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

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
The Hobbit, the movie: will it be a fantasy epic or a children's film? Or both?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Kdgard
Bree

Oct 10 2007, 6:43pm

Post #51 of 124 (956 views)
Shortcut
The Cave Troll and the Trush [In reply to] Can't Post

Hello everyone. This is my first attempt at joining a thread, so I hope I am doing it correctly. I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts about talking animals in The Hobbit and a few things keep swirling around in my mind. Silverlode said, "The Cave Troll was shown to be in the 'animal' category, having no speech and being led around on a chain by its masters..." I see a couple of possibilities here. First, in The Hobbit, the 3 trolls (Tom, Bill and Bert) were Mountain Trolls from the Trollshaws and they are clearly able to speak. It could be that Cave Trolls are a lesser species of troll and are indeed closer to animals and without the gift of speech. Perhaps they're not "true trolls" at all. Second, I think the Cave Troll presented in FOTR might have been a special case. He had been tormented and abused and kept like a beast by the Orcs of Moria. In the special features, Peter Jackson said he wanted to present the troll as rather child-like and imagined that its mother was waiting for it somewhere in the deep. I think the Orcs wanted to keep him big, dumb and strong. How would any of us be if someone took us away at the age of One and raised us like an animal and kept us uneducated? In that case, maybe we too would communicate only in grunts and growls and roars. Of course, he might be capable of speaking perfect "trollish", but the common speech was never taught to him. It could be he was a "special needs" troll, too. At any rate, PJ was trying to present him as a small troll mind in a big troll body, so he might not be a good representation of his whole race. Perhaps, under different circumstances, Cave Trolls are quite capable of speech.
Another thing was brought up by Elizabeth. She said, "The Thrush is a problem. A talking dragon is one thing, but a talking Thrush screams 'kiddie movie'..." In this case, I don't think it's necessarily a matter of the Thrush speaking the common tongue as much as Bard understanding the language of the Thrush. Remember that Bard is a descendant of the Kings of Old Dale. "The men of Dale traced their descent to the Edain, and Dale may have been quite ancient when it was destroyed in TA 2770 by Smaug." (The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth) I seem to have it in my head that the men of Old Dale could understand the language of the birds, and Bard is kind of a throw-back to that earlier day. Bard doesn't speak "Thrush" but he understands it, just as the Thrush doesn't speak "Common", although he understands it. As somone else pointed out, this worked well in the animated movie and I think it would work in a live-action movie, too. Basically, Bard translates for we "bird language challenged" members of the audience what the Thrush is saying.
I think that's what everyone's hang-up is over the issue of talking animals, that being imagining everything speaking in the common tongue. I think Peter Jackson could get around that with a combination of creatures speaking some common tongue and individuals, like Gandalf, being able to understand "animal tongue". I really like the proposed idea that Bilbo can only understand the Spiders when he puts The Ring on. This makes sense since the Spiders are some of the creepy-crawlies that invaded Mirkwood when Sauron took up residency there. It could very well be that the Spiders are talking the "Black Speech" and can only be understood by the likes of Gandalf or someone wearing The Ring. Perhaps Shelob WAS speaking to Frodo but he didn't understand her because he wasn't wearing The Ring at the time.
Basically, I feel the idea of talking animals in The Hobbit will work if it's done right. And, as we've seen, if Peter Jackson is involved he knows how to do things right!


weaver
Half-elven

Oct 10 2007, 8:03pm

Post #52 of 124 (899 views)
Shortcut
well welcome to you, too! [In reply to] Can't Post

The Hobbit news is bringing a lot of new friends to this place. Welcome and hope you join in on the other discussions, too, as well as start a few of your own!

What led you to us? Glad you are here!

Weaver



weaver
Half-elven

Oct 10 2007, 8:07pm

Post #53 of 124 (941 views)
Shortcut
continuing on my welcome wagon rounds... [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey, you snuck in when I wasn't looking, too!

