in the end. As Patty says, I would not want Merry, Pippen, Frodo or Sam ... or Aragorn for that matter ... in this story, much as I love their characters. There is no plausible way to include them, unless they decide on some "flash-forward" view of the future or the movie is told as a story from that future point in time.

Anyway, I am kind of excited to have Legolas back, just as I am happy to have them flesh out the events at Dol Guldur, the White Council, etc. which brings back Galadriel, introduces Radagast and of course includes Gandalf and Saruman (hopefully with Christopher Lee).

"Do not come between the Nazgul and his prey"


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 3:08pm


Views: 13835
     Flash forwards...

... based on what I've seen in LOTR, I'm quite confident in PJ's ability to use flash forwards to good effect to round out the tale he's telling. If at the outset of LOTR (meaning 1999 or so) you'd told me that they were going to cut the scouring of the Shire but show a scene of Aragorn's death and a scene with Eldarion somewhere in the films, I'd probably raise an eyebrow. As it turns out, I can't imagine the movies without those flash forward scenes Evil

For these films as well I trust that if PJ includes characters beyond the time-frame of The Hobbit, he'll do so for a good *reason* and not just for the sake of a *reunion*.

I'm with you on the Aragorn thing. Much as I'd love to see him again, I'd hate to see him thrown in with some warped time-frame supporting his inclusion, and with no convincing reason other than to have him back for a cameo.

The same goes for any other LOTR character. But if PJ's wizardly mind has conjured up some poignant flash forward that demands an LOTR character's return, I'm not complaining Wink

ETA: Oh I'm keeping my hopes up for Christopher Lee as well!



(This post was edited by Earl on Dec 9 2010, 3:11pm)


deej
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 3:15pm


Views: 13865
     I'm a little concerned to read that this might be a bigger role than just a cameo.

I am totally fine with Legolas showing up briefly in Mirkwood, and/or The Battle of the Five Armies; although Tolkien didn't write him in it's still plausable that he'd be there. However, i'm not sure what I think about him having a larger role.* I suppose I will save judgement until I know exactly what he'll be doing.


*This coming from a unabashed Orlando fangirl!


(This post was edited by deej on Dec 9 2010, 3:16pm)


deej
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 3:26pm


Views: 13786
     It is annoying.

I was sitting outside a panel for the 'Twilight' kids during San Diego Comic Con one year, and the screaming didn't stop the hour they were in there. I felt really bad for the actors, not to mention anyone else in that room that wanted to hear the discussion.

That's not to say I wasn't a bit wobbly in the knee meeting Mr. Bloom, however I internalized my squees. No one should be subjected to that! Wink


Patty
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 3:44pm


Views: 13778
     You know Earl,


In Reply To
... based on what I've seen in LOTR, I'm quite confident in PJ's ability to use flash forwards to good effect to round out the tale he's telling. If at the outset of LOTR (meaning 1999 or so) you'd told me that they were going to cut the scouring of the Shire but show a scene of Aragorn's death and a scene with Eldarion somewhere in the films, I'd probably raise an eyebrow. As it turns out, I can't imagine the movies without those flash forward scenes Evil

For these films as well I trust that if PJ includes characters beyond the time-frame of The Hobbit, he'll do so for a good *reason* and not just for the sake of a *reunion*.

I'm with you on the Aragorn thing. Much as I'd love to see him again, I'd hate to see him thrown in with some warped time-frame supporting his inclusion, and with no convincing reason other than to have him back for a cameo.


You make a very good point here.

Permanent address: Into the West

Must. Have. The Precious! Give us the LotR EE Blu-ray Ultimate Box Set!



dormouse
Nevle-flah

Dec 9 2010, 4:12pm


Views: 13795
     Good point....

I love those flash forward scenes and I think they were very skillfully woven into the story.

Have to say I really like the idea of Legolas appearing because it is logical for him to be in Mirkwood - and rather strange if he were not. And as they will have to sign Orlando Bloom on and pay him, if this turns out to be true, it makes absolute sense to give him more than a walk-on part. Given the general lack of definition of the Mirkwood elves in the book there are plenty of ways they can use him without contradicting the book in any way.

But replacing Bard? No, I suspect that was Kangi being mischievous. I'm sure Bard will be there with his bow and his little friend the thrush, passing on the news he heard from Bilbo. That's such a memorable scene - and Bard goes on from there to lead the human contingent in the battle - there's no way Legolas could do that.

I share your feelings about Aragorn - and hopes for Christopher Lee.


Magpie
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 4:23pm


Views: 13751
     lol

I got a bit wobbly in the knee seeing a picture of you meeting Mr. Bloom. :-)


LOTR soundtrack website ~ June 2010 : ROTK Lyrics Update!
magpie avatar gallery ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 5:20pm


Views: 13744
     Yes!

I'm delighted by this news. This really shouldn't be a cause for worry – Legolas will fit perfectly into the story. It's possible, or even probable that he was at the halls of the Elvenking and the Battle of Five Armies; if Tolkien had planned out LotR before writing The Hobbit, I suspect he would have included Legolas himself. It would be very strange if the filmmakers left him out – it would border on a continuity error. He's supposed to be the son of Thranduil, and how are audiences meant to make that connection if they never appear together or reference each other?

I'm even more excited about the Ian McKellen/Andy Serkis/Hugo Weaving news. If the filmmakers want them, they will get them – with a $500 million budget, they can afford all the perks they require. I always knew that McKellen and Serkis would be returning, as they've both spoken about their willingness recently, but we've heard no news regarding Weaving until now – I'm over the moon now that we know we'll be getting our Elrond back, especially in light of the White Council sequences! Elrond in action! Smile


Empedocles
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 5:24pm


Views: 13737
     Wouldn't it be cool...

...to have Legolas shooting at Smaug and missing, and then have Bard actually making the killing shot?? Weird. I know, but for some reason, I wouldn't mind that, as long is Bard the one killing the dragon.

Regarding Bard's role, I wouldn't worry too much about him being deleted from the movies, because if he is cut from the film, then most of the final verbal confrontation between Elves, Men and Dwarves wouldn't make sense.

I'm really happy that Orlando Bloom is on board, it certainly wouldn't make sense to visit Mirkwood and not see the son of the king at all. As long as they don't over-amplify his role, I'm actually excited that he will be in the movies. Oh, and please, no love stories either.

Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 5:27pm


Views: 13855
     The term 'cameo'

is highly subjective. For example, I have heard people refer to Michael Keaton's appearance in Beetlejuice as a 'glorified cameo', whereas I would consider him to be the film's main star.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 5:44pm


Views: 13717
     A bit of a back-handed benefit really, isn't it? :D /

 

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


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 5:56pm


Views: 13684
     The thrush?

I'm not at all certain that the thrush will survive into the final film. It must be so tempting for the filmmakers to just merge him with Roäc the raven.


Garfeimao
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 6:02pm


Views: 13794
     Does this icon make me look like a fangirl???? (nt)

 

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Captain Salt
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 6:03pm


Views: 13713
     Nope, the Elf-Lord was from Rivendell...

And they don't post descriptions of characters who already have actors attached.

If he ends up being in the films, my money's on Elladan/Elrohir or Glorfindel.

Or Figwit, in which case this board would go berserk! ShockedShocked

Samuel L. Jackson for Bilbo, Woody Allen for Thorin, Lewis Black for Bard and Gilbert Gottfried for Smaug!

MAKE IT HAPPEN, PETER!!!


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 6:05pm


Views: 13719
     It certainly

makes you the envy of a *lot* of fans!! Where was the pic taken?

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


SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 6:10pm


Views: 13720
     Not at all, in fact Orly appears to be more into you than vice versa ;) NFT

 


Garfeimao
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 6:19pm


Views: 13724
     Premiere party for Fellowship in Hollywood

Before Orli stopped dressing himself in picnic blankets.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Bran
Neirol

Dec 9 2010, 6:33pm


Views: 13795
     Actors only delivering lines.

Largely true, although it's revealed in the EE DVD appendices that some scenes/lines were added in in response to the preformers performances, and the fans reaction.

I've nothing against either JRD nor Bloom, just a bit more of a purist than some, I guess.


Elentari03
Llednevir

Dec 9 2010, 6:41pm


Views: 13644
     I agree

Legolas is a much more logical inclusion, story-wise, than Drogo Baggins. It would be odd without Legolas in Mirkwood, and probably at the BOFA. I am still not sure Drogo is necessary.


DiveTwin
NahoR


Dec 9 2010, 6:42pm


Views: 13696
     Again, Nicely Put


In Reply To
... based on what I've seen in LOTR, I'm quite confident in PJ's ability to use flash forwards to good effect to round out the tale he's telling. If at the outset of LOTR (meaning 1999 or so) you'd told me that they were going to cut the scouring of the Shire but show a scene of Aragorn's death and a scene with Eldarion somewhere in the films, I'd probably raise an eyebrow. As it turns out, I can't imagine the movies without those flash forward scenes Evil

For these films as well I trust that if PJ includes characters beyond the time-frame of The Hobbit, he'll do so for a good *reason* and not just for the sake of a *reunion*.

I'm with you on the Aragorn thing. Much as I'd love to see him again, I'd hate to see him thrown in with some warped time-frame supporting his inclusion, and with no convincing reason other than to have him back for a cameo.

The same goes for any other LOTR character. But if PJ's wizardly mind has conjured up some poignant flash forward that demands an LOTR character's return, I'm not complaining Wink

ETA: Oh I'm keeping my hopes up for Christopher Lee as well!



Very well done, sir. I agree with you on the flash forwards. I could accept that - heck, I'd love if there is a LEGITIMATE way to see them again without changing the story of The Hobbit. We'll see what they come up with.

Man, filming starts in TWO MONTHS! Awesome....

"Do not come between the Nazgul and his prey"

(This post was edited by DiveTwin on Dec 9 2010, 6:43pm)


xy
NahoR

Dec 9 2010, 6:43pm


Views: 13752
     Pass. No LOTR reunions please.

While Drogo Baggins is a surprise casting. it'd make sense in order to establish Bilbo as a character.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 6:57pm


Views: 13607
     Heh - certainly makes him hard to miss. :D /

 

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


Otaku-sempai
Latrommi

Dec 9 2010, 6:59pm


Views: 13676
     I'm okay with Legolas

As long as Legolas is logically integrated into the story, I'm fine with Orlando Bloom returning. I can even see a couple of ways to give Arwen a cameo (or even a larger role); Elrond's her father and Galadriel is kin. A cameo for Gimli would be a bit of a stretch and I would prefer that Jackson avoids trying to squeeze him in. However, as much as I like Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, there is no way that he should be allowed to reprise the part. Aragorn would be much younger (still a child in Tolkien's timeline). Even if he appears as a young adult, the role should be recast.


SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 7:07pm


Views: 13823
     Hmmm


In Reply To
It just isn’t a big deal to kids of the current generation. And it shouldn’t be. But whenever I see on these boards this unwarranted assumption that heteroseuality is the norm, the acceptable assumption, it makes me sad.
...
I just ask that there be a little bit more understanding and sympathy, a little less red-blooded he-man stuff.
...
It’s ok if some of the teenage guys are more interested in how cool Legolas is than how dreamy Arwen is. Maybe it’s a passing thing, maybe it will change, and maybe it won’t. But please let’s not judge these kids, nor make it seem that we are doing so because we never consider what it is like from their standpoint.


I kind of get what triggered your response... it stems from the sense that a guy feels he must qualify his admiration for male characters or actors lest he be labelled a certain way? It didn't appear to me that this is what happened. I think Pete was saying he agrees in principle with expanding TH to include LOTR characters where opportunity exists and not simply because he is a fan of LOTR or any actor in particular.

However, perhaps inadvertently (most likely), you imply that for a male to "really [dig] Legolas" he is most likely gay. But this is not true, not even close. For instance I have developed what can be described best as mad crushes towards certain male characters (and the actors who play them) over the years. Something like intense admiration and even a desire to be like them. But this is evidence of the lack of inspiring male role models in RL, not of sexual preference; I too lament a world where attraction and fondness are almost always equated with sexual desire.

Regardless, I express my fondness for certain actors around here at TORn on a regular basis. There was only one person, one time, who appeared to be uncomfortable or confused by this behaviour. She stopped posting some time ago.



Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 7:12pm


Views: 13707
     As long as they are making things up that don't happen in the book

how about Cameo having a cameo? Instead of "Word up" he can sing "Bard up" just before Bard looses his arrow.

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!
Attachments: cameo20.jpg (35.7 KB)


Jettorex
Neirol


Dec 9 2010, 7:16pm


Views: 13791
     uh-oh

this is starting to look more and more like LOTR prequel, then The Hobbit.


- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."





Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 7:23pm


Views: 13765
     That's because it's both. //

 


Darkstone
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 7:25pm


Views: 13722
     Well

I'm not a female and I like Miranda Otto.

Wifey is a female and she likes Orlando Bloom.

I guess we'll both join you over here on the Group W bench.

******************************************
Not all who wander are lost.

(But that's the way to bet.)


Magpie
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 7:34pm


Views: 13739
     SQUEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wink


LOTR soundtrack website ~ June 2010 : ROTK Lyrics Update!
magpie avatar gallery ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Darkstone
Latrommi


Dec 9 2010, 7:34pm


Views: 13741
     Well

That is how I took it. These things Finrod wrote have been around in him a while. My having a son who is straight, whos best friend is a transitioning transsexual, who marches in the Gay Pride parade each year and of whom I am very proud, has warped my perspective. I am glad he spoke out.

If Finrod had said all that in a stand-alone post I'd agree 100%.

But I really don't think Pete deserved that response.

******************************************
Not all who wander are lost.

(But that's the way to bet.)


LoremIpsum
Neirol


Dec 9 2010, 7:37pm


Views: 13798
     Legolas won't kill Smaug

Because we all know Bilbo will Tongue


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 7:45pm


Views: 13757
     Why is that?


Quote
But whenever I see on these boards this unwarranted assumption that heteroseuality is the norm, the acceptable assumption, it makes me sad.

From a purely statistical standpoint, the vast majority of people in the world are heterosexual – doesn't this make heterosexuality the 'norm'? All minority groups fall outside the 'norm' umbrella, but this doesn't mean that they are inferior in any way, or that being different from the 'norm' is something to be ashamed of.

It seems to me that you are assuming that homosexuals will be offended whenever someone fails to acknowledge their sexuality in any context. Would gay men really be offended if I said 'Girls find Orlando Bloom attractive' rather than 'Girls and gay men find Orlando Bloom attractive'? Is it really necessary to specifically acknowledge each and every minority in every single general statement we make so as to avoid giving offence to someone?


meltsar
Erihs Eht

Dec 9 2010, 8:53pm


Views: 13733
     makes the most sense to have him in the story!!

I'm glad that Legolas will be there, mostly because it would be odd if he 'weren't'. Although Tolkien hadn't yet invented the character at the time of writing The Hobbit~ the fact that Legolas is the prince of the Mirkwood realm~ well, they'd have to explain why he 'wasn't' there! Plus, we'd have to assume that he was some sort of draft dodger if he didn't show up for the Bo5A!! Also, it will be fun...


Rodu
Llednevir

Dec 9 2010, 9:00pm


Views: 13699
     they were'nt expecting a fight

But no one knew there was going to be a Bo5A, from what I remember, the elves and Esgorath survivors were surprised to find Thorin and company alive, and then later surprised to have Dain and his army show up, and all were surprised to see the host of Gundabad show up


Lindele
Rodnog

Dec 9 2010, 9:02pm


Views: 13752
     What you don't appear to understand

is that a movie is very different from a book...format, structure, the way it tells a story. Instead of the viewer imagining, the filmmaker has to place things for him/her to look at on the screen. The imaginative part somewhat dissipates.
In other words, to make a cohesive film there will have to be characters added to fill in the gaps. Characters who in the book were just in the background of our imagination will have to be placed on the screen as real people with names. That is just how it works. Luckily for you and me, the filmmakers understand this.
Therefore, it is completely logical, and I'm sure Tolkien himself would approve of the idea, that Legolas would be there, in Mirkwood, playing a significant part. He was after all the King's son.
This in no way cheapens the story, nor necessitates the idea that the filmmakers are trying to create a "reunion."
If Legolas is in TH, it is because he belongs there.


Tseluyu
Resu Deretsiger

Dec 9 2010, 9:08pm


Views: 13667
     Unnecessary character is unnecessary

A bit of small rant here, but I need to get this off my chest.
Anyways, I agree about leaving out Itaril as well. Though she isn't technically confirmed, it's still a very persistent rumor...

Honestly though, it's not so much the character herself, but the love story idea that they seem determined to stick in there.
I read the casting call and it just seemed like something out a very bad mary-sue fanfic. And now that Orlando Bloom has been announced,
it seems very likely that it'll be Legolas that she "falls in love" with. (And if it's an elf-lord from Rivendell, whether it be Elladan/Elrohir, Glorfindel, etc. That...really doesn't make it any better.)

I hope to God they aren't trying to appeal to the "Twilight crowd" with this side romance. -vomits blood-


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 9 2010, 9:15pm


Views: 13677
     Not Yecch - Yrch!

"'Yrch' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue"
(FotR; The Great River)

Nasty, that. Falling into one's own tongue.. yecch!


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 9 2010, 9:17pm


Views: 13656
     No, LOTR is in fact the sequel to The Hobbit //

 



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


squire
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 9:20pm


Views: 13678
     Thank you

You made a point I wanted to make, better than I could have. Not every straight male is into "red-blooded Hagar the Horrible" stereotypes when it comes to gendered self-identification.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Captain Salt
Aessere Lot


Dec 9 2010, 9:24pm


Views: 13724
     Well, Boromir of the films was more

"Hagar-the-morally-mailable-but-ultimately-honorable-and-courageous-yet-dead". Tongue

Samuel L. Jackson for Bilbo, Woody Allen for Thorin, Lewis Black for Bard and Gilbert Gottfried for Smaug!

MAKE IT HAPPEN, PETER!!!


Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 9:57pm


Views: 13661
     Oh I understand

Let's avatarize it-3D. Let's Harry potterize it-2 films. Let's twilightize it- romance novel in a fantasy setting

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 10:27pm


Views: 13686
     Right!//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 10:32pm


Views: 13593
     I agree that pete was innocent

and did not deserve the response. But it pays to try to understand what is happening and cut some slack.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 10:38pm


Views: 13659
     A truly good response to an unexpected situation.

In this day and age matters of gender identification have become very complex but those issues would best be dealt with on another thread.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 9 2010, 10:46pm


Views: 13595
     That line

always seems like something out of BotR! Laugh

It will indeed be interesting to see how Orli Leggy is handled, uh, I mean, used in the plot...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 10:49pm


Views: 13632
     I like to think that historically Gender Idenity has always broken out into a normal bell curve.

This could be construed to mean that everyone is "normal".

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 10:55pm


Views: 13570
     If Figwit is in

They have to do the Concords Frodo Don't Wear That Ring number, but they can rewrite it for Bilbo.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 11:08pm


Views: 13666
     How about The Hobbit "PRESEQEL" of lord of the Rings?