Welcome and see how good you are at starting a discussion?

We have four ongoing discussions now, and lots of Hobbit new popping up now as well. So lots to check out, here and on the rest of the boards. Dive right in and enjoy!

Weaver



Elizabeth
Half-elven


Oct 10 2007, 9:05pm

Post #54 of 124 (925 views)
Shortcut
Can there be one-way telepathy? [In reply to] Can't Post

If Smaug can communicate into Bilbo's mind, can he also read it? If so, that would be a problem, since Bilbo was maintaining a brave front and dissembling more than a little.




Son of Elizabeth in Frodo's tree
March, 2007


Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Kdgard
Bree

Oct 10 2007, 10:49pm

Post #55 of 124 (869 views)
Shortcut
Thank you Weaver! [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the warm welcome, Weaver! I've been reading the news on TORN for quite some time, but I've only recently discovered the discussion boards. I actually registered to enter a poem in the Hobbit Pride contest, and since then I've been poking around and reading all of the interesting things members have been posting. I got involved with this discussion because the question Maura posed about whether The Hobbit would be a fantasy epic or a children's film is something I had been thinking about recently. Thanks again for setting out the welcome mat!

Kdgard


labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 11 2007, 12:10am

Post #56 of 124 (871 views)
Shortcut
Hello to you, Kdgard [In reply to] Can't Post

This was my first attempt at starting a thread, so, we're in the same boat! I guess the timing was right for my question, so thanks for joining it. I'm really enjoying hearing all these different and original thoughts about epic vs fairy-tale elements such as talking animals.
OK, I buy the idea that there are different "breeds" of troll, and maybe some are more intelligent than others. And as someone pointed out in an earlier post, the trolls that PJ showed us (Bilbo's trolls, in FOTR) had more human-looking faces than the cave troll or the battle-trolls he established.
And your point that Bard is not just an ordinary human could work, if earlier in the film PJ establishes that Bard has this special ability to understand the thrush's speech (because of his lineage, etc.) So, yeah, I could buy that.

Regarding Elizabeth's observation on one-way telepathy, yes, good point; I think it would have to be one-way. I figure that while wearing the One Ring Bilbo can understand Smaug's roars and rumbles as speech, and Bilbo then replies out loud to Smaug (who in turn understands the speech of the Burglar) but Bilbo's body and mind are invisible to Smaug. Otherwise, you're right, poor little Bilbo would have no chance at all! I liked that visual touch in the animated version of TH, where Smaug's eyes were so intense that they generated beams of light that swept around his cave as he searched for the Burglar, during their conversation.

I am really looking forward to this film, I think that it will take a lot of love and care to retain the fantasy elements but not let them drag the piece over into the children's camp. But if PJ and company are at the helm I think they can tackle it.

-Maura

"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien


orcbane
Gondor


Oct 11 2007, 12:33am

Post #57 of 124 (859 views)
Shortcut
Clever that is! [In reply to] Can't Post

I missed that idea of yours about understanding the spiders only when the ring is on. Until someone mentioned it later. That would work!

Yes, I admit, I do not always read every post. Especially when there's 30 since you last looked. but life is good