I think that says it all. Or maybe it should be seprequel.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 9 2010, 11:11pm


Views: 13631
     That often happens when you go to a party

"they weren't expecting a fight"

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Mooseboy018
SnevaH Yerg


Dec 9 2010, 11:17pm


Views: 13622
     IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

You're right! First Cate Blanchett and now Orlando Bloom?!

Who's next? Ian McKellen? Andy Serkis? Hugo Weaving? Maybe even Marton Csokas!

This movie is going to be TERRIBLE!


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Dec 9 2010, 11:19pm)


adnan
Llednevir


Dec 9 2010, 11:43pm


Views: 13559
     Great point.

It's something so many book fans overlook, yet it's perfectky logical.

Rivendell


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 12:58am


Views: 13834
     My two cents

I'm afraid, for the moment, it feels like "Arwen will replace Glorfindel", or even "Arwen will fight at Helm's Deep" time again - egregious changes appear to be afoot that have nothing to do with the Hobbit at all. I'd like to address some of the arguments that are croping up in defense of these needless flights of fancy, because 1. I think they are misguided, and 2. They have not been addressed fully yet.

1. The Hobbit films are just that: films. They are a different medium to the books and should therefore be treated differently (OK, I'm kind of with you so far). Ergo, characters like Legolas can be transplanted full scale into the movie to add coherence, or allow for the audience to better engage with the films, or something vague like that. This is related to the second argument which says that:

2. The Hobbit films form a part of the continuum with the already produced LOTR films. Audiences will be expecting some kind of visual/spatial/character continuity. Ergo, characters like Legolas and Galadriel who are not mentioned in the book should be included in the films to aid this sense of continuity with audiences who have only ever seen the films.

These seem to be the main arguments in favour of treating the Hobbit films like an excuse to revel in gimmicky play, so allow me to address them both. To begin with, I can't believe I'm hearing the first argument again. It was (and is) used to somehow condone the "character shifts" and other silly "shifts" indulged in by the LOTR crew. Needless to say, it has well and truly been discredited, if you go read boards like Minas Tirith forums, and the great defenders of the book who artuculately take down the "philes'" arguments. There is simply no good reason to think that because films and books are different, you much make egregious and out-of-context changes that serve to distort the plot and the message. Take, as one salient example, the "radioactive Galadriel scene in the book". Archer commented on this in the Minas Tirith forums:

"The "radioactive Galadriel" scene (as it was put so well by another MT citizen ) is one of the scenes where a film elf departs most markedly from the mirthful elves of the books. This terrifying banshee scene really destroys the beautiful-interwoven with-the-terrible image that Galadriel conveys in the books. I always envision her like a terrifying but strikingly awesome thunderstorm. What the film turns her into is just terrifying, more Green Goblin than Goldenwood elf. And the film fails (doesn't even try really) to convey that very haunting "mirthful yet sad" quality that the elves of Lorien possess. Even though there is a deep sadness in them, they retain the ability to laugh. Galadriel often does so, even when she is tempted beyond all desire.

'You are wise and fearless and fair, Lady Galadriel,' said Frodo. 'I will give you the One Ring, if you ask for it. It is too great a matter for me.'
Galadriel laughed with a sudden clear laugh [emphasis mine]. 'Wise the lady Galadriel may be,' she said, 'yet here she has met her match her match in courtesy.
""


It is this kind of attention to detail that lacks in the films, regardless of all the embosed emblems that-we-can't-see-on-screen in the world. There is no reason, however, for it not being included - instead we are left with two dimensional elves who possess little of the ethereal quality found in Tolkien's book. Often, when I go back to read the book, I have to disabuse myself of the images and associations the film conjures for me in order to emerse myself back into Middle-earth as it was originally written. Granted, this is not a particularly inspiring example, but there are myriad others, from the changing of characters' sensibilities, to the central metaphysical/ideological ideas that give the ring its metaphorical power. In short, characters, landscapes, the plot, every element of the book is shifted in some way that detracts from its original grandeur, power, or scope. There are rarely good excuses for these changes, and the general "but its a film, it can't be the same" is certainly disqualified as a good excuse. No-one, I repeat, no-one, has ever argued that you either have PJ's version OR a kind of ultra-purist word-for-word redaction (OMG, that would be sooo long, they say). If you think that's what I want, you would be wrong and stupid. But PJ's version is no where near optimal. It distorts, shifts, and changes egregiously, without basis, without reason. Legolas appearing in the Hobbit is just the latest example of that team's mad envisionings, which brings us to the second argument.

But the Hobbit is a prequel, whether you like it or not! People with think of it that way! It has to have some characters in it from LOTR otherwise people will...what? Go mad? collapse in their seats? Have a seizure? If you haven't noticed, Bilbo and Gandalf, two central characters in the LOTR, also appear in the Hobbit, as does Elrond, and Gollum. No one with half a brain will be in any doubt about the universe we're in, we're just in a more fairy tale like, less historical version of it, which brings me to my next point. Legolas would have been AT Mirkwook at the time, surely! OMG, he should be there, its LOGICAL! Well, no, and for one simple reason. Middle-earth is not real history, it is a fantasy land fleshed out in some books. These books are discrete and each stands alone, despite the "historical" connections that link them. Others have pointed out that Tolkien tried revising to the Hobbit to make it more like LOTR. Essentially what this means is that he tried to historicise the work, to "make it fit" into the scheme of history he had developed for LOTR. Thankfully, he gave up, and saw the wisdom of allowing the Hobbit to stand on its own literary merits. The filmmakers should take a leaf from Tolkien's book and learn from some of his mistakes: The moment you try to historicise something that is fundementally amourphous in terms of time and space, which the Hobbit is (it is interesting that many natural features are merely named generically: The Water, The River Running etc, pointing toward a world-view that is fundementally more fairy-tale like, less historically/politically bounded than the world in the Lord of the Rings) you lose a great deal of its poignancy, its power to move.

LOTR works for other reasons, and readers have often noted its creation of a sense of historical verissimilitude. The Hobbit is a different beast - it features talking animals (which, by God, should be included) Beorn, a shape shifter, talking eagles, mysterious and not-all-together friendly elves, Men from myth, and for god's sake, a Talking Dragon. These are all elements of fairy tale. Its geography is never centred or bounded, instead, we are to imagine "Wilderland" as a part of some ill defined greater landscape of which we, and the characters, have no knowledge (I know, I know, in LOTR we see it in its "true" context - as a part of Middle-earth. Well yes, okay, it is, but as readers of the Hobbit, we're no quite sure about that. Naturally, many film goers will have already seen the LOTR films, but that is no good reason to mention "Gondor" or "Rohan" egregiously - we should feel like we in some myseterious, far more faery like place). It is the tension between the fairy-tale and the historical sensibilities that seem to me to motivate many of the responses on this board. Many wish to include it as a kind of series linking to LOTR, and therefore make it a kind of historical romance. Others argue for its different, more fairy like atmosphere. This brings us to the crux of the issue: Should the Hobbit be treated as a prequel, or as a stand alone work? Firstly, I think we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that audiences will be in any doubt about the world wherein the film takes place, something I've addressed above. Secondly, it is necessary to change our mindset. There is no cosmic law that dictates we include characters in the Hobbit merely because they occur in the historical timeline in the Appendices. Once again, we return to the notion of the Historical vs. the Literary. The Hobbit is a novel in its own right, there is no a priori reason to historicise it. It should be adapted as a literary, not as a historical, piece of fiction. Rest assured, audiences will not balk at talking animals, or feel drousy at the absense of Galadriel. Galadriel, and Legolas, and Saruman - these characters should not be in the Hobbit at all, because they do not occur in the literary work that is the Hobbit which the filmmakers say they are adapting for screen. Notice I am not arguing that they should make no changes. Don't make that silly argument. I'm merely advocating adherence to the text insofar as is possible given the differences between film and novel, differences that are widely known, obvious and unsurprising even to the most ardent purist, of which I am one.

Alas, it is not to be. We shall not see the Hobbit. Instead, we shall see The Hobbit: and Gandalf's Adventures with Galadriel, and Legolas Falls In Love. But that's okay, because a film these days must have a romance, you say. Why? Plenty of films don't. Plenty of those films work. The success of a film does not depend, or should not depend, on its adherence to certain codes or models; it depends on the skill of the filmmakers. The Hobbit can work on film. There is absolutely no good reason why it should not, in the general form the story takes in the book. But what about Gandalf's adventures!!! Surely we need to SEE them, you say, to keep the audience interested!!. No, why not just do what the book does: keep the focus on Bilbo, and keep Gandalf in the background. This is not his story. It's not called "The Wizard", but perhaps the films should be. The vague little mention of Gandalf taking out someone called "the Necromancer" at the end of the book should also suffice in the film. Once again, why assume that audiences will keel over in dismay if we don't know, down to the precise detail, what Gandalf is doing? Sure, it might build some suspence, but once again - the FOCUS should always be on Bilbo as it is in the novel. If the film is made well, audiences shouldn't be too concerned about what Gandalf has been up to. Like readers of the book, they will be curious, but like readers of the book they will also see that Bilbo's adventure is far more central and forms the moral heart of the tale. That curiosity can be sated at the end with a few words, not a whole pointless subplot, the details of which are pretty fuzzy even in Tolkien's writings. Perhaps they will do it well. Perhaps. Even if they do, it still constitutes nothing more than fan fiction, and a dangerous fan fiction at that. Sure, the films may inspire more readers to take up Tolkien, but when they do they shall be confused, and once again the yawning and ever widening gap between the films and the books will rear its ugly head.


TheGoblinKing
NahoR

Dec 10 2010, 1:11am


Views: 13797
     They Left It Open In Fellowship.

When Gandalf says to Frodo. If your refer to the incident with The Dragon. I was Barely Involved. That told me if a Hobbit was made that we see Gandalf being fully involved for Gandalf never states full truths when it comes to wizard matters. Him saying wasn't much involved in Gandalf terms means was involved.


gilgalad80
Erihs Eht

Dec 10 2010, 1:27am


Views: 13857
     Don't get carried away people..

Let's see the movie first before we make all kinds of assumptions as to how they may or may not change the story..
I'm sure the focus won't be on Legolas.. OR Galadriel.. These are accompanying characters who make perfect sense being included in the locations and events taking place in story. I'm confident they'll stick pretty close to the original story maybe only with minor changes for the sake of the medium of film.
Personally I think they captured the mirthful yet powerful quality of Galadriel very well in the films.. the "Galadriel temptation" scene included.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 1:33am


Views: 13775
     To clear things up

Might you then elaborate on why you think the Galadriel scene captured the "mirthfull" quality of the elves? For I do not see it. Anyway, I was not arguing that either Legolas or Galadriel would be the focus; if you read my post I'm clearly talking about their mere presense in the film, regardless of the role they play. As for my getting carried away, well it is definite that Legolas is in the film, therefore regardless of the role he plays my argument has merit. Notice I'm making a focused argument about particular points, I'm not merely speculating, so what I'm hoping is that people read my post carefully and don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm fully aware the film hasn't been released yet, but already Cate Blanchette and Orlando Bloom have been revealed as cast members. As such, their characters will be present in the film. Moreover, we can be near certain that the textually vague "Dol Guldur", "Galadriel laid bare its pits" (ok, that does sound cool) storyline will be included. My argument follows from taking these things to be true, and then mountain a critique of their inclusion.


(This post was edited by tumhalad on Dec 10 2010, 1:38am)


JWPlatt
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 1:35am


Views: 13796
     Four Cents Worth

Two cents? Heh.

1. The James Cameron Law of Filmmaking demands the inclusion of romance to gather a marketable audience and successful film (two different concepts, but they work together) to create favorable conditions to get the film made at all. Cameron has been relentless is proving it, and other filmmakers notice, or ignore it at their peril.

2. Most fans (the norm) *want* to see what went on with Gandalf. We like him. And we like Galadriel. A lot. We even like Legolas. They *want* to be found.

3. Camelot. How many books are faithful to the original story? Some might say there really is no "original" story of Camelot and authors just take the loose framework of myth and make it their own. Well, someone was the first person to inspire that story. Come back in as many years as we've put between the origins of the Camelot story and now to see what has been done with Middle Earth and you're not likely to recgnize it so well. "So it begins," as they say. It's the dynamic nature of storytelling to evolve the story to your contemporary audience. I think Tolkien even said he had hopes for something like that.

4. The self-consistent telling of the story of Middle Earth (in our times) leaves open the possibility for even more movies from all the other Tolkien writings. Some day.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Dec 10 2010, 1:37am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 1:55am


Views: 13731
     A response

W1. James Cameron? Well, I'm not familiar with his "Law" but it seems rather fatuous to me. If the Hobbit were to be executed well, there are a great plethora of events, incident, character and plot that do not involve romance that would nonetheless draw a marketable audience. I see no reason whatsoever to think otherwise - and if you want to argue this don't just cite some questionable authority figures, field some kind of case.

2. Ah yes, the old "what fans want" argument. On face value, it's difficult to refute. Nonetheless, I see no reason to suppose that merely because people *like* these characters, they should be included. People like Glorfindel, and Feanor, and a host of other Middle-earth characters. Should we include them too. Ah, you say, but Galadriel et al. are familiar from the LOTR films. Well, just re-read my post above. The Hobbit should be treated as a literary creation, and the fact of some characters' 'presence' in the Appendix timeline does not warrant their inclusion in the Hobbits. Most viewers, the (norm) as you say, will be aware of the land we're in, what with Gandalf, Elrond and Gollum. If PJ et al. were to make a great film based on Bilbo's adventures, there should be no reason to include these extraneous characters. The story and its characters should stand on their own merits.

3. Another old argument. Two words: False analogy. The Arthur myths do not possess some kind of acknowledged authoritative "version" written down by one author. LOTR and the Hobbit are essentially romantic novels, and they are, and should be, considered *the* versions of the story. You never hear people argue that Jane Austin's books are akin to the Matter of Britain (i.e. the Arthur cycle); they are discrete works of fiction that should be recognised as such. Another way to put it: you are confusing medieval and modern fiction. Tolkien, for all the swords and sandals (or breeches) wrote modern fiction, he is the acknowledged author, it is his story, his creation, and the filmmakers are adapting a film from the book he wrote. Once again, they are not adapting a folk legend, they are adapting a literary work of fiction. There is every reason to think they therefore have an obligation to this work and that they should acknowledge its primacy.

4. Ummm, yeah, so?


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 2:11am


Views: 13768
     You have the high moral ground

and I do honestly agree with most of all of what you say but...The opposition has the the rights and the budget.
I think we, as a large community of Tolkien Enthusiasts, must try to guide the production within the framework of what is likely to be produced.
We are not going to see The Hobbit in its literary pristine form. We know this from statements made by those making the movies. So this makes total opposition moral but foolish. Now I don't want to look like a"booby"(see other thread for reference) so i have chosen the path of trying to throw light on possible sins that might be prevented by our criticism of the idea, Probably wont work either but it has a slightly better chance.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 2:15am


Views: 13759
     I agree

Smile Yep, I agree with you totally. I realise that many of the changes are going to go ahead, what with Galadriel etc, I suppose I'm just interested in taking down the arguments for why this should happen, as well as minimise the fallout from these changes through criticism. It seems to me that many of the arguments made in defence of these ideas just treat them as normal and to be expected, when in fact they can and should be criticised. That does not, of course, deny the fact that I am powerless to prevent them.


TheGoblinKing
NahoR

Dec 10 2010, 3:51am


Views: 13758
     Why Is It So Hard To Figure For People

PJ is mixing Unfinished Tales and The Hobbit book into one film in order to more or less at least link things up to LOTR. For it is a Prequel and Galadrial and Legolas make since to me being in it. If gonna Have The White Council then Galadrial is needed as well as Eldrond.


Lindele
Rodnog

Dec 10 2010, 3:53am


Views: 13751
     Perhaps you are right...


In Reply To
Let's avatarize it-3D. Let's Harry potterize it-2 films. Let's twilightize it- romance novel in a fantasy setting


Peter Jackson, the indie filmmaker from New Zealand, gets his filmmaking techniques from Twilight and Avatar. It has been his grand scheme to commercialize The Hobbit as much as possible, and remove all artistic merit from the story.
One would think that after his brilliant translation of LOTR from book to screen that he would have more sense than that, but no, after he saw Twilight he realized that The Hobbit film must contain a love story!
Silly us for trusting a brilliant filmmaker.


(This post was edited by Lindele on Dec 10 2010, 3:58am)


Lindele
Rodnog

Dec 10 2010, 4:09am


Views: 13702
     Just want to clarify


In Reply To

In Reply To
Let's avatarize it-3D. Let's Harry potterize it-2 films. Let's twilightize it- romance novel in a fantasy setting


Peter Jackson, the indie filmmaker from New Zealand, gets his filmmaking techniques from Twilight and Avatar. It has been his grand scheme to commercialize The Hobbit as much as possible, and remove all artistic merit from the story.
One would think that after his brilliant translation of LOTR from book to screen that he would have more sense than that, but no, after he saw Twilight he realized that The Hobbit film must contain a love story!
Silly us for trusting a brilliant filmmaker.


That all of the above was said with the utmost sarcasm


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 4:13am


Views: 13744
     You miss the point


In Reply To
PJ is mixing Unfinished Tales and The Hobbit book into one film in order to more or less at least link things up to LOTR. For it is a Prequel and Galadrial and Legolas make since to me being in it. If gonna Have The White Council then Galadrial is needed as well as Eldrond.




Okay, I fully realise that if the filmmakers decide to include the White Council sequence, they shall (and have been) forced to include the character of Galadriel. The problem is that the inclusion of the White Council sequence is out of place and unnecessary to begin with, for reasons that I've already elaborated upon. It all stems from this fatuous idea that the Hobbit films need to "link" to the Lord of the Rings films. As I've already made a case for, there is not good reason for why we should think this. Personally, it seems that this philosophy is linked to a set of baseless assumptions, the most prevalent of which is the notion that, due to the fact that the LOTR films were made first, the Hobbit has some kind of obligation to "fit" to its historical and visual aesthetic. As I am not a fan of LOTR films, I cannot conceive of a worst fate for the Hobbit films, and I hope that despite all the silly inclusions of Legolas and Galadriel they maintain something of its fairy-tale charm. As I discussed in my post above, the Hobbit films should be treated as literary adaptations; that is, the Hobbit's story as it is conceived in plot and atmosphere should as faithfully as possible be duplicated on film. As I also stressed, this does not mean I am against all change, obviously the translation from one medium to another requires some shifts in plot direction etc. But I fear the kind of wholesale disregard for the characters as they were written displayed in the LOTR films will be duplicated in the Hobbit.


(This post was edited by tumhalad on Dec 10 2010, 4:20am)


Lindele
Rodnog

Dec 10 2010, 4:29am


Views: 13727
     Wow...

Well I can't say that I agree with absolutely everything you said, but I can say that I cannot, and will not, argue with you. You make some very good points.
But the reality is that PJ did create a version of LOTR and Middle-earth, and I'm guessing that to him, adding the historical relevance to the "fairy tale" may be an important part of HIS translation. Creating in a more visual and literal way those "hints" of what Gandalf was doing may be an important addition to HIS story. I understand that The Hobbit as told by Tolkien did not include that, but I think deep down he wanted it to.
This is an opportunity for us to see those behind the scenes moments, and the historical timeline of the ring and the rise of Sauron. If you are really interested in keeping The Hobbit "fairy," and the way it is in the book, then I think your best bet is to stick to the book, and not look for it in PJ's film adaptation.
Having said that, I have no idea what the two films will ultimately look like, and I could be proven very wrong. And maybe I just did argue with you when I said I wouldn't. Oh well.