Kdgard
Bree

Oct 11 2007, 4:24am

Post #58 of 124 (863 views)
Shortcut
Trix are for kids? [In reply to] Can't Post

Great discussion Maura. I'm curious, though. You said, "I think it will take a lot of love to retain the fantasy elements but not let them drag the piece into the children's camp...". I wonder, what exactly is "the children's camp" anymore? The lines have definitely become blurred. The Harry Potter books are considered to be "children's books" and yet the books and the movies have a huge adult following. Look at the monster success of movies like Spiderman, The X-men and Transformers. Also, movies from Pixar and Dreamworks, like Shrek, have humor in them which is clearly aimed at adults. While I can't think of any example off hand, I have found that in watching things like Bugs Bunny/Looney Tunes cartoons as an adult, I catch jokes that I didn't catch as a child because I now understand what some of the jokes were referencing. A lot of humor in "kid's stuff" is aimed way over their heads to the adults who are watching too.
Now, I agree with you that I wouldn't want to see a Hobbit movie where Sir Ian's Gandalf was played opposite to Kermit the Frog as Bilbo (no offense to Muppet Show fans---another example, by the way, of humor that is not wholly aimed at children), but we've all bought into elves, dwarves, hobbits, wizards, trolls, orcs, magic rings and dark lords (all of which my mom still refers to as "that weird stuff") as being in the realm of believability. Why is it then that the idea of talking animals seems so far out in Left Field and childish?
Some members have posted that the talking animals are essential to The Hobbit story. Not necessarily. In the book LOTR, every two seconds somebody seems to be breaking into song. Peter Jackson could have just as easily made a musical, but I don't think the omission of all the singing seriously harmed the movies. It might seem a shock to go from no animals speaking in LOTR to every animal speaking in The Hobbit, so Peter could choose to tone it down a little for continuity's sake. I don't think Mirkwood would seem any less perilous if the spiders don't talk, but the trolls and Smaug absolutely must! Personally, I would like to see the movie made as close to the book as possible, talking animals and all. The different tone of The Hobbit book from that of the LOTR books hasn't taken away from my enjoyment of it, and I think that would carry over into the movie as well. As I said earlier, it just depends on if the movie is well made. Thanks again for a great discussion!

Kdgard


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 11 2007, 6:39am

Post #59 of 124 (861 views)
Shortcut
Wow. It feels like 2001 again. [In reply to] Can't Post

...when I came on board, as Fimbrethil. Let's hope this is a good omen *crosses fingers,burns incense,sends up smoke signals*

All lthis already raging debate on talking animals...are we back in "does the Balrog have wings" territory?Wink

Guys, I hate to remind you, but there's a dragon in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows too. He's in only one scene and he doesn't talk, but I have a nasty feeling whoever directs HP7 will keep him and his scene in, esp as it involves stealing a Horcrux. If Kreacher is in in the film (and we know he will be, after Jo Rowling all but ordered Warner Brothers to keep him in the film for Book 5), then the dragon scene will be in. And this complicates things as well.
Wait, come to think if it, there was a troll in both the Sorcerer's Stone film and FOTR, which came out within a month of each other. So maybe it won't be a problem.
DH is so unrelentingly dark and grim I don't see how the two could be compared anyway. Oh wait, that's a thought. What if DH and Hobbit come out same tear (2010)? I don't think that's likely though.

This is getting so good, I REALLY need to dig my old copy of the Hobbit out and re-read it! And what were those suplemetary works I should read upon again, to follow the evolution of the tone of the book?


elostirion74
Rohan

Oct 11 2007, 10:09am

Post #60 of 124 (945 views)
Shortcut
a comment on Guillermo del Toro [In reply to] Can't Post

Would just like to comment on your speculations about Guillermo del Toro getting to direct The Hobbit. That would hardly be any good, and I don't see why he should, frankly. He doesn't seem to be interested in fantasy and fairy stories in their own right, which is required for making a movie of the Hobbit. I liked Pan's Labyrinth, but it seemed rather like the fantasy elements were meant to be rationalized and seen as a commentary or reaction to real events. It's original, perhaps, but not a testimony to a flair for fantasy or fairy stories as an independent world.