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 4:36am


Views: 13639
     I would say...

That there is already enough of a link between The Hobbit and LoTR, without the need of all these reunions and additions.

The Hobbit has Bilbo, and establishes the Shire.
The Hobbit has Bilbo finding the One Ring.
The Hobbit has Gandalf, and establishes his friendship with Bilbo and love for the Shire. The Hobbit has Gollum.
The Hobbit has Elrond, and establishes Rivendell.
The Hobbit shows Bilbo getting the mithril vest.

Need I go on? There are plenty of links to LoTR, within the actual Hobbit text, without the need to delve into the Unfinished Tales.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 10 2010, 4:38am)


Mooseboy018
SnevaH Yerg


Dec 10 2010, 4:48am


Views: 13638
     ruined forever!

"I always envision her like a terrifying but strikingly awesome thunderstorm. What the film turns her into is just terrifying, more Green Goblin than Goldenwood elf."

Translation: That scene wasn't exactly how I envisioned it when I read it, and that makes it bad.

Laugh

But I do get where you guys are coming from. The elves aren't exactly like they were in the books, but I think they worked well for the films.


(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Dec 10 2010, 4:49am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 4:49am


Views: 13711
     Some bad assumptions


In Reply To

... the reality is that PJ did create a version of LOTR and Middle-earth, and I'm guessing that to him, adding the historical relevance to the "fairy tale" may be an important part of HIS translation. Creating in a more visual and literal way those "hints" of what Gandalf was doing may be an important addition to HIS story. I understand that The Hobbit as told by Tolkien did not include that, but I think deep down he wanted it to.
This is an opportunity for us to see those behind the scenes moments, and the historical timeline of the ring and the rise of Sauron. If you are really interested in keeping The Hobbit "fairy," and the way it is in the book, then I think your best bet is to stick to the book, and not look for it in PJ's film adaptation.
Having said that, I have no idea what the two films will ultimately look like, and I could be proven very wrong. And maybe I just did argue with you when I said I wouldn't. Oh well.

Okay, I appreciate where you are coming from, but once again, this is an old argument, the "But it's PJ's version" argument. You appear to assume that there is some kind of "Hobbit" story beyond the text (i.e. outside of what is written in the Hobbit) so that while Tolkien didn't go there, it is PJ's right to give us the "opportunity" to see what Gandalf really did while he was away. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no "hobbit" story outside the text. Yes there are Tolkien's other jottings, like those included in UT, but they are not "The Hobbit" - they are later revisions designed in part to harmonise the "political" elements of the story contained in the Hobbit with those in LOTR. As I explained in my initial post, this tinkering, while kind of interesting, ultimately serves to lessen the poignancy of the story if one assumes that it stands on an equal footing with The Hobbit itself. So to assert that we should just say that it's PJs vision, and that's that, is kind of defeatist, as well as missing the point. Of course it's PJ's vision, but what I've been trying to argue is that PJ is not the ex nihilo creator of this universe, and that he therefore has a duty to adhere to the literary text (as opposed to Tolkien's vague notes or his own imaginings). He is adapting the Hobbit. If he wanted to make a fantasy film with his own ideas, I'm all for it, but it should not be called the Hobbit.

There is no "Hobbit as told by Tolkien" as opposed to "Hobbit as told by Jackson". This kind of phrasing makes it seem as if the Hobbit story is some kind of amourphous legend that can adapted by either Tolkien or Jackson, adding and leaving out elements according to their personal whims. Indeed, this is a fatal misunderstanding. There is only the Hobbit as told by Tolkien. Then there is "Hobbit as adapted by Jackson" - which changes the argument considerably. Jackson therefore has an obligation to remain faithful to the text, which is the only Hobbit story that there is. Jackson's "vision" is not equal to Tolkien's, a point unfortunately made obvious by some of the travesties that infect the LOTR movies.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 4:56am


Views: 13695
     with Leggy here the dwarves can remain dwarves without having to be eye candy

i'm happy to see old friends-esp. when they make sense. i'm baffled by the backlash. we owe PJ the benefit of the doubt. i don't see a reason to doubt someone who made the impossible happen so well the first time-(yes i know not everyone enjoyed his version of ME, but the majority did).
i can't say i liked everything he did to LOTR but he did so much of it right or better than i'd hoped that his mishaps were very slight.
if any 'cameo' could be argued to be okay, i'd wager it's Leggy.
and personally i'd love to see Aragorn (VM) back doing some searches for Gollum with Gandalf. i always wish those adventure had been expanded upon. here's a chance. i wish there was still a bridge film so all the TH purists could be appeased and those of us who want a more expanded vision could have the bridge film.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 4:59am)


Lindele
Rodnog

Dec 10 2010, 5:01am


Views: 13680
     I totally understand

what you are saying, and I absolutely respect it.
I just don't personally have a problem with making a "The Hobbit +" film. I understand that you do, and I think that is an honorable quality.
Maybe you are right, and it shouldn't be called The Hobbit, but it will be.
I don't think I could ever come to your side (who knows, maybe!!), because I thrive off of continuity. But I do feel for those who hate to see these films adapted in a way that is not true to the book.
As a writer, and filmmaker, myself. I find it easy to believe that Tolkien would have wanted to include history and continuity. But there will always be two sides to the argument. And you have every right to feel the way you do, and dislike the films.
But I love what PJ did with LOTR (different and often tragic though that may be!), and I have complete faith that I will enjoy what he does with The Hobbit.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 5:09am


Views: 13692
     hmmmmm


In Reply To
i'm happy to see old friends-esp. when they make sense. i'm baffled by the backlash. we owe PJ the benefit of the doubt. i don't see a reason to doubt someone who made the impossible happen so well the first time-(yes i know not everyone enjoyed his version of ME, but the majority did).
i can't say i liked everything he did to LOTR but he did so much of it right or better than i'd hoped that his mishaps were very slight.
if any 'cameo' could be argued to be okay, i'd wager it's Leggy.
and personally i'd love to see Aragorn (VM) back doing some searches for Gollum with Gandalf. i always wish those adventure had been expanded upon. here's a chance.


Baffled by the backlash?

-People are allowed to express their opinions, even when they baffle you, thank god.

We owe PJ the benefit of the doubt?


-I'm not sure we "owe" PJ anything. He is the filmmaker, it is his duty to produce a good movie, one that reasonably adheres to the text he is supposedly adapting for the screen.

someone who made the impossible happen...

-LOTR was never impossible; it is this kind of thinking and fawning over PJ that inhibits proper criticism. There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be criticised for valid reasons.

yes i know not everyone enjoyed his version of ME, but the majority did


-the old "majority loved it" argument. Basically, so what? If the focus was pleasing an audience why adapt LOTR at all? Why not just make a fantasy adventure like Willow. No, the reason LOTR was adapted was because it was already popular, as a book. There are no good reasons for some of the changes PJ made.

he did so much of it right or better than i'd hoped that his mishaps were very slight.

-No, they were not slight. He fundementally changed the characteristics of the protagonists, shifted scenes egregiously, and made mince meat of the central messages of the book.

if any 'cameo' could be argued to be okay, i'd wager it's Leggy.


-Unfortunately "Leggy" is slated for more than a cameo Mad

and personally i'd love to see Aragorn (VM) back doing some searches for Gollum with Gandalf. i always wish those adventure had been expanded upon. here's a chance

-
No, this is a chance to film The Hobbit, not to engage in gimmicky absurdities with little or no basis in the text.


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 5:12am


Views: 13653
     The Hobbit can not use the material only in Unfinished Tales but

the writers can (and I would say did) use the appendices to the Lord of the Rings.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 5:17am


Views: 13694
     I appreciate your position


In Reply To
what you are saying, and I absolutely respect it.
I just don't personally have a problem with making a "The Hobbit +" film. I understand that you do, and I think that is an honorable quality.
Maybe you are right, and it shouldn't be called The Hobbit, but it will be.
I don't think I could ever come to your side (who knows, maybe!!), because I thrive off of continuity. But I do feel for those who hate to see these films adapted in a way that is not true to the book.
As a writer, and filmmaker, myself. I find it easy to believe that Tolkien would have wanted to include history and continuity. But there will always be two sides to the argument. And you have every right to feel the way you do, and dislike the films.
But I love what PJ did with LOTR (different and often tragic though that may be!), and I have complete faith that I will enjoy what he does with The Hobbit.


Cool. Smile I respect your position as well. I'd just like to say that I am looking forward to it: it is exciting, even if it's beginning to sound all gimmicky like the LOTR films were to a great degree. I'd just like to address one point: that of continuity. Even if the Hobbit were adapted well, i.e. as faithfully in tone and plot to the written text as possible, there would still be plenty of continuity. Elrond, Gollum, the Ring, Elves, Rivendell, giant spiders; these are all aspects of Middle-earth that we are familiar with. As it stands, I'm sure lots of this will be included, and it seems to me that the filmmakers and aiming for some kind of equilibrium. I think this is the wrong approach, but hopefully we'll still see many of the elements we're familiar with from the book, as well as some of the tone, which I think is central.


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 5:23am


Views: 13685
     To clarify

I don't mean to suggest that I've already made up my mind about The Hobbit.

All I'm saying is, plenty of continuity exists within the actual text of The Hobbit without having to include the White Council, the Seige of Dol Guldur, and Frodo's parents in order to "bridge the gap." See my earlier post for examples.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I am becoming concerned about this "two films" idea, with these added storylines and expanded roles. Would it be cool to see the White Council, and the expulsion of the Necromancer from Mirkwood? Sure. I'm not denying that. But it would've also been cool to see Tom Bombadil. These scenes are just not necessary to the story of The Hobbit. And because Tolkien never fleshed out the White Council and Seige of Dol Guldur events in detail, most of what PJ and Co. come up with will be pure fan-fiction. And I am of the opinion that the less fan-fiction, the better.

Plus, these scenes run the risk of up-staging Bilbo's journey. I can imagine few things worse than the audience becoming bored with Bilbo and the Dwarves' journey and wanting to get back to the Wizards and the Elves and their attack against the dark Necromancer.

Having said that, the only thing that really bothers me about Legolas returning is the fact that I dislike Orlando Bloom. But the fact of the matter is, Legolas is Thranduil's son, so it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he was present in his father's hall when the Dwarves arrived. It is also perfectly reasonable to suggest that he took part in the Battle of the Five Armies. Anything beyond that, though, is too much. His role should be nothing more than a cameo, a simple nod to the fans.

Despite my misgivings, I will be at the midnight premiere all the same. Just expressing my concerns, is all.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 10 2010, 5:27am)


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 5:25am


Views: 13599
     yeah. baffled.

as in: 'what's the hubub, bub?' didn't say anything about censoring other people's opinion so i'll thank you not to even bring that up. it's an insult.

secondly, if LOTR wasn't impossible why hadn't it been done before? you ask any number of filmmakers about making LOTR into a film years ago they would said something along the lines of 'impossible'. then they would've looked at the mess of the cartoon version and added 'absolutely' to 'impossible'.

yes we 'owe' him some respect to do his thing. do you know much about film making? it's a painstaking process with lots of hard work and tough decisions. and stress. lots of it. it's like leading an army and a good film is victory.
once a leader leads his army to victory under seemingly impossible odds-when no one else steps up to the plate we 'owe' it to that leader to chill out next time he plans a move because he's already proven himself to the most qualified one to do the task.

no basis in the text? if you're basing your idea of worth according to number of words Tolkien lent to any situation then Helm's Deep would been a minute long. Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum is hardly a 'gimmick'-otherwise Tolkien wouldn't have written about it.

central characters were hardly changed. characters pretty much did what they were supposed to do. most of the changes were superficial and didn't change any motives. i'd like some examples on that. Frodo was a bit wimpy and Denethor died stupidly but changes in attitudes and deeds? i think not.

and Lastly, pleasing the majority of folks who love LOTR is nothing to sneeze at.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 5:28am)


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 5:28am


Views: 13191
     You have my axe!

A very strong defense. But remember there are at least two ways to look at this. And in the end The Commercial Property wins.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 5:33am


Views: 13631
     Recall GdT saying that The Hobbit as written was too long for a single movie but

too short for two. This was used as the "reason" that the Necromancer story was being brought in and expanded. This may be only part of the truth but it is true.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 5:35am


Views: 13629
     My thoughts exactly


In Reply To

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I am becoming concerned about this "two films" idea, with these added storylines and expanded roles. Would it be cool to see the White Council, and the expulsion of the Necromancer from Mirkwood? Sure. I'm not denying that. But it would've also been cool to see Tom Bombadil. These scenes are just not necessary to the story of The Hobbit. And because Tolkien never fleshed out the White Council and Seige of Dol Guldur in detail, most of what PJ and Co. come up with will be pure fan fiction.

Plus, these scenes run the risk of up-staging Bilbo's journey. There are few things worse than the audience becoming bored with Bilbo and the Dwarves and want to get back to the Wizards and the Elves.




This encapsulates my thoughts exaclty. You hint at the central hypocracy of the filmmakers: they complain about Bombadil and yet they see fit to "flesh out" as you say, the White Council saga, all of which, as you correctly note, will have to be extrapolated upon. Similar decisions were made during the course of adapting the LOTR to film. As you say "these scenes are just not necessary to the story of the Hobbit." - this is a point I've been trying to get across in my posts. But I think you're most salient point is to note the "risk of up-staging Bilbo's journey". This is a point that cannot be highlighted enough. The Hobbit is ultimately not about dragons, or goblins, or continuity, or councils, or the Necromancer; it is about Bilbo and his journey. This is why Tolkien's book is carefully construced to gradually reveal the widening of Bilbo's worldview - egregiously including the White Council scenes may not merely prove anachronistic, but also demeaning to the carefully plotted story in the book (which there is no reason to discard in the movies).


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 5:40am


Views: 13623
     so true

but, man, i really could go for a film without romance. if its ubiquitous then it can get tedious. its not a crime to have a story without romance. again, i'd really like to see a film these days withouts one.


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 5:41am


Views: 13646
     Simple


In Reply To
secondly, if LOTR wasn't impossible why hadn't it been done before?

The necessary technology wasn't available. It's really impossible to know how things would've turned out, but I think it's silly to suggest that we never would have gotten Lord of the Rings films without PJ. We wouldn't have gotten these Lord of the Rings films, sure.


Quote
yes we 'owe' him some respect to do his thing. do you know much about film making?

Yes, I have studied film. And no, I owe Peter Jackson nothing. I am the consumer. As a filmmaker, it's his job to provide me with a product that I enjoy. I don't walk into a dealership and buy a car with blind faith, and I certainly don't do it with film adaptations of novels that are dear to me. Yes, for all intents and purposes, I enjoyed his Lord of the Rings films. But we aren't looking at those films anymore. We are looking at The Hobbit - a new project altogether. It's a clean slate - with new anticipation and new anxiety.


Quote
no basis in the text? if you're basing your idea of worth according to number of words Tolkien lent to any situation then Helm's Deep would been a minute long. Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum is hardly a 'gimmick'-otherwise Tolkien wouldn't have written about it.

Didn't the search for Gollum take place during the 17-year period after Bilbo's Birthday in LoTR? Why would Aragorn and Gandalf be searching for Gollum in the Hobbit films?


Quote
and Lastly, pleasing the majority of folks who love LOTR is nothing to sneeze at.

Why can't the Lord of the Rings fans be pleased with a faithful adaptation of The Hobbit, without the added fluff?


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 10 2010, 5:45am)


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 5:44am


Views: 13614
     leaving TB out is far from hypocritical

what sense would it make to leave him in. served the story no real purpose. however people (many non book readers) are interested in knowing about what's going on with characters like Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman. i tell them to read the books but they won't. there are threads and plot points to be had by including their events into the films.
TB was his own little episode. as far stories and audience interest in characters they know and their motives, TB and what Pj and co are adding to TH are totally different.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 5:46am


Views: 13604
     Another response


In Reply To
as in: 'what's the hubub, bub?' didn't say anything about censoring other people's opinion so i'll thank you not to even bring that up. it's an insult.


Why then be astonished?


secondly, if LOTR wasn't impossible why hadn't it been done before? you ask any number of filmmakers about making LOTR into a film years ago they would said something along the lines of 'impossible'. then they would've looked at the mess of the cartoon version and added 'absolutely' to 'impossible'.


Sorry, just because PJ did it first as a live action film does not translate to "impossible to film until PJ came along". This is a mute point anyhow. Regardless, the film is open to criticism.


yes we 'owe' him some respect to do his thing. do you know much about film making? it's a painstaking process with lots of hard work and tough decisions. and stress. lots of it. it's like leading an army and a good film is victory.
once a leader leads his army to victory under seemingly impossible odds-when no one else steps up to the plate we 'owe' it to that leader to chill out next time he plans a move because he's already proven himself to the most qualified one to do the task.


We "owe" him nothing, because he needs nothing from us. It matters not what we do or say, he will do his thing regardless. We always have a right to critique.


no basis in the text? if you're basing your idea of worth according to number of words Tolkien lent to any situation then Helm's Deep would been a minute long. Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum is hardly a 'gimmick'-otherwise Tolkien wouldn't have written about it.


Helm's Deep shouldh've been shorter anyway. Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum does not occur in the Hobbit!


central characters were hardly changed. characters pretty much did what they were supposed to do. most of the changes were superficial and didn't change any motives. i'd like some examples on that. Frodo was a bit wimpy and Denethor died stupidly but changes in attitudes and deeds? i think not.


Faramir is the classic example; his motivations were changed substantially, which served to confuse and dumb down the nature of the Ring's power and how it works.



hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 5:52am


Views: 13601
     i guess no one read my posts about keeping the bridge films

but no matter. you don't owe PJ anything. true. but i'd say a degree of confidence is keeping it cordial.

if you know about film then you should probably know that it was PJ's persistence, vision, and hard work that got these films made-including helping create the technology needed to make the films-rather than waiting for it to be made in order to proceed.

all i'm saying is he did a great job and we should trust him a bit. it seems to me too easy to sit back and nitpick. of course all this speculating is quite fun, but i'm kind of jaded with a lack of support for PJ and his team.

i totally disagree that most of additions i heard of are 'fluff'-they are clearly just trying to incorporate more of Tolkien's writings into the story. TH as it is could be considered 'fluff'. there's nothing wrong with filming TH as it is in the books, but i like the idea of tying other elements in.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 5:53am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 5:54am


Views: 13571
     What!


In Reply To
what sense would it make to leave him in. served the story no real purpose. however people (many non book readers) are interested in knowing about what's going on with characters like Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman. i tell them to read the books but they won't. there are threads and plot points to be had by including their events into the films.
TB was his own little episode. as far stories and audience interest in characters they know and their motives, TB and what Pj and co are adding to TH are totally different.