By the way Guillermo del Toro has admitted he would be interested to direct "Deathly Hallows", provided that Harry Potter dies at the end. He certainly seems attracted to the potential for darkness and agony in fantasy.


labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 11 2007, 5:28pm

Post #61 of 124 (867 views)
Shortcut
Kiddie-movie vs epic fantasy [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks! That's an interesting point you made, that nowadays the line seems to be blurring concerning labeling a film for grownups or for children. I agree that the movies about comic book super-heroes and Harry Potter seem to straddle that line. And its true, the old Warner Brothers Looney Tunes cartoons seemed aimed at adults as much as kids (who didn't quite understand the gag in which the rifle barrel goes limp after it fired, but laughed anyway.)
But on re-reading "The Hobbit" I was very much struck by the difference in tone between TH and LOTR. I am very intrigued by thinking of ways of retaining the fairy-tale elements (comic dwarves, talking animals) and yet letting the film evolve into an epic drama.
And Sunflower made a good point that even if TH is not released around the same time as the final Harry Potter film, the films will probably be compared to each other anyway. If the final HP film has a dragon, then Smaug will surely need to be quite different, surprising and memorable to "come out on top." What an excruciating but exciting dilemma for the film-makers (whom I hope are PJ and co.)
I think PJ and his team have proven that they have the right "take" and "feel" for Tolkien's world, his characters & creatures, and can put it all together in a believable way, giving us fans the charm and heart and the exhilarating roller-coster ride we are hoping for. And having PJ helm TH will guarantee the most continuity with the LOTR films in style, tone, etc. I am so rooting for PJ doing this set of films (with or without NL.)
That's not to say that fresh new ideas would be unwelcome; possibly PJ could assemble a team of unit directors to work with who would bring some unique and interesting thoughts into the mix. One of PJ's strengths is his willingness to try different approaches to a story problem until he gets it right. Although I don't agree 100% with all his story or character decisions in the LOTR films, overall I think that he was right on target.
And thank you weaver for the welcome! It is great fun to think about the problems the film-makers will have to solve, and then inwardly cheer and pat yourself on the back if any of your own ideas wind up in the film. (I guess I believe in one-way telepathy!)
-Maura

"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien


Kdgard
Bree

Oct 12 2007, 12:01am

Post #62 of 124 (835 views)
Shortcut
Everything old is new again! [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Sunflower. I wish I had known about these discussion boards back in 2001! If these current discussions are anything to go by, I have a feeling I've missed out on some really great stuff over the last six years. I wouldn't worry too much about any dragon in Harry Potter being compared to Smaug. I think the Horntail dragon in "Goblet of Fire" was one of the most amazing dragons I've ever seen. They've certainly come a long way since Vermithrax in "Dragonslayer" back in the 80's---and even he was a decent looking dragon back then. Still, I have supreme faith in the WETA Workshop! If PJ and WETA are involved....Oh, Please, Please, Please, let them be involved....they'll know how important Smaug is to all of us. I seriously wouldn't put it past Richard Taylor and his crew to come up with a Smaug that is capable of flying right out of the Silver Screen and spilling our popcorn before he soars off to his Lake Town rendezvous with Bard's Black Arrow!! Anyway, I'm looking forward to more great discussions. By the way, what was the concensus on "Did the Balrog have wings?"?

Kdgard


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Oct 12 2007, 2:28am

Post #63 of 124 (900 views)
Shortcut
Ai! Ai! The Balrog debate is come! [In reply to] Can't Post

This was debated so extensively and heatedly in the first years of TORn without consensus that it became one of the first rules in the TORN Drinking Game

I think in TORN's First Age (prior to the release of FOTR in theaters) the majority were in the no-wings camp, though there were some staunch holdouts for wings. After FOTR came out and we got a lot more movie-firsters who had seen a winged Balrog as their introduction, the pendulum swung way over into the "winger" end of the spectrum. I've always been firmly against Balrog wings, myself. Unless they're served with really good BBQ sauce.

The Encyclopedia of Arda has a good article examining the issue in detail , should you feel inclined to pursue the matter.

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


orcbane
Gondor


Oct 12 2007, 2:48am

Post #64 of 124 (832 views)
Shortcut
Most exaulted waste! a Balroggg... [In reply to] Can't Post

I always liked the idea you get of Legolas showing real fear at the Bridge at Khazad-Dum. Up to now for him, creatures of dread in the old ages, and the bane of many mighty elves (which is not surprizing, when you realize they are Maia). For a person today, I can only compare it to being out exploring in the most remote jungle left on earth, and stumbling into a live T-Rex.