If people wont read the books that is there problem. That has absolutely no bearing on how the filmmakers should approach the text. If you read the LOTR text closely, Bombadil does play an important role, especially with regards to some of the books (and films') thematic concerns around the nature of Power. If you think otherwise, please mount a textual argument. In short, if they can include the White Council in the Hobbit, which really does have nothing at all to do with the plot, they couldh've included Bombadil in FOTR.


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 5:54am


Views: 13572
     Well


In Reply To
what sense would it make to leave him in. served the story no real purpose. however people (many non book readers) are interested in knowing about what's going on with characters like Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman. i tell them to read the books but they won't. there are threads and plot points to be had by including their events into the films.
TB was his own little episode. as far stories and audience interest in characters they know and their motives, TB and what Pj and co are adding to TH are totally different.


Again, the White Council and Dol Guldur scenes serve no purpose to The Hobbit's plot, which is about Bilbo's journey. Being interested in the journeys of Gandalf, Galadriel, and Saruman doesn't make them any less pointless to this story. Lord knows, there are plenty of things left out of the Lord of the Rings trilogy that I was interested in seeing, but their exclusion didn't diminish my enjoyment of the films. I was disappointed, sure, but I understand why PJ made some of the decisions that he made.

Considering these events are never discussed in the Lord of the Rings movies, why are they relevant to those films? Why are they plot points that need to be included? The truth of the matter is they could be omitted from these films altogether, and it wouldn't have a single effect on the trilogy.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 10 2010, 5:57am)


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 5:59am


Views: 13632
     not astonished. baffled.

why? i just didn't know so many people would be opposed that's all.
yeah, i guess we don't owe him anything personally. it's hard to argue against the notion that everything is up for critique. that's a given, at least to me, so rarely would i feel the need to bring it up. i suppose these criticisms are valid so i'll leave em be. but i still just think he's earned a little faith on out part that he'll (eventually) do the right thing. i'm sure he'll be making decisions right down to the last day of editing.

and no Gandalf and Aragorn isn't in TH-which why i suggested they keep the bridge film.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:00am


Views: 13586
     hence my suggestion of keeping the bridge movie...

 and TH separate. the extras are just for fun. i would like to see this stuff on film as i'm sure many others would. it doesn't have to intrude on TH, but i certainly don't mind a bridge film at all.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 6:02am)


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 6:01am


Views: 13558
     It's all in good sport

I hope it doesn't feel like I'm ganging up on you. I'm just in a talkative mood and you're the only one of a different opinion posting right now.

You are free to believe what you want, hutch. I just wanted you to understand my perspective, and see why I feel the way that I do.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:03am


Views: 13547
     it's cool. this is the fun way to kill boredom while we wait.

see subject line.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 6:04am


Views: 13612
     I understand

But why not just make one movie if that's the case, a really, really good, well executed one that is tight and doesn't add any extraneous material.


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 6:04am


Views: 13573
     Unfortunately

That ship has longed passed. And it's unfortunate too.

Ah well. No sense dwelling on it I suppose.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:08am


Views: 13538
     i know, but symbolic 'themes' like that

play better in books. on film people would've been like "who was that guy? and where'd he go? why was he even in the film? he didn't do anything." i've seen that happen in many of films ('Crouching Tiger; Hidden Dragon' for example) "oh they could've just cut out that whole part in the middle." filmmakers usually need to keep these type of film goers in mind for better or for worse. even though i wouldn't of minded a trippy TB scene myself.


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:08am


Views: 13557
     the hubub

"as in: 'what's the hubub, bub?' didn't say anything about censoring other people's opinion so i'll thank you not to even bring that up. it's an insult."

I did not see anyone say
anything about censoring other people's opinion

secondly, if LOTR wasn't impossible why hadn't it been done before? you ask any number of filmmakers about making LOTR into a film years ago they would said something along the lines of 'impossible'. then they would've looked at the mess of the cartoon version and added 'absolutely' to 'impossible'.

If the filming of Lord of the Rings was impossible how did Peter Jackson do it? (Some might argue that though he made some great films from the source material, The Lord of the Rings has yet to be made. 6 films should do it right)

yes we 'owe' him some respect to do his thing. do you know much about film making? it's a painstaking process with lots of hard work and tough decisions. and stress. lots of it. it's like leading an army and a good film is victory.
once a leader leads his army to victory under seemingly impossible odds-when no one else steps up to the plate we 'owe' it to that leader to chill out next time he plans a move because he's already proven himself to the most qualified one to do the task.

We owe Peter Jackson the same respect we owe any artist. This does not mean that he is immune to criticism.

no basis in the text? if you're basing your idea of worth according to number of words Tolkien lent to any situation then Helm's Deep would been a minute long. Gandalf and Aragorn searching for Gollum is hardly a 'gimmick'-otherwise Tolkien wouldn't have written about it.

The search for Gollum did not occur during the Hobbits time period and Aragorn was only ten the year that the Hobbit is set.

central characters were hardly changed. characters pretty much did what they were supposed to do. most of the changes were superficial and didn't change any motives. i'd like some examples on that. Frodo was a bit wimpy and Denethor died stupidly but changes in attitudes and deeds? i think not.

Characters in the LotR movies looked like the book characters on the surface but with perhaps a few exceptions their motivations were changed to make them more conflicted and "believable".

and Lastly, pleasing the majority of folks who love LOTR is nothing to sneeze at.

I do not think that anyone is sneezing at Peter's accomplishment. And I think we all like the LotR movies including tumhalad. He is just trying to show the fallacy in many of the stock arguments for changing the stories as written.



Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket

(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Dec 10 2010, 6:10am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 6:09am


Views: 13528
     Yeah

Pirate oh well, we shall have to do the best with what's coming.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:10am


Views: 13529
     he can still do it if he wants

i'm sure the studio would jump at the chance to have VM back. start a petition to keep TH for you guys (women and men) and the bridge stuff for folks like me. you get what you want, i get what i want and the studios still get 2 films.Cool


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:13am


Views: 13558
     okay for the LAST time: i know Aragorn was a kid during TH. i'm suggesting a bridge film.

and it thought it was being implied that i was someone that may not want others to express their viewpoints and that i needed to nix quick.


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 6:19am)


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:13am


Views: 13546
     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Evil

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 6:14am


Views: 13592
     Bombadil


In Reply To
play better in books. on film people would've been like "who was that guy? and where'd he go? why was he even in the film? he didn't do anything." i've seen that happen in many of films ('Crouching Tiger; Hidden Dragon' for example) "oh they could've just cut out that whole part in the middle." filmmakers usually need to keep these type of film goers in mind for better or for worse. even though i wouldn't of minded a trippy TB scene myself.


If TB scenes were written and executed with skill, there is no reason to suppose the audience would be left baffled. After all, a part of the point of TB is to act as an enigma, and intentionally so. Why this should be different on film is unkown to me. People seem to have this strange expection that things will all "link" - not everything has to "link" in some blindingly obvious way! It is okay to be intellectually engaged in a film, and the notion that films to not have themes is also mistaken - there is no reason to think that Tom could not have acted as an enigmatic fairy tale like character in the beginning part of the film as middle earth is gradually opened up to us.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:14am


Views: 13520
     well, let's just start a petition to have the bridge film.

you, me and duats will plead our case and start it.
it's not too late.


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:16am


Views: 13529
     Please do

I am sure that will kill the Hobbit as is.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:17am


Views: 13568
     its a hard sell to the suits and they do have some degree of control

yeah. there was a time when films were allowed to be intellectually engaging-but, alas, it aint these days. too bad though.


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:18am


Views: 13543
     what do you mean?

kill it as in good or bad?


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:22am


Views: 13694
     I enjoy your opinions

and understand your desire for a bridge film. But without Unfinished Tales there is not enough to build the bridge and though I am certain they tried it did not happen. So instead we get the Hobbit The Presqueel (or something like that.)

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


hutch
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:28am


Views: 13676
     maybe book TH will be theatrical cut

and 'the prequel' will be the extended edition that can be ignored if one desired to...wow, that's two good ideas i had in one day.Wink


(This post was edited by hutch on Dec 10 2010, 6:29am)


HiddenSpring
Neirol

Dec 10 2010, 6:55am


Views: 13725
     What obligation? A cosmic one?

Actually, Jackson has no such obligation. Neither does any filmmaker with imagination who adapts something to the screen. You seem to believe in some holy purity of the original work as if it were the only acceptable vision, or indeed the only real "vision", period. There is the original literary vision, then there is the movie version, which has an independent life of its own even as it owes much to the books. There are people everywhere who were moved by the LotR films and never read the original books. Are they diseased?

We have no idea if the inclusion of the White Council will detract from the "spirit" of The Hobbit. For all we know, it can be creatively and legitimately woven into the story so that informs the growing darkness of the tale in a way that would put the audience right along Bilbo in his discovery of it (even if Bilbo himself is not in that storyline... or must we see every single frame from Bilbo's eyes in order to get the point? Are we so limited?).

You claim to be supporting the right to criticise the films and my god, what a sad world it'd be indeed if we weren't allowed to do that. But not a single thing you've said is an actual film criticism. (I too am critical of certain aspects of them, but regarding their flaws as MOVIES, not as enslaved ghosts to Tolkien's literature). It's basically how the movies failed to do things as you wanted them (ie, as in the books), but if the movies are this great satanic undertaking, surely the books should be enough for you, and there you will find everything as originally written and its essence untouched. Because it's indeed the only place where you'll ever find it. Thank God, the movies are allowed and should be given life of their own, not be puppets to the book, as magnificent as it may be.

The film's gonna include the White Council storyline. Perhaps it's a total failure, and indeed I can picture many scenarios in which this would fail and disrupt the Bilbo storyline; but maybe, just maybe, it can make creative sense, not within Tolkien's The Hobbit, to be sure, which is a finished work with its own logic, but within Jackson's The Hobbit, a work in progress. It's just a matter of being open to the possibilities and judging each work for their own merits and failures.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 6:56am


Views: 13702
     hehe

Ah well, that sounds fun, but unfortunately we shall have to contend with Legolas and Galadriel first.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 7:14am


Views: 13689
     Response


In Reply To
Actually, Jackson has no such obligation. Neither does any filmmaker with imagination who adapts something to the screen. You seem to believe in some holy purity of the original work as if it were the only acceptable vision, or indeed the only real "vision", period. There is the original literary vision, then there is the movie version, which has an independent life of its own even as it owes much to the books. There are people everywhere who were moved by the LotR films and never read the original books. Are they diseased?


Of course a film has a life of its own. Of course the filmmaker can utilise his own imagination. No, I do not believe in "holy purity" (where did you get that idea?) The point is that there are not different versions of one story, there is The Story (i.e the Hobbit novel) and then there is the adaptation. These are not two different "versions" that both have equally valid status. No, people who are moved by the film are not diseased.


We have no idea if the inclusion of the White Council will detract from the "spirit" of The Hobbit. For all we know, it can be creatively and legitimately woven into the story so that informs the growing darkness of the tale in a way that would put the audience right along Bilbo in his discovery of it (even if Bilbo himself is not in that storyline... or must we see every single frame from Bilbo's eyes in order to get the point? Are we so limited?)

All this is a mute point. Of course we don't know how it will play out; the point is it is totally unecessary, and if you believe Bilbo's story is limiting then clearly the Hobbit is not a story for you. This is exactly the point - the Hobbit is Bilbo's journey? Why is this such a contentious fact?


You claim to be supporting the right to criticise the films and my god, what a sad world it'd be indeed if we weren't allowed to do that. But not a single thing you've said is an actual film criticism. (I too am critical of certain aspects of them, but regarding their flaws as MOVIES, not as enslaved ghosts to Tolkien's literature). It's basically how the movies failed to do things as you wanted them (ie, as in the books), but if the movies are this great satanic undertaking, surely the books should be enough for you, and there you will find everything as originally written and its essence untouched. Because it's indeed the only place where you'll ever find it. Thank God, the movies are allowed and should be given life of their own, not be puppets to the book, as magnificent as it may be.


-Actual film criticism, not a single thing I've said - euh, what is your point here? I have criticised the use of extraneous plots in an already developed story that does not require embellishment, which is what appears to be taking place. I am criticising the filmmakers' decision to do this.

-Enslaved ghosts to Tolkien's literature? They are supposed to adaptations, not original artworks. If you think the filmmakers would be "inslaved" if they actually tried to produce a faithful adaptation, then perhaps they should be thinking up an original fantasy universe with the kinds of characters they like.

-Failure of movies to do what I want (i.e. in the books): Once again, they were billed as adaptations. Why should they not translate the events, characters and themes from the book into film as faithfully as possible?

-I should just retreat and reread the books. That's a lame argument. I would love to see well executed adaptations that are faithful to the texts.

-puppets to book: by necessity they should be puppets to the book: this does not discount their being awesome! Why do you equate faithfullness=slavery?? I mean, please.


The film's gonna include the White Council storyline. Perhaps it's a total failure, and indeed I can picture many scenarios in which this would fail and disrupt the Bilbo storyline; but maybe, just maybe, it can make creative sense, not within Tolkien's The Hobbit, to be sure, which is a finished work with its own logic, but within Jackson's The Hobbit, a work in progress. It's just a matter of being open to the possibilities and judging each work for their own merits and failures.


Of course, I shall keep ultimate judgement until i see the film; I never stipulated otherwise. However, I am free to criticise the decisions that have already been made. As you say, within the orbit of Tolkien's Hobbit, including the White Council story makes no sense. It should therefore make no sense in any adaptation of the Hobbit, which should be thought of as derivative and secondary to the text, regardless of how awesome it turns out.



JWPlatt
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 7:23am


Views: 13704
     A Challenge To All


In Reply To
duats: Again, the White Council and Dol Guldur scenes serve no purpose to The Hobbit's plot, which is about Bilbo's journey. Being interested in the journeys of Gandalf, Galadriel, and Saruman doesn't make them any less pointless to this story.



Let's assume that's true if they were independent stories. Let's also stipulate Peter, Fran, Phillipa and Guillermo are competent and then make the common sense assumption that they have integrated the stories in a way that the White Council plot is critical to Bilbo's quest, journey and character development. Now, the scoop would be if anyone can predict with accuracy how they would do it. In detail. Maybe to the detail of a speculative screenplay. Isn't that a more challenging and exciting prospect than easy critcisms?


HiddenSpring
Neirol

Dec 10 2010, 7:42am


Views: 13691
     Nobody "should" think of them as anything...

other than what they are to them. It's just a matter of perspective. I don't go into a movie expecting a recreation of a book, I go in expecting a good film that is (loosely or closely) based on a book.

And no, I don't think to be faithful to the essence is to be a slave. This is purely subjective, but I think the LotR films are both reasonably faithful to the source and work as films in their own right. Sure, there are parts in it that are relative failures, and could've used a deeper interpretation of the text, but I feel most of the themes and a lot of the original expressiveness is there in some way. I hope the same is true this time around.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 10 2010, 7:48am


Views: 13664
     lol


In Reply To

In Reply To
duats: Again, the White Council and Dol Guldur scenes serve no purpose to The Hobbit's plot, which is about Bilbo's journey. Being interested in the journeys of Gandalf, Galadriel, and Saruman doesn't make them any less pointless to this story.



Let's assume that's true if they were independent stories. Let's also stipulate Peter, Fran, Phillipa and Guillermo are competent and then make the common sense assumption that they have integrated the stories in a way that the White Council plot is critical to Bilbo's quest, journey and character development. Now, the scoop would be if anyone can predict with accuracy how they would do it. In detail. Maybe to the detail of a speculative screenplay. Isn't that a more challenging and exciting prospect than easy critcisms?


I guess it's more exciting, but I'm afraid that it would be indulging in fan-fiction, and not much else. Criticism is necessary - even though it can be negative and uninteresting. Indeed, we shall see where the White Council plot goes, and maybe it will be fantastic, but it wont be the Hobbit.


HiddenSpring
Neirol

Dec 10 2010, 7:54am


Views: 13656
     It says the Shire under 'Hidden Spring'

 
I just picked up on that. I guess I am a hobbit, but nobody told me!


Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 10 2010, 8:41am


Views: 13190
     So let's say you're hashing out the script or directing

where are the points in the original story you would yank the audience out of the book they know and love? Assuming the audience actually knows and loves the book. That could be an issue right there. Would you cut back and forth to show added material during, say, an intimate and tense scene such as "Riddles in the dark"? No? Ok, where then? C'mon.....anyone got the grapes? Heh heh ;)

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 10 2010, 10:15am


Views: 13612
     tumlahad

Okay, the Tom Bombadil chapter had some importance in it concerning the nature of the Ring, sure. But most of that chapter consists of silly mambo-jambo tra-la-la singing from Tom about how thin and good-looking Goldberry is and even the sound of her dress rustling (which is mentioned more than once). Really, I'm glad they left it out. Goldberry was an annoying character for me.

One of PJ's best choices, and please enlighten me of why all that above should have been kept in the film ^^



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 10 2010, 10:18am


Views: 13147
     Kangi


If the filming of Lord of the Rings was impossible how did Peter Jackson do it? (Some might argue that though he made some great films from the source material, The Lord of the Rings has yet to be made. 6 films should do it right)

yes we 'owe' him some respect to do his thing. do you know much about film making? it's a painstaking process with lots of hard work and tough decisions. and stress. lots of it. it's like leading an army and a good film is victory.
once a leader leads his army to victory under seemingly impossible odds-when no one else steps up to the plate we 'owe' it to that leader to chill out next time he plans a move because he's already proven himself to the most qualified one to do the task.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I see where you are heading, but to satisfy the most die-hard purists, not even 6 films would be enough. I'm thinking 10 or 15 films.




The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 10 2010, 10:26am


Views: 13626
     Fan-fiction - or adaption?


In Reply To

In Reply To
duats: Again, the White Council and Dol Guldur scenes serve no purpose to The Hobbit's plot, which is about Bilbo's journey. Being interested in the journeys of Gandalf, Galadriel, and Saruman doesn't make them any less pointless to this story.


Let's assume that's true if they were independent stories. Let's also stipulate Peter, Fran, Phillipa and Guillermo are competent and then make the common sense assumption that they have integrated the stories in a way that the White Council plot is critical to Bilbo's quest, journey and character development. Now, the scoop would be if anyone can predict with accuracy how they would do it. In detail. Maybe to the detail of a speculative screenplay. Isn't that a more challenging and exciting prospect than easy critcisms?


I guess it's more exciting, but I'm afraid that it would be indulging in fan-fiction, and not much else. Criticism is necessary - even though it can be negative and uninteresting. Indeed, we shall see where the White Council plot goes, and maybe it will be fantastic, but it wont be the Hobbit.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Since the White Council plot actually happened, even if it's not put in much detail, it did happen.




The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 10 2010, 10:27am


Views: 13576
     Legolas was there...

I see no reason why it should be compared to XenArwen at Helm's Deep (that was fan-fiction indeed!). Legolas is in-directly in The Hobbit book.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Aelric
Erihs Eht


Dec 10 2010, 2:41pm


Views: 13130
     Ahhhh

Just like the good ol' days this thread. "Debating" like it's 1999. Crazy

I've earned my stripes as well as my bread...


Bound
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 2:50pm


Views: 13603
     The same can be said...

about the warg attacks in the two towers - never happened in the book. !