Kdgard
Bree

Oct 12 2007, 4:39am

Post #65 of 124 (829 views)
Shortcut
Great information! [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you, Silverlode, for all of the great information about the W-things on the B-things. I got a great chuckle out of the TORN drinking game rules and that Encyclopedia of Arda was fascinating!! I had no idea I was really stepping in it when I asked that simple little question. I feel like a certain Hobbit who found a pretty ring and thought, "Hmmm. Nice souvenir to show the neighbors back home."----if only I knew! It actually reminds me of the real-life debate in paleontology now over whether T-Rex was the ruthless killing machine we all grew up reading about, or if he was rather just a disgusting scavenger (Orcbane's post reminded me of that when he mentioned the T-Rex). Both sides of the Balrog debate have good points, and it seems to me that the only way we'll ever know for sure is if one of us ever has the good fortune (or bad fortune more accurately) to come across one and live to tell the tale! I would like to offer one possibility on the idea of a Balrog shape-shifting, as per that article. I hope I'm not breaking some kind of etiquette, since this doesn't really relate to the "Epic fantasy vs. Children's film" nature of this thread. Regardless of whether or not the "alrogBay" had "ingWays", some people suggested that he shape-shifts to accomodate moving through small chambers and then being able to fill a cavern. This makes sense, but I don't see it as shape-shifting such as one minute he looks like a big demon, then next he transforms to look like Aragorn. I see it as the nature of fire. Fire is constantly changing and it can be anything from a low burning ember to a towering inferno. Being a creature of fire and shadow, the Balrog can change size depending on his need or mood. Perhaps he is small when he is hibernating in some deep cavern or needs to pass through a small doorway---like a low burning ember---and when he is ready to do battle he can be huge like a raging forest fire. That easily explains how he can at one moment be small enough to fit through a chamber door and the next big enough to fill a cavern. Anyway, thanks again for the great info!

Kdgard


Patty
Immortal


Oct 12 2007, 5:00am

Post #66 of 124 (841 views)
Shortcut
Take your gulp right now. [In reply to] Can't Post

I stand by the literal wings!

I'm wondering, was there anything debatable like this in "The Hobbit?" We should start it up now. Letmesee, oh yes--was Gandalf invisible when his sword killed the big Goblin in the caves? That's what it says in the BBC audio, so it must be true!

For Gondor!

(This post was edited by Patty on Oct 12 2007, 5:01am)


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Oct 12 2007, 8:55am

Post #67 of 124 (851 views)
Shortcut
My all-time favorite take on this argument [In reply to] Can't Post

was from our beloved and much-mourned Reverend, who presented this brilliant analysis during his discussion of The Bridge at Khazad-Dum (and don't miss the next chapter-by chapter discussion of LotR which is about to start in the Reading Room).




Son of Elizabeth in Frodo's tree
March, 2007


Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 12 2007, 9:01am

Post #68 of 124 (845 views)
Shortcut
So. Should the Thrush talk or not? [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe that should be the "Balrog" question of "The Hobbit"Smile

Jeebus, Silverlode, that was hilarious. I hadn't seen the Drinking Game rules, believe it or not. I esp like the one on whether Howard Shore's score would suck or not. LOL!!!!

KGard, hi to you too. Though you flatter me. If the pre-FOTR release was TORN's First Age, then people like Ataahua would be Yavanna, Gramma would be Feanor, Patty would be Galadriel, and I? I would be one of the servant girls in King Thingol's palace who worked in the kitchens. Translation: I'mnext to nobody....an occasional poster, and maybe TORN's most epic lurker. But thanks anyway.

Maybe we should start a Drinking Game for The Hobbit. After all, it can be said that we are the first....now that it appears the film will get underway, in whatever fashion.

Some inital rules:

Drink every time...

Someone mentions anyone other than PJ as director (or raises the issue.)
Someone levels (insult of choice) at New Line (exec of choice.)
There's a post about talking animals.
(Take 2 small sips if)....
it's about the Thrush talking;
Smaug not being cute;
Beorn and Bard.


Take 2 drinks after..
Sunflower: a) posts something more than 3 epic paragraphs long....
b) makes a U2 reference. (you can get three sheets to the wind on this alone, I will guaruntee you--U2, not Tolkien (sorry) is the great fandom experience of my life!


Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 12 2007, 9:28am

Post #69 of 124 (857 views)
Shortcut
STOP THE PRESSES! [In reply to] Can't Post

Dangit, it won't let me edit my last post.....

I HAVE to say this, If I had alcohol in the house I'd actually pour a drink for joy.

*AL GORE HAS WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE* (And the IPCC too)

It know this is totally OT but I just HAD to say it.
A friend of mine went to one of his "talks" in Seattle and she says he's the real deal .I am *still* jealous of her. Smile

Now back on topic


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Oct 12 2007, 7:16pm

Post #70 of 124 (844 views)
Shortcut
If you enjoyed the Drinking Game.... [In reply to] Can't Post

definitely check out the rest of the TORN Humor Files site. Goethy did us an immeasurable service by collecting large amounts of the wit and hilarity of the first few years of TORn into one site. And for anyone who wants to know what TORN was like in the early years, it will give some indication. Except for the Troll Wars; no one bothered to archive those. Tongue

Also see the Lasselanta Song Parody archive.

And enjoy!

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Oct 12 2007, 7:19pm

Post #71 of 124 (817 views)
Shortcut
*Glug!* [In reply to] Can't Post

You know, last night I had a post all written which neatly argued out that passage and demonstrated that Gandalf didn't need to (and probably wasn't) invisible at all....and then my net connection went down and I lost it. Mad

Anyway, I'll take my stand as: "No Wings! No Wizardly Invisibility!"

Have a drink on me, Patty!

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


Patty
Immortal


Oct 12 2007, 8:27pm

Post #72 of 124 (839 views)
Shortcut
make it virtual... [In reply to] Can't Post

and I'll click glasses with you.

I'm happy for him. It's very important work he's doing now.

For Gondor!


Compa_Mighty
Tol Eressea


Oct 13 2007, 2:06am

Post #73 of 124 (826 views)
Shortcut
About Children vs Epic [In reply to] Can't Post

As I said earlier, I agree we could go from light to dark... but if I had to choose I would go with epic. Some things can be kept light, but from my point of view, non-talking animals are absolutely mandatory. Sorry, I just think Narnia didn't cut it in that department, and in that story they could not be removed.

To echo someone's thoughts, Smaug and the trolls should talk and no one else. Not even Gwaihir or the Thrush.

I want to add something to the discussion, that further pushes towards the epic side. If PJ and MGM do it, (it seems like everyone's forgotten MGM) it will be two movies. Make no mistake, a two part Hobbit, not prequel + Hobbit. That implies Sir Ian McKellen has to get some more screentime and that the White Council will undoubtedly be included. That means darker. I can actually visualize a battle scene at Dol-Guldur.

The dwarves must also be really strong characters, especially Thorin, a thing which reminds me of a thoery of mine that I want to share with you.

In The Hobbit there is no actual villain, and no actual hero, per se. If we understand villains and heroes in a pure LOTR-fashion, where there are not really any characters in the "gray" part of the spectrum. Characters are in the light or the dark side (too Star Wars-y, but you see my point).