I don't consider changes of such size to be fan fiction. Movie adaptaion often change things or make up stuff that never happened in the book.

Books are called source material for a reason... they are the source of insperation.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav

Dec 10 2010, 4:00pm


Views: 13584
     Bad assumptions?


In Reply To
This kind of phrasing makes it seem as if the Hobbit story is some kind of amourphous legend that can adapted by either Tolkien or Jackson, adding and leaving out elements according to their personal whims. Indeed, this is a fatal misunderstanding.



So someone suggesting that Tolkien's legendarium should "leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama" would be making a bad assumption? Too bad no one told Tolkien that, since that is exactly what he said he had hoped for, in his famous letter to Milton Waldman.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 4:08pm


Views: 13543
     Here we part ways my friend

The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil/Goldberry, & the Barrow Downs play an important role in establishing the greater Middle-earth of the Lord of the Rings (as opposed to the Hobbit) and the power of the One Ring. It marks the turning from Fairytale to the romantic high advantage of modern fantasy. If noot for time limitations it could have served the movie well. But so could have many other things that got left out.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 4:12pm


Views: 13569
     Kill as in

 get them to drop what they are manically preparing to do and revert to a plan that they have all ready rejected.
I am sorry but I was being sarcastic.
I think the Idea of a bridge film is dead as a Dodo.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 4:25pm


Views: 13519
     Not necessarily

"Now, the scoop would be if anyone can predict with accuracy how they would do it. In detail. Maybe to the detail of a speculative screenplay."Isn't that a more challenging and exciting prospect than easy critcisms?"


Neither effort has any consequence other than entertaining us while waiting for the movies. I have all ready developed a pretty good outline for a script that covers The Hobbit Expanded to include the history of the Dwarf/Goblin war, the assault on Dol Gulder and the history of Erabor but no body is making my movie. So I will have to wait for theirs. It is fun to think and talk about while waiting.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 5:10pm


Views: 13562
     You raise a good point

Even without the handy quote you provide, based on his background Tolkien might have judged the success of his stories and characters by how often and through how many different media they were told. The legends Tolkien studied before ever writing The Hobbit would have impressed upon him the relationship between a good story and its suppleness. For instance the Arthur Legends: unwritten ballads and songs became disconnected short stories became collected stories (with umpteen attempts to establish cohesive narrative structure) became paintings, idylls and, in the fullness of time, derivative novels and movies.


TheGoblinKing
NahoR

Dec 10 2010, 5:44pm


Views: 13530
     Tom and Hobbit Changes.

As for Tom it is clear to me why he was not used. You had Treebeard and in many respects Treebeard and Tom spoke the same things and so Treebeard film wise was blended in with these two characters really.

I don't get the complaining I mean Legolas is the son of Thanduil and lives in Mirkwood and us not seeing him would be odd since seen him in the movies and he was around 3000 years old.

I think the elves bring class to the hobbit and there is room for this in 2 films. If its great film why be so judgemental. Do remember Pete was only person wanting to make a LOTR movie. Yes someone else could have made them but not with what PJ and Fran did with it.
Why can't people trust him now but did then.


JWPlatt
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 6:25pm


Views: 13551
     Amorphous Legends


In Reply To

In Reply To
tumhalad: This kind of phrasing makes it seem as if the Hobbit story is some kind of amourphous legend that can adapted by either Tolkien or Jackson, adding and leaving out elements according to their personal whims. Indeed, this is a fatal misunderstanding.



Voronwë_the_Faithful: So someone suggesting that Tolkien's legendarium should "leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama" would be making a bad assumption? Too bad no one told Tolkien that, since that is exactly what he said he had hoped for, in his famous letter to Milton Waldman.



Yes, that's exactly what I was bringing up about Camelot earlier. And I knew of that Tolkien quote but, lacking it, had to paraphrase it instead. Thanks for the quote.

There would seem to be a fundamentalist (literal) point of view at work here despite Tolkien's desire. And I don't believe what these movies are doing is creating something amorphous.

That said, there is an opportunity here that the successive derivations of Arthurian legend didn't have nearly so easy - the abily to keep precise records of the original source text and all derivations thereof. An engineer knows to always use a common reference point - an anchor - from which all further measurements are made. The same should be applied to storytelling when possible, as it is possible today: know the history of the story to which you are making embellishments and elaborations so that you don't end up with everything all crooked and ill-fitting.


SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:27pm


Views: 13520
     Uh...

Not sure you meant to reply to my post.

But yes, LOTR was a masterful adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, legendary in its own right. PJ done good. He will likely do good again (I mean come on, thirteen named dwarfs and the cast list is still growing? that is devotion). Personally, my concerns stem from what we have heard about planned aesthetics (presentation and technique) rather than changes to plot or the character roster.

Part of the problem really -- though whether it is a real problem only Mark Twain knows -- is the number of people willing and able to have and express an opinion on TH is far greater than before LOTR was made. As well, people's expectations are driven by the movies as well as the books whereas LOTR only had to compete with the books. Plus, owing in part to Jackson's films, awareness of The Hobbit and Middle-earth in general is far greater than before LOTR. So it follows that the number of (so-called) negative opinions expressed would be larger, but likely that number is not greater as a percentage of all opinions on the subject. Given the success PJ had with LOTR it may even be less.


Garfeimao
NahoR


Dec 10 2010, 6:27pm


Views: 13514
     *standing ovation* but. . .

First off, very well thought out and presented argument. I agree in principle to most of it, but in practice, it's just not realistic.

I think you overestimate a good portion of the movie going population. And that portion of the movie going population that can't fill in the gaps on their own are represented by Studio Executives who give notes on scripts and generally expect them to be followed up on. The current format of these two films will most likely have Gandalf departing the troupe after the stay with Beorn near the end of the first film, or at least halfway through the first film. He won't reappear until near the end of the second film. There is no way in heck that the Studio Executives are going to allow a little throway line of "I'm leaving you here to go run a little errand" at his departure, and another vague reference to some Necromancer problems at the end of the second film explain his absence. Literary folk may be willing and able to fill in the blanks with imaginings of all kinds of adventure, or boring errands, or whatever, but the vast majority of movie goers don't fall into that category. And to a Studio Executive, that's the difference between a niche genre film and a blockbuster. Make no mistake, this is not just about the difference between literary and filmic art, it's about balancing that art with commercial appeal. Its sad, but that's just the reality of this business.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:31pm


Views: 13641
     No derisions cast

but it is too bad Christopher & the Tolkien Estate do not have the same enthusiasm for this idea as J.R.R.T did.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 10 2010, 6:31pm


Views: 13659
     I strongly disagree

with this line in particular:

Quote
The problem is that the inclusion of the White Council sequence is out of place and unnecessary to begin with, for reasons that I've already elaborated upon. It all stems from this fatuous idea that the Hobbit films need to "link" to the Lord of the Rings films.

How can you possibly make such judgements with any degree of confidence when you have not even seen the films which you are talking about? The White Council's assault on Dol Guldur is a canonical event in Tolkien's Middle-earth which takes place during the events of The Hobbit. It is directly referred to and interwoven with the plot of the book, even though the events alluded to are not themselves described. What makes you so unwaveringly certain that the inclusion of these scenes will disrupt and imbalance the films? It's not exactly as if they are being shoehorned in – Tolkien specifically made room for them. Gandalf leaves the Company to go and meet with the White Council in the book; if the Dol Guldur scenes really were pure fan-fiction, and Gandalf accompanied Bilbo and the Dwarves through Mirkwood, then I would be entirely with you in your opposition to these new elements. But that is not how Tolkien wrote it.

Since we all know that the confrontation with the Necromancer is going on while Bilbo makes his way through Mirkwood, the filmmakers are faced with two possibilities: either they cut to Dol Guldur and show us what is happening there, or they stay with Bilbo and show us... nothing at all, just like in the book. Do you really think it is a reasonable request to ask for the writers to stick rigidly to the book and omit a spectacular magic battle when the opportunity to include one not only presents itself, but also dovetails with Tolkien's writings? Films must visually satisfy their audience – the films cannot be vague and opaque and tell us that Gandalf has gone to meet 'a council of the white wizards' and offer no elaboration for the audience.

I expect that the White Council scenes will form a fine side-story that will give the audience an enjoyable break from Bilbo's quest. You suggest that the audience will be bored by Bilbo's story and will be more interested in the affairs of the wizards – well, so what? If Peter Jackson can make the White Coucil's adventures even better than Bilbo's, I'll be delighted for him. Are you afraid the White Council scenes will be so interesting that they will make the Bilbo scenes dull by comparison? There are far greater problems to worry about! If you really, really hate the idea of anything foreign to the direct and literal translation of the book being included in the film, you can always get The Hobbit: The Purist Cut, a fan-edit which removes everything not strictly Tolkien. Someone went to the trouble of doing this for LotR, and you can bet someone's going to do it for The Hobbit as well. Then you can watch your pure Tolkien as much as you want while the rest of us are enjoying the Dol Guldur scenes.

Speaking of purist adaptations: I watched Zack Snyder's Watchmen after reading the comic book. The film was so faithful to the comic that it was almost boring. There was no life or flair to it at all... it felt like I was watching the exact scenes of the comic acted out, line by line, panel by panel. Many things that worked well in the comic fell flat on the screen. It bordered on a pastiche; it was as if Snyder had no vision at all, but was attempting to create a carbon-copy of Alan Moore's vision – and it did not work. I found myself wishing that he had been less reverent of the source material and had thrown in a few more scenes, cut some scenes, changed some scenes, anything to make it interesting... I'm glad most comic-book adaptations are very loose. On the other side of the spectrum from Watchmen are The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and The Mist – all based on short books by Stephen King, all adapted and directed by Frank Darabont. Darabont chopped and changed things, he merged some characters and some invented some new ones, he messed about with timelines, he killed some characters that lived and spared some characters that died. These three adaptations all made significant changes, but they all ended up vastly superior to their source material! Have you ever seen a book-to-film adaptation that's as faithful as you want The Hobbit to be? If so, was it really that great?

Why is it that you assume the White Council is being added purely to strengthen the continuity between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? What makes you so certain that they're not being added because the filmmakers have some great ideas to make the scenes into an interesting and worthy addition to the story? How do you know they won't be profound and cerebral and thematically complex? For all we know, the White Council scenes could be just as good as anything Tolkien has written. You should reserve this sort of judgement until you have seen the film, or at least read the script.


(This post was edited by Ataahua on Dec 12 2010, 3:48am)


ltnjmy
Llednevir


Dec 10 2010, 6:38pm


Views: 13670
     Fine posting Flagg - I am looking forward to the scenes when the White council drives the Necromancer from Dol Guldur


In Reply To
The White Council's assault on Dol Guldur is a canonical event in Tolkien's Middle-earth which takes place during the events of The Hobbit. It is directly referred to and interwoven with the plot of the book, quite true !! even though the events alluded to are not themselves described. What makes you so unwaveringly certain that the inclusion of these scenes will disrupt and imbalance the films? It's not exactly as if they are being shoehorned in – Tolkien specifically made room for them. Gandalf leaves the Company to go and meet with the White Council in the book; if the Dol Guldur scenes really were pure fan-fiction, and Gandalf accompanied Bilbo and the Dwarves through Mirkwood, then I would be entirely with you in your opposition to these new elements. But that is not how Tolkien wrote it.

Since we all know that the confrontation with the Necromancer is going on while Bilbo makes his way through Mirkwood, the filmmakers are faced with two possibilities: either they cut to Dol Guldur and show us what is happening there, or they stay with Bilbo and show us... nothing at all, just like in the book. Do you really think it is a reasonable request to ask for the writers to stick rigidly to the book and omit a spectacular magic battle when the opportunity to include one not only presents itself, but also dovetails with Tolkien's writings? Fine point Films must visually satisfy their audience – the films cannot be vague and opaque and tell us that Gandalf has gone to meet 'a council of the white wizards' and offer no elaboration for the audience.

Fine posting. Since Professor Tolkien explicitly referred to the assault on Dol Guldur in the Appendices - which occurred when Gandalf was absent from the Dwarves/Bilbo - it would be foolhardy for the film makers not to show it.


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:41pm


Views: 13160
     Six films would be the minimum number and that is what I had in mind.

And I want to reiterate that Peter Jackson did a remarkable job with just three films.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:45pm


Views: 13644
     Two minor points:

According to Tolkien the action on Dol Gulder was not an assault and it did not drive the Necromancer/Sauron out. He left before they arrived. This may give a bit of a different feel to the sequence.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


JWPlatt
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 10 2010, 6:51pm


Views: 13606
     "Spirit of the Story"


In Reply To
Kangi Ska: According to Tolkien the action on Dol Gulder was not an assault and it did not drive the Necromancer/Sauron out. He left before they arrived. This may give a bit of a different feel to the sequence.



Oh yeah, that's right. Well, as a filmgoer, I find myself hoping that they stay true to the spirit of the story - Sauron leaves - but change it to include a wizard's batte to actually drive him out. The result is he still leaves. Heh. Here's to the "spirit of the story." <raises glass>


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 10 2010, 6:54pm


Views: 13161
     Replying outof sequence

- that is, I would like to respond to a couple of points, but in order to save time (and to save confusing myself) Tongue - I've opted to send a reply to the original post.

In response to those who feel constrained to remind us that FILMS AND BOOKS ARE DIFFERENT - I can do no better than to partially quote the professor himself:

(pJ's) Lord of the Rings
Is one of those things.
If you like it, you do -
if you don't, then you boo!


(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 10 2010, 6:55pm)


dave_lf
Rodnog

Dec 10 2010, 6:56pm


Views: 13615
     I can see it now

Gandalf and friends arrive at Dol Guldur, all set to drive the Necromancer out. And he's gone; off to the Lonely Mountain with an orc-host. Radagast summons the Eagles, who fly everyone north just in the nick of time.

And I'm only half-joking. Wink


In Reply To
According to Tolkien the action on Dol Gulder was not an assault and it did not drive the Necromancer/Sauron out. He left before they arrived. This may give a bit of a different feel to the sequence.



Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 6:59pm


Views: 13558
     If Del Toro wrote it, It is bound to be creepy and scary as can be.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Arwen Skywalker
Neirol


Dec 10 2010, 7:08pm


Views: 13587
     Doesn't try at all?


Quote
And the film fails (doesn't even try really) to convey that very haunting "mirthful yet sad" quality that the elves of Lorien possess. Even though there is a deep sadness in them, they retain the ability to laugh. Galadriel often does so, even when she is tempted beyond all desire.


Makes me wonder if the person who said this ever watched the scene where Galadriel laughs when Gimli is complimenting on how fair she is.



HiddenSpring
Neirol

Dec 10 2010, 7:08pm


Views: 13615
     How I wished to see del Toro's Mirkwood/Dol Guldur

As much as I trust PJ, I don't think he is very good with forests. Caras Galadhon was a thing of beauty, but the rest of Lothlórien didn't look all that impressive, and they seemed to go for the obvious choice (a forced golden palette).

Fangorn Forest just looked cheap, IMO. Like an early Hollywood "forest" set.

There's something organic and twisted about forests in fantasy stories that I think del Toro would've been extraordinary at pulling off.


Doriath
Llednevir


Dec 10 2010, 7:18pm


Views: 13569
     agreed

forests are hugely important to me and are a big reason I live where I live. The parts of the books involving forests or trees tend to be my favorite so I always hope for those to be done well in films. I will always wish to have seen a purely GDT version of Mirkwood at least.

Gives it to us in glorious 2D!


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 10 2010, 7:18pm


Views: 13618
     Um?

- not sure where this came from, but anyway - here's my tuppence worth. To begin with the Waldman letter - it's always been clear to me, from the context of what Tolkien was saying, that he was not advocating the use of 'other hands wielding music, paint and drama...' for LotR. He was speaking of a hope which he had once had during the composition of the older tales which go to make up his legendarium; tales which, up till then, only a very few knew anything about. (I'm sure I stumbled across a quote by Christopher along those lines just the other day; can't remember where it is, now).

But anyway, back to Christopher and the Estate - it seems to me that many folk may have a misunderstanding as to what the function of a person's estate is. The Tolkien Estate was set up by JRR, and its purpose is to carry out JRR's wishes as expressed in his will. No more or less. One of these wishes was that copyright in his works should remain in his family for as long as possible. So to me, that would knock on the head any idea that the old chap held a fond hope that anyone could do as they like with his ideas and writings.

Another of his instructions to his Trustees was that they allow Christopher free access to his papers, to act as his literary executor. Tolkien gave Christopher full rights to deal with these papers as he sees fit; including the right to destroy them. Fortunately for us, Christopher did not destroy them; over the years, he's very generously shared many of his father's writings with us; both the fiction and the non-fiction, whether edited by himself or, indeed, by 'other hands'.

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 10 2010, 7:23pm)


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 10 2010, 7:19pm


Views: 13570
     Don't give up hope just yet

Approximately 90% of the first film has already been designed under the direction of GdT, as well as 50% of the second film. It's very likely that he has already designed a significant amount of Mirkwood – and when he left the project, he specifically told us that he had designed the spiders, wargs, goblins and some other things (I can't remember the exact quote). It remains to be seen how much of GdT's vision will be incorporated by PJ – it's entirely up to him, and he has yet to tell us about any decisions he's made – but I would assume (and hope) that most of what GdT created will make its way into the final version of The Hobbit.

The Redditor has also told us that the Mirkwood designs PJ is using are very close to what GdT intended, so take that for what it's worth.


(This post was edited by Flagg on Dec 10 2010, 7:25pm)


squire
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 7:35pm


Views: 13612
     How absurd!

So Tolkien's famous quote to Milton Waldman in his 1951 letter (#131 in Letters of JRRT) about wishing that "other hands" might rework the tales of his legendarium raises its laughable head yet again. Laughable? Yes, after all Tolkien himself said when he wrote it: "Do not laugh!"

This is the same passage that inspired the apocryphal phrase "a Mythology for England" - a phrase Tolkien never actually wrote. As he clearly states, this passage is a retrospect, intended to give Waldman some idea of the origin of the Silmarillion. It represents his grandiose ambition when as a young poet-scholar he began to write The Book of Lost Tales in the 1910s. He knew he could not write the detailed stories of an entire legendarium in one lifetime, and so he fancied the idea that his creation would assume a reality akin to the Matters of Britain (King Arthur, the Holy Grail, Tristan and Isolde), Troy (Iliad, Odyssey, and Aeneid), and other mythological/literary cycles.

But that was then, and 1951 is now - years after he had changed the entire orientation of the Anglo-Saxon-transmitted Lost Tales into the purely Elvish Silmarillion, and written the romantic comedy The Hobbit, and the epic romance The Lord of the Rings. He explicitly discards the high motive of being the originator of a new mythology - no longer expects to inspire generations of artists in "paint and music and drama" - as he says, "my crest has long since fallen".

So, for one thing, as early as 1951 he no longer saw his Silmarillion as either good enough, or archetypal enough, for him to feel comfortable letting it out into the wide world for others to adapt. For another, he is obviously not talking at all about his novelistic works, The Hobbit and LotR, both written after he had adjusted his own expectations about his life's work. More piquantly, we have the exquisite pleasure of reading in his later letters (#'s 175, 177, 198, 201, 207, 210, 235, etc.) just what he thought when "other minds and hands" actually did try to wield The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit into drama or paint: he hated it! At any point in which a change was made that contravened his "intention", to use a loaded phrase, he sarcastically asked who knew the work better, the author or the adapter? Finally, we can see that as fan fiction began to appear even in his own lifetime, he referred to it as "impertinence", "disreputable", and "tripe" (Letter #292, 1966). He does seem to make an exception for music: see letter #260, and I seem to remember his approval of Swann's settings of some of his songs.

I don't mean to say that someone who owns the film rights to one of Tolkien's works can't do what they want with it in the screenplay. Clearly they can - as Tolkien phrased one film rights deal, he would take "Art or Cash"; and in the end he took the cash. But I do think that we should stop twisting Tolkien's words to lend his posthumous approval to any changes to his stories that the "other minds and hands" of Hollywood may think necessary to ensure commercial success.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 10 2010, 7:51pm


Views: 13512
     Far, far better than I could have put it. //

 


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 10 2010, 7:52pm


Views: 13115
     Yes, the more things change,

the more we're stuck in a time loop.

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


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 10 2010, 8:15pm


Views: 13548
     Aye, feather-friend:

Yes, I'll back down a bit on my Tom/Goldberry bashing. It has some mystique in it after all, but cannot say that I like it on the whole.

It's just one of those things that surprises me, you know - the "tra la la" elves in The Hobbit is a popular bashing subject amongst us Tolkien fans but Tom/Goldberry's tra la la la laing? Not so much!

I wonder why.Laugh



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 10 2010, 8:16pm)


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 10 2010, 8:19pm


Views: 13523
     The Tra-la-la Elves

were just a bunch of Elves acting strangely. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are enigmatic, supernatural beings – unlike those wacky Elves, Tom and Goldberry are quite fascinating to think about.


Oiotári
Aessere Lot


Dec 10 2010, 9:39pm


Views: 13503
     so true

I definitely would have raised an eyebrow at that idea

guess I'll just have to trust that PJ knows what he is doing. While I can't picture precisely how Legolas' inclusion will work without drawing me out of the story I'm sure that if PJ truly intends to include Legolas he has an idea or two up his sleeves.


The wide world is all about you:
you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out

You can only come to the morning through the shadows


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 9:43pm


Views: 13079
     Some of us have back-in-the-day syndrome.

Just because a thought was once spoken does not mean it can not be spoken again.
Besides, as the old tired discussion roles out something new might be said. Imagin that.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Dec 10 2010, 10:23pm


Views: 13041
     I was speaking

not of the topic, but the passion and boundless energy of the debaters.

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


TheGoblinKing
NahoR

Dec 10 2010, 10:25pm


Views: 13040
     I Think

Its will be more effective to show its like the Council drove out the evil when really he left anyways. It would play into LOTR why Gandalf was surprised to see the activity of Mordor in Rings.
But you can have it where seems like the Council had a victory at that time.


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 10:28pm


Views: 13059
     They are a roudy bunch.

I think it is a hoot. A wild rumpas.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 10 2010, 10:51pm


Views: 13005
     Not fair... NEB and Sador haven't even posted in this thread. //

 


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav

Dec 10 2010, 11:05pm


Views: 13715
     Hmmmm?

I'm not sure whether or not you intended that to come across as insulting and dismissive as it sounds to me, but it certainly discourages me from having much desire to engage in discussion.

However, I will say this much. Despite your (and geordie's) insistence that your point of view is the only possible one, and that any other point of view is absurd and laughable, I don't think it is quite so clearcut. First of all, both you and geordie insist that Tolkien's comments were not meant to apply to his "novelistic works" (even though he himself would blanch at the description of LOTR as a novel). But I think a very strong argument can be made that the language of the letter contradicts that claim. He said "the cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet let leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama." He then goes on to describe the cycles of his work stating that "the cycles begin with a cosmological myth: the Music of the Ainur." He repeats that word cycle a number of times in his description of his work, a clear indication that what he is describing is in fact the "cycles" that he had indicated had been his early goal. Not just in describing the Silmarillion, but LOTR (and to some extent The Hobbit) as well. He specifically states that LOTR is "much the largest, and I hope also in proportion the best of the entire cycle." Nor do I think that Tolkien's own description of his goal as "absurd" need be taken on its face. I have always taken that, as well as the "Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen)" as typical self-abasement, which is immediately contradicted by the demonstration of how seriously he takes his own work in the course of his detailed description of the "cycles". That certainly indicates to me that he is not described a previous goal that he had abandoned. Nor do I think that his criticisms of some attempts of "other minds and hands" need be taken as confirmation that he had abandoned the idea of allowing other minds and hands to expand the scope of "the cycles". They strike me as for the most part condemnations of bad adaptations as being bad. Indeed, he had praise for the work of some hands and minds, including for instance the paintings of Cor Blok (which I don't particularly like, myself).

In short, while I think your position is a reasonable one to hold, I don't think it is the only reasonable position. And I don't think the way you expressed yourself is reasonable at all. I found it very insulting and dismissive, and contrary to the goals of effective discussion. But your mileage may vary.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com

(This post was edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Dec 10 2010, 11:10pm)


squire
Nevle-flah


Dec 11 2010, 12:03am


Views: 13737
     No, no. Handsome is as handsome does.

As you just demonstrated much to my relief, interpreting Tolkien's thoughts even when written in a letter is (or should be) a difficult task. I didn't mean to insult you or your intelligence, and I apologize for the offense you took. But I suspect I adopted as strong a tone as I did because I myself was so surprised that you - usually so good at thinking about Tolkien and his lifework in highly complex and layered terms - quoted that one chestnut line from that famous letter as if it was self-explanatory, particularly in context of a multi-billion dollar movie adaptation that must follow the formulaic rules of a lucrative "franchise".

I think a very interesting problem - and I've debated it often here - is the one of just how Tolkien saw his literary/mythic project once the more popularized parts of it began to be published, at first "unknowingly" as The Hobbit and then knowingly as The Lord of the Rings. My interpretation of the passage in question ("other hands and minds") basically comes down to his shift from youthful idealism to middle-aged realism regarding the privileges and remunerations of owning a text that people like and will pay for - balanced by a more highly developed sense of artistic pride and depth of achievement after thirty-five years of dedicated tinkering and revising. By 1951 he knew he had created something big, remarkable, and aesthetically unique in our time, but he was also wiser about our modern culture's inability to appreciate the result on his own terms. As a result, the question of real-world adaptations for a mass market became highly questionable to him, no matter what might become of the "Matter of Arda" a few centuries from now!

I also think the short period of his exchanges with Allen & Unwin in late 1937, when a real publisher first read the Silmarillion material and told him (unknowingly) to write The Lord of the Rings instead, is one of the most important months of his entire life and is hugely relevant to understanding his words to Milton Waldman 14 years later.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 11 2010, 12:19am


Views: 13692
     Tolkien the control freak

I've often seen Tolkien's evolution from idealistic youth ('I will write the mythology for England! And everyone can contribute!") to curmudgeon (Deplorable cultus, indeed) as someone who put a lot of effort into his work, and over time came to see that he really didn't want anyone to change it. Not that he considered it perfect, but that he had a clear vision of Middle-earth and its history, and he wanted to get all his thoughts on paper before anyone else took it over. Of course, he never got anywhere close to finishing, which is why I used the subject line. Control freaks never finish - there's always something to be made better, and some of that comes from a desire for perfection, but it also is a defense mechanism against criticism.

Tolkien got a LOT of criticism about his work, so it's easy for me to see how he laboured so hard over his creations to try to prevent even more criticism. His opinion in the foreword to LOTR of the work his critics evidently like is another defense mechanism - reduce the sting by belittling the critic.


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 11 2010, 12:35am


Views: 13706
     Well, considering some of the criticism

- I think Tolkien was quite polite!

look here for an example...

www.lotrplaza.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=225888&PID=6698126

Smile


JWPlatt
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 11 2010, 12:56am


Views: 13691
     Bell of Clarity


In Reply To
I ... was so surprised that you - usually so good at thinking about Tolkien and his lifework in highly complex and layered terms - quoted that one chestnut line from that famous letter as if it was self-explanatory



Why? What's wrong with reiterating, as much as necessary, an honest quote when the eddies of discussion so often tend toward misinformation, and ring the bell of clarity for those who have forgotten or diminish ("chestnut") an intent? Obviously, you have not forgotten or you would not react so strongly to the quote. You just disagree. Which is fine. But the words are there to use. That's why they were written (or spoken). Taken directly from the author, they certainly have become self-evident over time. When something is used so often as a reminder to those who forget (or ignore), such as phrases like "never again" become an understanding (self-evident) and it is then the burden of the challenger to disprove the concise wisdom. It is easy to ascribe words of dimunition to (make fun of) anything someone says, even phrases such as "... a day that will live in infamy" or "...send a man to the moon and return him safely to the Earth" or "...give peace a chance," but it really does make your purpose unattractive by doing so.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Dec 11 2010, 1:00am)


squire
Nevle-flah


Dec 11 2010, 1:22am


Views: 13728
     Everyone loves to trash Edmund Wilson for his LotR review!

I see the Plaza, as per your link, did it in 2008. We did it here, courtesy of N.E. Brigand, in late 2006. Here are the three threads from the RR:
Oo, Those Awful Critics. Introduction and Wilson, Part I: “the hypertrophic sequel to The Hobbit”.
Awful Critics. Wilson, Part II: “The hero has no serious temptations”.
Awful Critics. Wilson, Part III: “a lifelong appetite for juvenile trash”.
I remember not participating in that discussion - probably preparing one of my own in those busier days in the RR - but I note that N.E.B. tries to give Wilson every benefit of the doubt, devil's-advocate-style. I get the feeling most Tolkien fans today know the world has moved on past Wilson, as far as The Lord of the Rings goes. His oft-flogged review remains a memorial to a day when the mainstream literary set didn't just disdain LotR as middle-brow, they actively and even rudely disparaged it while showing every sign of simply not understanding it, or at least its appeal to millions of intelligent readers.

I think - I'm not sure - that Tom Shippey has written a short but sweet essay explaining that Wilson for all his eccentricities was an apostle of "high modernism" in the mid-century English-speaking world, and as such inhabited a literary universe that was 180 degrees opposed to everything that Tolkien liked about the written word in our language. Through the resulting looking-glass, each side saw the other as living in a crazy house or wonderland. As Tolkien said, he didn't mind criticism from the Wilson types, because he disliked the books they liked exactly as much as they disliked his.

I once asked Michael Drout not to put Wilson down by referring to him by his intimate nickname "Bunny". I think it conveys a kind of personal contempt that is out of place when discussing the abilities of a critic and author who is one of the greats of his own time, in his own genre.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd (and NOW the 4th too!) TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Garfeimao
NahoR


Dec 11 2010, 1:45am


Views: 13715
     Wow, this thread has devolved

This thread was originally about Orlando being signed on to reprise Legolas, which of course is going to then include the arguments, on both sides, for and against tampering with the existing written text.

But some of this discussion is getting a tad bit off topic too.


As for whether or not Tolkien liked or hated the idea of others tampering with his creations, the fact is, he sold the film rights and gave up that control.

Peace, Love and Rock & Roll,


Garfeimao
The orange stripey One



Cruise to Middle-earth


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 11 2010, 2:33am


Views: 13712
     Response


In Reply To


Quote
The problem is that the inclusion of the White Council sequence is out of place and unnecessary to begin with, for reasons that I've already elaborated upon. It all stems from this fatuous idea that the Hobbit films need to "link" to the Lord of the Rings films.



How can you possibly make such judgements with any degree of confidence when you have not even seen the films which you are talking about?


- I said it is unecessary to begin with, meaning that there is no a priori reason to include the White Council sequence at all. This should be obvious to everyone regardless of whether or not we've seen the films.


The White Council's assault on Dol Guldur is a canonical event in Tolkien's Middle-earth which takes place during the events of The Hobbit. It is directly referred to and interwoven with the plot of the book, even though the events alluded to are not themselves described. What makes you so unwaveringly certain that the inclusion of these scenes will disrupt and imbalance the films? It's not exactly as if they are being shoehorned in – Tolkien specifically made room for them. Gandalf leaves the Company to go and meet with the White Council in the book; if the Dol Guldur scenes really were pure fan-fiction, and Gandalf accompanied Bilbo and the Dwarves through Mirkwood, then I would be entirely with you in your opposition to these new elements. But that is not how Tolkien wrote it.


-Sure, it's a 'canonical' event in within the timeline of the Appendices, elaborated on in UT, but it is not described or elaborated upon in the literery work that is The Hobbit, the subject of the adaptation. Remember my distinction between thinking about The Hobbit in historical and literary terms. It is as if, in filming LOTR, the filmmakers decided to include the Siege of Lothlorien, and indeed of Dale, in the film. Alas, we know that they did not, but these were canonical events, were they not? Indeed, but they did not take place within the purview of the literary text that is The Lord of the Rings. Similarly, the White Council's actions are "canonical" but they do not occur within the purview of The Hobbit - as LITERARY (as opposed to a text that merely narrates certain events [historical] and leaves room to include others that are deemed "canonical) text.


Since we all know that the confrontation with the Necromancer is going on while Bilbo makes his way through Mirkwood, the filmmakers are faced with two possibilities: either they cut to Dol Guldur and show us what is happening there, or they stay with Bilbo and show us... nothing at all, just like in the book


-Exactly, just like in the book indeed.


Do you really think it is a reasonable request to ask for the writers to stick rigidly to the book and omit a spectacular magic battle when the opportunity to include one not only presents itself, but also dovetails with Tolkien's writings? Films must visually satisfy their audience – the films cannot be vague and opaque and tell us that Gandalf has gone to meet 'a council of the white wizards' and offer no elaboration for the audience.


-The Hobbit
is not about 'magic battles' - it is about the quest of Bilbo and the dwarves, which at times invovles magic battles. Do you really, honestly think a faithfull adaptation of The Hobbit would fail to "visually satisfy their audience"? The films cannot be vague and opaque? Why not? This is the point I'm trying to stress - it is precisely wrong to expect The Hobbit to tell us what Gandalf is doing, because it is not Gandalf's story. He and his actions are not the focus, Middle-earth politics is not the focus (it is insofar as Mirkwook, Esgaroth, the Iron Hills, the Goblins are concerned, but that's it) - Bilbo and the dwarves and their interactions are the focus and the moral centre of the story. Sauron, his mechanations and the mechanations of the White Council are "canonically" of a fundementally different nature. In The Hobbit itself, Bilbo's quest has nothing to do with it.


I expect that the White Council scenes will form a fine side-story that will give the audience an enjoyable break from Bilbo's quest.


-The audience doesn't need an "enjoyable break". They have come to see The Hobbit - it is about the journey of a hobbit!


You suggest that the audience will be bored by Bilbo's story and will be more interested in the affairs of the wizards – well, so what?

-The focus and heart of the story is Bilbo's quest. If you sacrifice that for wizard battles, you have lost The Hobbit. As I said, perhaps this film should be called The Wizard instead.


If Peter Jackson can make the White Coucil's adventures even better than Bilbo's, I'll be delighted for him.


-And I would dispair for future readers of The Hobbit who will be confused and possibly, dissapointed.


Are you afraid the White Council scenes will be so interesting that they will make the Bilbo scenes dull by comparison? There are far greater problems to worry about! If you really, really hate the idea of anything foreign to the direct and literal translation of the book being included in the film, you can always get The Hobbit: The Purist Cut, a fan-edit which removes everything not strictly Tolkien.


-There should be no need for a Purist Cut! The adaptation should, insofar as it can, remain faithfull to the plot, character and theme as communicated through the literary work of fiction that is The Hobbit.


Someone went to the trouble of doing this for LotR, and you can bet someone's going to do it for The Hobbit as well.


-Peter Jackson should have gone to the trouble of doing it the first time around.



Then you can watch your pure Tolkien as much as you want while the rest of us are enjoying the Dol Guldur scenes.


-Oh, I feel so alone!


It seems sort of selfish to actually wish that these scenes were never added, just because you don't like them. Not everyone agrees with you about these scenes, and you would be denying these people their enjoyment of those parts of the film if you had your way.


There is so much wrong with this I'm not sure where to begin. I think I'll break it down.

1. I do not wish for these scenes to be left out "just because don't like them." I've tried to present a coherent and logical case for their not being included that takes into account the fact that The Hobbit itself does not include these scenes. I don't want them included because they are not in The Hobbit. That's all!

2. Of course not everyone agrees with me. So what?

3. Denying people enjoyment. I don't think I need to comment on this. It's a non-argument.


Speaking of purist adaptations: I watched Zack Snyder's Watchmen after reading the comic book. The film was so faithful to the comic that it was almost boring. There was no life or flair to it at all... it felt like I was watching the exact scenes of the comic acted out, line by line, panel by panel. Many things that worked well in the comic fell flat on the screen. It bordered on a pastiche; it was as if Snyder had no vision at all, but was attempting to create a carbon-copy of Alan Moore's vision – and it did not work. I found myself wishing that he had been less reverent of the source material and had thrown in a few more scenes, cut some scenes, changed some scenes, anything to make it interesting... I'm glad most comic-book adaptations are very loose. On the other side of the spectrum from Watchmen are The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and The Mist – all based on short books by Stephen King, all adapted and directed by Frank Darabont. Darabont chopped and changed things, he merged some characters and some invented some new ones, he messed about with timelines, he killed some characters that lived and spared some characters that died. These three adaptations all made significant changes, but they all ended up vastly superior to their source material! Have you ever seen a book-to-film adaptation that's as faithful as you want The Hobbit to be? If so, was it really that great?

- Being faithfull should not preclude being visionary. I have no problem with changes that make sense, that improve the story on screen, and add to the efficacy of the production. The problem is that the Dol Guldur scenes have nothing to do with Bilbo in the first place - they are completely anachronistic. I would expect the filmmackers to make some changes within the purview of the story, but not to introduce egregious material that has absolutely no function in improving the translation from book to film. Instead, these changes seem to have been made in order to "link" the The Hobbit movies to LOTR films, something that is totally uncessary and will spoil the tone and the plot of the complete original story.


Why is it that you assume the White Council is being added purely to strengthen the continuity between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? What makes you so certain that they're not being added because the filmmakers have some great ideas to make the scenes into an interesting and worthy addition to the story? How do you know they won't be profound and cerebral and thematically complex? For all we know, the White Council scenes could be just as good as anything Tolkien has written. You should reserve this sort of judgement until you have seen the film, or at least read the script.


Why else would they add these scenes? There is no other interesting reason. Sure, they probably think they will "look cool" or something, and "engage audiences" because Bilbo's journey doesn't have enough "drama" or some fatuous excuse the like of which were used to justify the absurd departures of character and plot in the LOTR films. Likewise, they may be "thematically complex" and "cerebral" - who am I to say otherwise. But it wont be the Hobbit! It is "thematically complex" and "cerebral" enough and does not need to be undermined by extraneous Middle-earth politics. I should, by the way, do nothing. I have every right to criticise.