The Hobbit is filled with grey. Think of Thorin, Thranduil and the people of Dale. They actually get in a fight out of greed. Bilbo lies to his travel companions throughout most of the book, and Gandalf doesn't play that big a part (which will surely change in the movie). My point? This "grayness" can be played out pretty darkly. Imagine a film filled with stroing character personalities which are all fighting for their own and unimportant (in the greater picture agenda). Add Saruman, who would now be playing "double agent". And treat Gandalf as the only person in Middle Earth who has a real clue of what is actually happening. Perhaps Bilbo is the only one taking the trip relatively lightly. For the dwarves, it's personal, and everybody else is just looking to enrich themselves. If managed correctly, we could have an interesting movie, because, what is everyone really fighting against? Only Gandalf knows.

Eh, just a thought, I think I might have explained it better elsewhere, a year ago...

To close, a funny fact: Gwaihir and Thranduil are NOT mentioned by name anywhere in The Hobbit.

Oh! And of course Balrogs have wings! The shadowy-type of wings. Wink


SMALL REQUEST: Could this be stickied please? It won't be long until it goes to page 2...

Let it be heard! We want Jackson for The Hobbit!

(This post was edited by Compa_Mighty on Oct 13 2007, 2:10am)


Patty
Immortal


Oct 13 2007, 3:10am

Post #74 of 124 (821 views)
Shortcut
We use any excuse for a drinkee, I'm thinking! [In reply to] Can't Post

invisible? Nah. I

For Gondor!


labingi_maura
Rivendell


Oct 13 2007, 4:31am

Post #75 of 124 (799 views)
Shortcut
CM's most recent points [In reply to] Can't Post

What a dilemma. I see valid arguments for both ways of tackling a 2-film project...but as engaging as the book is, I just don't think TH has enough "meat" in it to stretch into two films. I would rather see a tighter, more action-packed TH instead of stretching it over two films. But that's just my personal taste. Then the seque/prequil film could cover all the various threads leading up to the beginning of LOTR.
I am in your camp concerning talking animals: keep that to a minimum.
Since Gwaihir did not speak in the LOTR films, I don't think he should in TH. (And I didn't realize that Gwaihir goes unnamed in TH!) Let's keep the giant eagles magestic, mysterious & awe-inspiring.
I think the leader of the three "stone trolls" could speak broken "Common Speech" to Bilbo, ("What's a..burra-hobbit?") and then the three trolls communicate mostly with grunts and snarls with each other.
The goblins don't really need to speak, although the King of the Goblins has some dialogue in the books. But possibly because the point of that seqence is so simple, the danger to the dwarves & Bilbo could be gotten across without the need for any dialogue.
Of course Gollum and Smeagol will be speaking; the Riddle Game will be a signature piece of the film, I believe.
Again, like Shelob in ROTK, the spiders in TH don't need to speak (maybe Bilbo understands them when he's wearing the Ring) but their behavior can show that they understand Bilbo when they react to being called "lob-lolly" and other spider epithets. (However, if you listen carefully when Shelob is defeated and Sam backs her into her hole: "N-o-o-o!" is mixed in with her other sounds. Can you guys hear that, or am I having an aural hallucination?)
I think minimizing the instances of talking animals would make Smaug's speaking more of an extraordinary event, also. I think the film-makers should treat the verbal duel between Smaug and Bilbo with much gusto and build-up of tension. And I still like the concept that wearing the Ring allows Bilbo to understand Smaug. That avoids the potentially cartoony look of having Smaug articulate words with his snout/mouth and being compared with Draco from "Dragonheart."
The little thrush's role as messenger could be handled the same way it was in the animated version: it works. Bard understands him, but the audience doesn't hear the thrush articulating words.
Your observation that greed and deception are the true villians in TH (and are more adult concepts to get across) is well made. And I agree that the place where the film should get darkest is when greed takes over and results in the Battle of the 5 Armies.
I want a roller-coaster ride! That's why of the three LOTR films, I liked FOTR the best: for me it was roller-coaster-riffic!
-Maura

"I am in fact a hobbit in all but size." - J.R.R.Tolkien

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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

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

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

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