(This post was edited by Altaira on Dec 12 2010, 10:10pm)


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 11 2010, 3:10am


Views: 13648
     Do not feel too bad about the response to your defence of the Hobbit

as good enough without material added from the LotR Appendices. The battle was lost long ago. I would say, however, that my favorite reaction is "you would be denying these people their enjoyment." I ran into this attitude in discussing the use of 3-D in filming the Hobbit. If you do not give them something they want you are somehow violating their rights by taking something away from them. The corollary is if they drop a few crumbs in your direction (2-D showings in some theaters) you should be grateful and show your gratitude and not complain. This seems a bit Dudly Dersley-ish. Evil

Criticism is a tough job. It requires rhinoceros skin. Good luck and enjoy the ASSAULT on Dol Guldur in amazing 3-D.Angelic


Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 11 2010, 3:15am


Views: 13690
     Agreed

Personally, I love the fact that Gandalf goes in-and-out of the narrative, with Bilbo and the Dwarves having no clue as to where he keeps running off to. It adds a mystery and intrigue to Gandalf's character that would be lost if we were explicitly shown everything he was doing behind-the-scenes.

Plus, the fact that we don't know where Gandalf is going in the novel effectively keeps the sole focus on Bilbo's quest.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 11 2010, 3:17am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 11 2010, 3:24am


Views: 13637
     hehe


In Reply To
The battle was lost long ago.



WinkPirate hehehe yeah I know, ah well. I just hope they integrate it in some logical and coherent way. Tongue


Quote
Personally, I love the fact that Gandalf goes in-and-out of the narrative, with Bilbo and the Dwarves having no clue as to where he keeps running off to. It adds a mystery and intrigue to Gandalf's character that would be lost if we were explicitly shown everything he was doing behind-the-scenes.

Plus, the fact that we don't know where Gandalf is going in the novel effectively keeps the sole focus on Bilbo's quest.



Exactly, the book is written with a purpose in mind, and the ins and outs of Gandalf are not there my chance. Tolkien chose not to depict Gandalf's adventures in any explicit way, and he did so for exactly the reasons you cite. Not only does it keep the focus on Bilbo, it also creates a sense of intrigue, adding to the mystique of the world. A problem with LOTR films consisted of their shrinking - aesthetic choices like making Minas Tirith a small castle like city as opposed to the grand fortress it was in the books, surrounded by a verdant landscape of tilled earth. Similarly, Gondor was bereft of its southern fiefs; instead there were "no more men" and the population of Gondor was about 1,000, give or take, all living in a cheap rip off of Mont Saint Michel. Rather than Men coming to the rescue of the city, it was, of course, the Radioactive Scrubbing Bubbles who did so, the most blatant deus ex machina withouth reason I've ever seen. Middle-earth is meant to be expansive, not contractive. I hope this sense of expansiveness and mystique is appropriated in the Hobbit films, and not merely underwritten.


(This post was edited by tumhalad on Dec 11 2010, 3:32am)


duats
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 11 2010, 3:48am


Views: 13615
     Thank you


In Reply To
Rather than Men coming to the rescue of the city, it was, of course, the Radioactive Scrubbing Bubbles who did so


I haven't laughed so hard all week. I do like the look of the Dead Army, though... apart from the fact that they're green.

It just goes back to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings being different. Not just in tone and narrative structure, but also in scope. The Lord of the Rings is an epic ensemble piece, whereas The Hobbit is a much smaller and much more personal story. And I, for one, am thankful that they are not the same.

So I guess my concern regarding these additions, other than potentially detracting from Bilbo's story, is that they are trying to make this Lord of the Rings 2.0. Unfortunately, I have two years to wait before I find out if my concerns were well-founded.


(This post was edited by duats on Dec 11 2010, 3:54am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 11 2010, 4:04am


Views: 13620
     hehehehe


In Reply To

I haven't laughed so hard all week. I do like the look of the Dead Army, though... apart from the fact that they're green.

-Glad to be of service Tongue

It just goes back to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings being different. Not just in tone and narrative structure, but also in scope. The Lord of the Rings is an epic ensemble piece, whereas The Hobbit is a much smaller and much more personal story. And I, for one, am thankful that they are not the sam
e.

-Yes, keeps the "legendarium" interesting and dynamic.

So I guess my concern regarding these additions, other than potentially detracting from Bilbo's story, is that they are trying to make this Lord of the Rings 2.0. Unfortunately, I have two years to wait before I find out if my concerns were well-founded.

-
Indeed, though I think it is the move to make LOTR 2.0 that will serve to distract from Bilbo's story in the first place. And yeah, we do have a while to wait. OMG



Arwen Skywalker
Neirol


Dec 11 2010, 5:10am


Views: 13600
     A matter of time

I think you named the essential reason for the filmmakers leaving Tom Bombadil out. There just wasn't enough time to explain the nature of the Ring as written in the books in a way that could do it justice with one film each. Had they tried doing that, it's quite possible that the results could have been worse if they screwed up.

The films if I remember correctly, didn't start out as Fairytale so there wasn't any need for transition. Also, TB would have been "death on film." While this was what Phillippa Boyens used to justify the changes to Faramir, I just can't see how it wasn't on her mind when she thought of Tom Bombadil. And this can't be an accident. Omitting Tom is one of a few things that made the changes to Faramir possible without disrupting the internal logic of the films. From a movie-firster's perspective, it would have been anti-climatic to see a guy not tempted by the Ring when the story was trying to establish its danger. Especially so early in the game. Again, we're back to the time issue. People can take in the story at their own pace with a book. In a cinema, there isn't the benefit of rewind or fast forward so a scene with TB might test the patience of some moviegoers. In a visual medium, most people are probably more accepting of breaks from the conflict in something they expect to be long, such as a two-parter or a miniseries.

For what it's worth, there was a shorter, less-heated discussion on the White Council side story back in October. This probably won't change the minds of people who don't want it in the movies but I believe this post has a pretty good argument for its inclusion.


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 11 2010, 9:48am


Views: 13616
     Tumlahad, here I actually have to agree with you: and duats

While I strongly disagree with your opinions of that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry should have been in the LOTR films or implying that the LOTR films are in fact bad, I have to agree with something here.

Gandalf's sudden departure works pretty good in the book. My first though when I read TH many years ago was "What! He's leaving Bilbo and the dwarves doomed! Why?" And was pretty annoyed by Gandalf that he didn't explain why, but I soon forgot about him and while the story continued it became clear that Bilbo was now the unofficial leader, and you could see how much he had developed as a character...which was something I welcomed. Then, at the end of course, Gandalf's unexpected return was a welcome one. After all, a wizard arrives precisely when he means to! Gandalf leaving added some mystique to the whole fact that there was other events going on in the world apart from Bilbo & the dwarves quest... I pretty much liked it.

At the same time, I can imagine some readers feeling Gandalf's departure made no sense with no explanation leaving them in a frightful forest without the tiniest of hope. And in movie? I can very much understand why the film-makers choose this path, I don't think it will work very good if Gandalf just vanishes out of thin air with (I have an errand to attend to) leaving the company to certain death. No, they want to show that Gandy is on to something very important, hence why he had to leave them so quickly. Besides, how could they resist the chance of filming an epic wizard attack? Laugh



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 11 2010, 9:50am


Views: 13635
     Not alone!

tumhalad - you're not alone! I agre with everything you say. (where's a 'thumbs up' smiley when I need one?)

I love ToRn! For one thing, there are folk here, such as Squire and tumhalad, who not only share many of my opinions, but who can also organize their arguments in a much more effective way than I could, My thanks to you both. And, of course, my thanks to those good folk of contrary views - 'opposition is true friendship' to horribly paraphrase a Lewis-Barfield related quote.

I said some time ago that one of the reasons I came to ToRn is to try and understand what some folk - reasonable, intelligent folk, such as some of my friends in the TS - see in pJ's films. I just don't 'get' it, myself. I look on it as an inability of mine; I must be missing something. Reading these threads shows me that others are no less passionate in their views than I am in mine, and however much I might disagree with those views, I do admire passion!

Floreat ToRn! - and passionate, reasoned discussion.

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 11 2010, 9:51am)


Ainu Laire
Aessere Lot


Dec 11 2010, 5:31pm


Views: 13511
     Agreed. //

 

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


Ainu Laire
Aessere Lot


Dec 11 2010, 5:32pm


Views: 13499
     I think I might just cry. //

 

My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.


.Ithilwen.
Llednevir


Dec 11 2010, 6:24pm


Views: 13107
     I'm not suprised... In a good way that is...

In all the movies I've seen that are derived from books... It always says "based on". Even though they can have dreadful turnouts, I don't think PJ and the crew are going to stray too far from the story. I do think they will make it into a fantastic movie, not book... Which requires some independence.

It's a kinda illogical to assume that the son of the King would not be present in the battle or in the palace. And for people who are casually into to the movies, I think it would "connect" LotR and the Hobbit as such... I'm all for introducing Legolas, as a supporting character that is :)

And this is from my biased blonde elf-loving point of view Blush

"All that we see or seem...
Is but a dream within a dream."




xy
NahoR

Dec 11 2010, 9:53pm


Views: 13057
     well

I liked the movies, barring some bad script choices (overhyping Aragorn, Aragorn and Arwen, and the portrayals of Frodo/Theoden/Denethor/Gimli) along with *interesting movie choices (Xenarwen in FOTR, the Osgiliath detour in TTT and Arwen is dying/the million endings in ROTK). The movies would be close to great without those. And IMO the casting was done very well....except Frodo.

Some script choices worked; I for one liked movieFaramir and Gollum ripping into Frodo and Sam and "go home" bit. Elves at Helm's Deep is a little unusual but ok. Tom Bombadill is not movie material.

It would appear something similar will happen here: I don't care for Itharil addition - if true - and I don't think the hobbit need be more than one movie. I do think the idea for White Council/Necromancer story is good: it is at least hinted at in the book, and will nicely round up the story. It would look odd for Gandalf to just dissapear for a lange section of two movies.

That said...there is no need for anyone from LOTR not called Gandalf, Gollum, Elrond or Bilbo to appear in the Hobbit, least of all when the LOTR characters didn't even exist at the time of the Hobbit. The two stories already have enough links as it is.


(This post was edited by xy on Dec 11 2010, 9:57pm)


.Ithilwen.
Llednevir


Dec 11 2010, 10:26pm


Views: 13040
     I agree...

with you on several of your LotR movie points, especially when it comes to Arwen. I don't like her character in the book or the movies. Crazy

I think the closer they stick to Bilbo's story and the people in it, the better it will be... Because it is a quite excellent story Smile

But all in all... Since this thread is about Orlando coming back as Legolas, no matter how large (hopefully, small-ish) a part, I think he will do an excellent job reprising the role.

"All that we see or seem...
Is but a dream within a dream."




(This post was edited by .Ithilwen. on Dec 11 2010, 10:30pm)


Ethel Duath
Nevle-flah


Dec 11 2010, 11:11pm


Views: 13505
     The heart has it's reasons,

whereof Reason knows nothing--which may be why you don't "get" the films and why I don't "get" 3D and why some of us want the Hobbit to stay close to the book (I do tend to agree with TumlahadSmile) and why others have dreams of Dol Guldur in living color (I've been dying to see Gandalf's encounter with Thrain in the dungeon--but it might wreck the greater "love"--the Hobbit as it is). So yes, reasoned discussion is not only a relief but a feast; but the "heart" component is why no amount of reason can convince in some instances. When I (reluctantly) took my son to see the Fellowship when it first came out, I was certain I would dislike it. The instant it came on the screen, and as it unfolded, I was astounded to find that my "heart" found itself gazing directly into the Middle Earth it had always expected. The details and the characters certainly weren't all "right" by any means, but I found myself in the "place" completely against any and all of my expectations. Therefore I was hooked, somewhat against my will. I can find reasons for this, but it really doesn't--and I think can't--explain the phenomenon entirely.

So yes, please reason on. It's one of my favorite occupations actually. But there are limits, which I guess is both intriguing and frustrating. Evil


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 12 2010, 1:15am


Views: 13065
     Legolas


In Reply To

It's a kinda illogical to assume that the son of the King would not be present in the battle or in the palace. And for people who are casually into to the movies, I think it would "connect" LotR and the Hobbit as such... I'm all for introducing Legolas, as a supporting character that is :)




This is the kind of thinking I've been railing againts. Legolas is not in The Hobbit. The literary work that was published in 1937 and which predated The Lord of the Rings does not feature Legolas. We are not adapting the Appendices. Nor should we be. As I said in my original post, viewers will be under no delusions about the world that we're watching - the exclusion of Legolas will not impinge that comprehension.


.Ithilwen.
Llednevir


Dec 12 2010, 3:31am


Views: 13046
     I understand your line of thought completely

As I mentioned in a different post, I think the closer the movie adaptation stays to the original story, the better it will turn out. The book is a fantastic piece of literature. I happen to have a fondness for Legolas' character, and elves in general. So I, personally, don't mind if a few liberties are taken, just as long as they don’t hinder the progression of the story or change it entirely.

But in the end, none of these decisions are up to us... I suppose all we can do is hope the story will please each of out individual desires and well… wait. :)

"All that we see or seem...
Is but a dream within a dream."




Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav

Dec 12 2010, 4:31am


Views: 13035
     "We" are not adapting anything


Quote
We are not adapting the Appendices. Nor should we be.



We aren't adapting anything. Peter Jackson and his team are. Your preference would be that they stick with a straight adaptation of The Hobbit as written by Tolkien (though you reference the work being published in 1937, I presume that you would be okay with using the version that Tolkien subsequently produced that changes the Riddles in the Dark chapter). As it happens, that would be my preference, as well. But it is not up to us. Moreover, the legal agreement that give the filmmakers the right to make these films don't limit them to sticking to the text of The Hobbit. In fact, they are perfectly within their legal, moral, and artistic rights to create an adaptation of The Hobbit as seen through the filter of LOTR. While that would not be my first choice, I certainly respect the reasons why they made that decision (at least some of which were the same reasons that Tolkien himself set out in 1960 to rewrite the work to make if more in tune with LOTR).

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


JWPlatt
SnevaH Yerg

Dec 12 2010, 5:25am


Views: 13331
     The Will of the Author


In Reply To
tumhalad: Legolas is not in The Hobbit. The literary work that was published in 1937 and which predated The Lord of the Rings does not feature Legolas. We are not adapting the Appendices. Nor should we be.

Wow, something got trimmed in a big way. I loaded the page, took a few hours break and <snip>. I had a reply saved up and don't want to waste it, so:

tumhalad: "Not all opinion is equal, or equally worthy of attention."

I can't say I enjoy fundementalism, such as adherance to the literal word of The Hobbit, in any context. It is too maladaptive. But, you know, I really like that statement. If there's anything here for me to agree with in what you say, that would be it. "Let's agree to disagree" has always been a disturbing sentiment to me; unilaterally calling a draw when one was not offered.

tumhalad: "Apology accepted."

You forgot to append "Captain Needa!" to that. LOL.


Finally, to the point, don't the Appendices (or rewrites) show the will of the author?


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Dec 12 2010, 5:30am)


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 12 2010, 7:15am


Views: 13256
     yea


In Reply To

Quote
We are not adapting the Appendices. Nor should we be.



We aren't adapting anything. Peter Jackson and his team are. Your preference would be that they stick with a straight adaptation of The Hobbit as written by Tolkien (though you reference the work being published in 1937, I presume that you would be okay with using the version that Tolkien subsequently produced that changes the Riddles in the Dark chapter). As it happens, that would be my preference, as well. But it is not up to us. Moreover, the legal agreement that give the filmmakers the right to make these films don't limit them to sticking to the text of The Hobbit. In fact, they are perfectly within their legal, moral, and artistic rights to create an adaptation of The Hobbit as seen through the filter of LOTR. While that would not be my first choice, I certainly respect the reasons why they made that decision (at least some of which were the same reasons that Tolkien himself set out in 1960 to rewrite the work to make if more in tune with LOTR).



Okay, they are not adapting the Appendices, or they should not be doing so.



tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 12 2010, 7:24am


Views: 13280
     ah-hu

 

In Reply To
Wow, something got trimmed in a big way. I loaded the page, took a few hours break and <snip>. I had a reply saved up and don't want to waste it, so:


Yeah, the battle of wills between Flagg and myself was derailing the thread. Fair enough, I suppose.


Quote

tumhalad:
"Not all opinion is equal, or equally worthy of attention."

I can't say I enjoy fundementalism, such as adherance to the literal word of The Hobbit, in any context. It is too maladaptive. But, you know, I really like that statement. If there's anything here for me to agree with in what you say, that would be it. "Let's agree to disagree" has always been a disturbing sentiment to me; unilaterally calling a draw when one was not offered.

tumhalad: "Apology accepted."

You forgot to append "Captain Needa!" to that. LOL.


Laugh



Quote

Finally, to the point, don't the Appendices (or rewrites) show the will of the author?

Well, of course, to a degree, but the will of the author was for the Appendices to remain seperate from The Hobbit itself. The Appendices do not form a part of the literary work that is called The Hobbit.


macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 12 2010, 9:20am


Views: 13246
     Tumlahad

Legolas is not in The Hobbit.

Yes, Legolas is not mentioned in The Hobbit but he was alive, that's for sure, and he's hundred of years old. So Thranduil should be there by himself? Where would Legolas be? Collecting flowers in Lothlorien? I think not!

I understand your take on it but I feel it's necessary to make an exception and include Legolas in The Hobbit. What are the movie-only-folks going to say when they watch FOTR:

Haldir, (in Elvish): Well met, Legolas, son of Thranduil!



To ignore Legolas existance in The Hobbit is a bad call, I think. Even if Tolkien never mentioned his name, he was in-directly there.




The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 12 2010, 9:21am)


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 12 2010, 9:48am


Views: 13250
     It all depends on how you look at it.

The problem here is that both sides are right. The "Adapt The Hobbit as written" side and the '"nclude the extra information provided by Tolkien" side have valid points of view. Neither is right or wrong if only they recognize the validity of the opposing point of view. The bad arguments for either side come out of the rather narcissistic belief that ones personal viewpoint is the only valid one. I even believe you could make a valid argument for including things made up by the adapters for the occasion. The point of all this? Well...I guess that I think a lot of this is very relative but also very interesting if you are willing to really think about the well reasoned opposition.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 12 2010, 11:03am


Views: 13222
     Yes, I understand

the argument that Legolas should be around at the time of The Hobbit. Once again, I reiterate my literary/historicity distinction. "Historically", Legolas should appear in Mirkwood at the time of The Hobbit. It would make sense, yes. But in the literary text that is The Hobbit, Legolas as a character does not make an appearance. So what? Neither does "Thranduil" actually. There are only the wood-elves, and the Elvenking. "Thranduil" makes his appearance later, as a "historical" character. There is no particular reason for Legolas or "Thranduil" to appear, just because it might be appealing. But we only get the "historical" Thranduil and the "historical" character of Legolas after The Hobbit, as a literary text, was created and published. Once again, Legolas does not "appear" in The Hobbit - he is not mentioned, he does not speak, no one acknowledges his existance - precisely because in the world of The Hobbit as literary text, he does not. It is only in the later timeline that he is conceived as being the son of a certain "Thranduil" who is the Elvenking. But in the purview of The Hobbit as literary text, "Thranduil" does not exist. We don't know, and cannot know, the Elvenking's name. He is just "the Elvenking".


Kangi Ska
Nevle-flah


Dec 12 2010, 11:28am


Views: 13234
     Your viewpoint is perfectly clear and I cannot find fault with it.

But so is the view that the story in the novel The Hobbit was only the beginning of the whole story as suplimented by the author in Unfinished Tales (for which rights are not available to the movie production) or the Appendix A of The Lord of the Rings (which can be used freely}. It is all a matter of personal preference as to which you want to happen. Well since it has been stated by knowledgeable members of the production that plan B is in effect. Your case is valid but it is a moot point. At this time I feel that it is more important to discuss what is actually about to happen rather than what has all ready been eliminated by those making the movie(s.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.

Photobucket


geordie
Aessere Lot

Dec 12 2010, 12:03pm


Views: 13238
     Mind you,

Tolkien didn't originally intend that the changes to Riddles in the Dark should be published. (letter 111). It was only intended as a specimen of re-writing. It came as a shock to him to find these changes in page-proof some three years later. (letters 128, 129). But on reflection, he thought it all came out well in the wash. Though it did mean adding an explanatory note to the second edition of 1951 (letter 130 -my copy with this note inserted is dated 1955).

Though personally, I have a soft spot for the original Gollum, as in my 1946 first edition reprint...

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 12 2010, 12:11pm)


dormouse
Nevle-flah

Dec 12 2010, 2:29pm


Views: 13246
     Mmm.....

But you will always have that Gollum on your bookshelf and in your imagination, won't you? Seems to me that's the thing to hold onto in all this maelstrom of what each of us wants, hopes for and dreads in the new films. They won't please everyone at every point, but no matter what changes the filmmakers introduce, all those of us who love the books will always have the books and the things we really love about them can't be hurt by the films.

Seems to me it's inevitable that having made three successful films of Lord of the Rings, and now taking on The Hobbit in the light of that success, it's inevitable that the new films will have a Lord of the Rings perspective. Hence the inclusion of Radagast, Galadriel, Legolas, the naming of the Elvenking as Thranduil, and so on. Tolkien himself made that inevitable in the writing of his sequel to The Hobbit - he was the one who developed and defined things which he hadn't thought of before. And you can build up perfectly valid, Tolkien-based arguments for making these changes to The Hobbit, though not everyone will agree with them.

I'd love answers to two unfathomable questions; if Peter Jackson had made The Hobbit first, how different might the adaptation have been, and if Tolkien were alive now, and able to see how the world, the admirers of his writings, and the technical capabilities of film-making had changed, what would he feel about it? (I truly don't think we can come up with a complete answer to this from his published letters. Times change and people and attitudes change with them. Before anyone strangles me or throws turnips, I'm not trying to say that he would or wouldn't have approved of any of this - I don't know and I never will. I would just love to be able to hear his reaction.)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Ronilav

Dec 12 2010, 3:51pm


Views: 13194
     Quite true

I would have have loved to have seen Tolkien's face when he saw those page proofs. Smile But, as you you say, he concluded (correctly in my opinion) that the revisions were an improvement and approved them.

Regarding the 1960 revisions, some have pointed to the fact that Tolkien failed to complete that revision as an indication that the concluded that revising the book to make it more in line with LOTR was not the way to go. I don't think it is that clear. As Carpenter and Rateliff both point out, when the publisher asked for revisions of The Hobbit in 1966 to preserve the copyright (after the unauthorized versions), he looked for the 1960 revisions but could not find them. Given that he found much of the book to be "poor" I think it is reasonable to think that there is a good chance that had he found those revisions, we would have a very different "official" version now.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

www.arda-reconstructed.com


Junesong
Llednevir


Dec 12 2010, 5:39pm


Views: 13216
     Historical versus Textual

I'm joining this argument late - but I did my homework and I read through the thread first. Now Tumhalad seems to be constantly drawing the line between historical and textual in his responses - as in, just because WE, as an audience know some more details about The Hobbit plot from subsequent Tolkien writings, doesn't mean it's in THE HOBBIT book and so it shouldn't be in The Hobbit movie.

That makes sense to me sort of. If we were in a court room you could prove all those points. You have text to back it up. You make very valid arguments. I'm just not sure why? It seems to be because you think there's "no need" to.

Is that because you are an extreme fan of the book The Hobbit? We know there is more than one version of The Hobbit in print and that the authors intentions with his original story are unclear... but still I'll give you that. You're a fan of the book and you want the book you love to be adapted on to screen. You define adaptation as a process of transferring book to screen as faithfully as possible (you're ok with changes, as long as they seek to faithfully transpose Tolkiens The Hobbit onto the screen) I still seem to be understanding you're argument no?

So, here's my issue: I don't know what the problem is?

You KNOW that Jackson and co were both faithful AND wildly UNfaithful to Tolkien for LOTR. (the most terrible and glaring example to me is Gimli smoking on Denethors steward chair in MT saying "Let him rot!" about Sauron - which is just completely preposterous in so many ways to the cannon and I"m sure Tolkien himself is probably still spinning in his grave as a result). but you also know, I should hope, that the films were beautiful and occasionally captured spot on the magic of Tolkien (the Argonath, Balrog, Minas Tirith, the music, Gollum, etc)

So, I think it's safe to assume more of the same this time around.

There is never going to be an adaptation of The Hobbit just as it is. Even in 50 years if someone makes The Hobbit again, it will be made with LOTR in mind, and parts of the story will serve to set up a bigger mythology.

The text, in essence, has been swallowed up by Tolkien's greater mythology. We will never see The Hobbit as you want it. And I don't think we ever should.

Think about it - the story of The Hobbit is about Bilbo - just like you say. It's a great little story, more light hearted and about greed and bravery and courage etc. I know, I've read it hundreds of times. But it's also about Bilbo finding the ring. Read it however you want in your own time, but once you've read LOTR you know that the events surrounding the ring take on more meaning.

It's not textual, but it's historical. And those two cannot now be separated.

The pure, simple story of The Hobbit sits now forever in the shadow of all the other works Tolkien wrote - it now belongs IN the world he created and it cannot be separated.

Jackson certainly doesn't want it separate - he wants to be able to connect the two stories and I'm excited to see it. Not just because I'm excited to see the Necromancer etc but because that's how I see those stories. They are one.

Now, in the words of The Dude, "that's just, like, my opinion man.."

But I think it would be silly to adapt The Hobbit word for word from the book and leave it completely detached from LOTR as it was when it was first published.

It doesn't make sense dramatically, financially, or even fanatically (from a fan's perspective).

So... are you just arguing rhetorically about tying The Hobbit into LOTR because you think it's greedy? Or are you just disappointed because you think The Hobbit story will be short changed? Because, the movies are being made, and in a lot of ways they will be better than we could imagine - and in many ways I'm sure they will add or change things from the story that will makes us cringe.

But what is certain... is that The Hobbit story will be told. This is The Hobbit after all - I don't think we need to worry about that. I still consider LOTR to be impossible to film and I would HATE to see LOTR as some kind of 50 hour, word for word adaptation where every single thing is shown. Movies and books should be different. And Jackson did that with LOTR - I love it and I hate it. If I'd never read the books I'd probably just love it.

So - all that said - and I said too much - Tolkien movie adaptations are for us (the fans of the books) and for them (the people who have never read them) and they are made to make money, and they are made because Peter has a vision of how to adapt the story. And they are made because he has the ability to do it and we don't.

"Tim... Canterbury... Canterbury Tales... Chaucer."


SirDennisC
Nevle-flah


Dec 12 2010, 6:42pm


Views: 13189
     A clear voice in a murky landscape

as usual. Well said.

Interesting idea here:

Quote

if Peter Jackson had made The Hobbit first, how different might the adaptation have been


Well for one, there would likely be no Legolas in TH. That means no Bloom and the cloud of films that followed that role.

Right now we might be discussing whether LOTR could handle more Dwarfs or not. Some back story to Balin's eventual entombment?

Maybe Viggo would have played Bard? We would be discussing the merits of him turning aside his ascension to King of Dale so he could reveal himself as the Ranger Strider in LOTR?

One thing is for sure, the world would be a different place. TH may have passed barely noticed if it had been made first...



macfalk
Ronilav


Dec 12 2010, 6:56pm


Views: 13164
     I don't think so

If The Hobbit would have failed in the alternate past you speak of, I'm fairly sure any LOTR-plans would have been sidelined. Look at the other franchises out there that failed, the planned sequels are often placed in the can. (Though I hate to call LOTR + The Hobbit a franchise, the suits love to)



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 12 2010, 6:57pm)


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 12 2010, 6:57pm


Views: 13187
     Perhaps PJ would have handed LotR off to GdT.

I'm not sure if they would have expanded The Lord of the Rings into six films, though. That seems almost too ambitious and risky, regardless of how successful the single-film version of The Hobbit might have been.


tumhalad
Eerb


Dec 12 2010, 11:15pm


Views: 13169
     Literary vs. Historicity

 

I'm joining this argument late - but I did my homework and I read through the thread first. Now Tumhalad seems to be constantly drawing the line between historical and textual in his responses - as in, just because WE, as an audience know some more details about The Hobbit plot from subsequent Tolkien writings, doesn't mean it's in THE HOBBIT book and so it shouldn't be in The Hobbit movie.


Sort of. We don't "know" more about the plot of The Hobbit - we already "know" that from reading it. Subsequent of Tolkien's writings don't shed light on the plot - and this is the point. They shed light on the "history", but I am arguing that the filmmakers should not be adapting the 'history' - they should be adapting the literary work, The Hobbit.


That makes sense to me sort of. If we were in a court room you could prove all those points. You have text to back it up. You make very valid arguments. I'm just not sure why? It seems to be because you think there's "no need" to.


Because they are adapting The Hobbit, supposedly. Why else? Why interpolate events that do not take place within the plot, within the purview of the literary work, The Hobbit?


Is that because you are an extreme fan of the book The Hobbit? We know there is more than one version of The Hobbit in print and that the authors intentions with his original story are unclear... but still I'll give you that. You're a fan of the book and you want the book you love to be adapted on to screen. You define adaptation as a process of transferring book to screen as faithfully as possible (you're ok with changes, as long as they seek to faithfully transpose Tolkiens The Hobbit onto the screen) I still seem to be understanding you're argument no?


Yep, that's correct. I understand there was an earlier publication, and later revision. It makes most sense to adapt the official version as we have it now. Already, it is clearly set in Middle-earth, and it retains a kind of whimsicality.


So, here's my issue: I don't know what the problem is?

You KNOW that Jackson and co were both faithful AND wildly UNfaithful to Tolkien for LOTR. (the most terrible and glaring example to me is Gimli smoking on Denethors steward chair in MT saying "Let him rot!" about Sauron - which is just completely preposterous in so many ways to the cannon and I"m sure Tolkien himself is probably still spinning in his grave as a result). but you also know, I should hope, that the films were beautiful and occasionally captured spot on the magic of Tolkien (the Argonath, Balrog, Minas Tirith, the music, Gollum, etc)

So, I think it's safe to assume more of the same this time around.


Exactly, and that's what I'm afraid of. More needless extraposition; mindless slashings, and pointless plots.


There is never going to be an adaptation of The Hobbit just as it is. Even in 50 years if someone makes The Hobbit again, it will be made with LOTR in mind, and parts of the story will serve to set up a bigger mythology.


Why not? As I've said repeatedly, no one will have any doubt that we are in Middle-earth. An intelligent filmmaker who knows all Tolkien's texts well should be able to film an adaptation of The Hobbit that does not pander to the extravegences of the LOTR film trilogy.


The text, in essence, has been swallowed up by Tolkien's greater mythology. We will never see The Hobbit as you want it. And I don't think we ever should.


Then that is a great and needless loss. There is no good reason not to see a faithfull adaptation of The Hobbit. Being swallowed by the legendarium is not a good reason, because it's already clear that the book takes place in Middle-earth, as it is. We see plenty of familiar characters. Why Galadriel and Legolas? I mean, please.


Think about it - the story of The Hobbit is about Bilbo - just like you say. It's a great little story, more light hearted and about greed and bravery and courage etc. I know, I've read it hundreds of times. But it's also about Bilbo finding the ring. Read it however you want in your own time, but once you've read LOTR you know that the events surrounding the ring take on more meaning.


The Ring as it appears in The Hobbit is not the one Ring, in a literary sense. On film, sure, audiences will understand its significance, but within the film it should have no greater role to play than it does in the book.


It's not textual, but it's historical. And those two cannot now be separated.


I disagree.


The pure, simple story of The Hobbit sits now forever in the shadow of all the other works Tolkien wrote - it now belongs IN the world he created and it cannot be separated.


The Hobbit story is neither pure nor simple. It is already in the world he created, and to a degree, sits outside of it, just like Tom Bombadil. So? Why should its unique atmospherics be sacrificed on the alter of market research?


Jackson certainly doesn't want it separate - he wants to be able to connect the two stories and I'm excited to see it. Not just because I'm excited to see the Necromancer etc but because that's how I see those stories. They are one.


No, they're not "one".


Now, in the words of The Dude, "that's just, like, my opinion man.."


fair enough...


But I think it would be silly to adapt The Hobbit word for word from the book and leave it completely detached from LOTR as it was when it was first published.


It was never "completely detatched from LOTR". Once again, it clearly takes place in Middle-earth.


It doesn't make sense dramatically, financially, or even fanatically (from a fan's perspective).


I think that's a silly statement.


So... are you just arguing rhetorically about tying The Hobbit into LOTR because you think it's greedy? Or are you just disappointed because you think The Hobbit story will be short changed? Because, the movies are being made, and in a lot of ways they will be better than we could imagine - and in many ways I'm sure they will add or change things from the story that will makes us cringe.


I have no idea how they will turn out. If they are anything like LTOR films I will be dissapointed. And yes, they will make me cringe in places, I'm sure.


But what is certain... is that The Hobbit story will be told. This is The Hobbit after all - I don't think we need to worry about that. I still consider LOTR to be impossible to film and I would HATE to see LOTR as some kind of 50 hour, word for word adaptation where every single thing is shown. Movies and books should be different. And Jackson did that with LOTR - I love it and I hate it. If I'd never read the books I'd probably just love it.


We'll see. Movies that are adaptations of novels should adhere to the source material as faithfully as possible.


So - all that said - and I said too much - Tolkien movie adaptations are for us (the fans of the books) and for them (the people who have never read them) and they are made to make money, and they are made because Peter has a vision of how to adapt the story. And they are made because he has the ability to do it and we don't.


Exactly-they are made to make money. Peter has the ability and we don't? True, but so what? That doesn't absolve him of responsibility to be faithfull to the adaptation.



Junesong
Llednevir


Dec 13 2010, 1:34am


Views: 13149
     follow up

Not a huge fan of my opinions being called "silly" - "silly" being a strange choice of word... connotative of what exactly? But I understand you better now at least.

We just fundamentally disagree.

You maintain that we owe nothing to Jackson and yet that he owes us (and Tolkien) a faithful adaptation to The Hobbit (the book, not the story) and that anything added to the story from Tolkiens other works is going to make you mad. You say "the filmmakers should not be adapting the 'history' they should be adapting the literary work" - but says who? Says You? Says me? Does the "should" mean that to do so is right and to do something else is wrong? Where is this "should" coming from? Because they are adapting The Hobbit? The Hobbit is part of a larger story - indisputably - the author himself took great pains to make it so. So I just don't understand the "should". I don't think we have any right to say "should" about this.

There are many right ways to adapt the book, The Hobbit, and Jackson's way won't please all of us - but I don't think we have the right to say SHOULD. Especially when the changes in question are based in the Tolkien cannon and not just from Jackson's own imagination.

It looks like I also disagree with you about Jackson's LOTR films and thought that for all their faults (and there were many) the films reflected the heart of the books and were gorgeous to look at. I (I say I, not we) owe him a great deal of respect and gratitude for that because EVERY other attempt to adapt Tolkien (beyond the mediocre Rankin Bass Hobbit) were terrible. And most of the projects never got off the ground. He succeeded and the work ethic and bar of excellence that his crew maintained was like a gift to me. Those movies were brilliant. For that, I'll give Jackson my respect and my gratitude. Gladly. In my opinion he earned it. He was a faithful guardian of stories I had thought were unfilmable.

So, if you didn't like LOTR and if you're dreading The Hobbit than you have my pity. But I understand. As a Tolkien fan I really do. Movies will never do the stories real justice... but as a movie fan I can't agree with you.

Tolkien built a world that went beyond his books - his stories connected in complicated and brilliant ways. The events of The Hobbit, while innocuous in their own tale, had enormous impacts on his world and his mythology. Personally I can't wait to see what Peter does with it.

"Tim... Canterbury... Canterbury Tales... Chaucer."

(This post was edited by Ataahua on Dec 15 2010, 8:26pm)


Flagg
Aessere Lot


Dec 13 2010, 6:22pm


Views: 13091
     Faithfulness


Quote
Movies that are adaptations of novels should adhere to the source material as faithfully as possible.

Should they? That's the purist perspective, but I don't believe what an adaptation 'should' do is quite that indisputable. What if the source material is flawed? Should the adaptation deliberately preserve the flaws rather than attempting to iron them out? What if the director has a vision for his own version that is significantly different from that of the original author? For example, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, or Ridley Scott's Blade Runner? Both films take enormous liberties with their source material, but both are regarded as masterpieces in a way the original books are not. Do you think that these films should not have been made, or that the directors should have restricted themselves to faithfully adapting the books, or that the films should have been made by other directors whose vision is more similar to the source material?


Arwen Skywalker
Neirol


Dec 13 2010, 9:32pm


Views: 13056
     Yes

I'd also like to add The Wizard of Oz to the list. Much of the material at the beginning and end of the movie is not in the book at all. There are more liberties taken but anyone can go to Wikipedia for that. That didn't stop the film from becoming a critic's darling and now, it is a frequent textbook example of a great classic movie. I wish Dorothy was less of a damsel-in-distress when I found out how much her character was changed from the Sarah Connor Chronicles. But I did like the the subplot where she ran away when Miss Gulch wants to euthanize Toto. It gives more significance to "there's no place like home." It seems to me like it's been common practice for filmmakers to add fanfiction material to adaptations since the beginning of the industry (though I see this as neither an inherently good or bad thing). I wonder if people who are purists (not just towards Tolkien's works but all adaptations) ever had the experience of seeing the films first and liking something that's not in the book. Or even liking how a certain aspect was done in the film better than the book. Then again, if someone really is a hardcore purist about Oz, they probably wouldn't give a crap that the movie is considered a classic.


willowgreylock
Neirol


Dec 14 2010, 7:34pm


Views: 13276
     Return of OB/Legolas

Laugh So very HAPPY to hear this good news!!
I most definately expected at least a cameo,
perhaps Legolas standing by his father's
throne as they bring in the Dwarves to be
questioned. But now we hear it's going to
be a larger role, EVEN BETTER!!

WELCOME BACK OB!!! Heart

Crazy ps please quit sweating it that he is going to
replace Bard. They haven't cast a number
of roles yet, it doesn't mean they've been
replaced by other characters.