|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
matthauger
Registered User
Feb 8 2013, 12:13pm
Post #1 of 16
(1667 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thought experiment: what if The Hobbit had been filmed before Lord of the Rings?
|
Can't Post
|
|
What's done is done. Still, I can't help but wonder: what if Peter Jackson had secured rights to The Hobbit, way back in 1996? What if he adapted that book first? How might a pre-LOTR adaptation have been different? Would it be better or worse?
Here's my blog post on the subject: http://www.theoutage.com/...e-lord-of-the-rings/. Feedback welcome!
(This post was edited by matthauger on Feb 8 2013, 12:14pm)
|
|
|
Verbal_Daggers
Lindon
Feb 8 2013, 1:11pm
Post #2 of 16
(1290 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As someone who got introduced to Tolkien's books through PJs adaptations...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have just started reading The Hobbit now and I am halfway thorugh - which means I have seen the movie first (since I am a big fan of Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings adaptation) and I really don't know what all the fuss is about... He has stayed rather close to the book so far (even Azog was mentioned in the text) and whereas the book feels rushed at times imo, PJ has taken the liberty to simply embellish the story a bit more - as a movie it works wonderfully imo. If The Hobbit came first it would have definitely been quite a different and shorter movie but I don't necessarily think it would have been a better one because what I love most about Peter Jacksons Middle-Earth movies is that he takes the time to not only tell the story but also to show us the magic of his vision of Middle-Earth and he is still trying to stay close to the book. I for one am soo happy that it is this way around so that we get more of his vision of Tolkien's work on the big screen.
I can imagine that it is hard maybe for people that are more fans of the books than of the movies but as a movie I think this first part works quite well (my brother, his girlfriend and my best friend all 3 didn't like the LOTR movies but enjoyed the Hobbit very much, my parents and me (fans of the LOTR movies) also enjoyed the new movie a lot - so I would say PJ did something right!^^
I think the best thing about the first Hobbit movie is that PJ has managed to find a very good balance between the ligher atmosphere of the Hobbit book and the continuity with the already existing LOTR movies - surely he never had a chance to please them all but he did the best job trying to please as many as possible :)
|
|
|
Lindele
Mithlond
Feb 8 2013, 1:40pm
Post #3 of 16
(1255 views)
Shortcut
|
a trilogy: one Hobbit and two LOTR films.
That is horrid to think of. Make it stop.
|
|
|
matthauger
Registered User
Feb 8 2013, 2:20pm
Post #4 of 16
(1216 views)
Shortcut
|
@Lindale, it's true that was Jackson's original proposal. But it's hard to predict how things might have played out, had The Hobbit's rights been available.
After all, though Jackson pitched two LOTR films to New Line, Bob Shaye green-lighted a trilogy instead.
|
|
|
RalphDamiani
Ossiriand
Feb 8 2013, 3:02pm
Post #5 of 16
(1192 views)
Shortcut
|
We would have one hugely successful Hobbit movie and SIX Lord of the Rings films with an equally bloated passing.
Such is the nature of Hollywood.
|
|
|
Lonely Mountain
Lindon
Feb 8 2013, 3:19pm
Post #6 of 16
(1177 views)
Shortcut
|
It wouldn't have Martin Freeman as Bilbo, which is a horrible thought. And it would probably be just one Hobbit film
|
|
|
xxxyyy
Nargothrond
Feb 8 2013, 3:42pm
Post #7 of 16
(1195 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nah... one Hobbit and ZERO LOTR film.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They would have followed the structure of the book (The Hobbit) for the movie, hence a complete failure... so no LOTR.
We might actually live in the best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz said.
http://energyfromthorium.com/
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 8 2013, 4:28pm
Post #8 of 16
(1176 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We have discussed this topic several times on the boards...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They would have followed the structure of the book (The Hobbit) for the movie, hence a complete failure... so no LOTR.
We might actually live in the best of all possible worlds, as Leibniz said.
I disagree that following the structure of the book would have led to an unsuccessful adaptation. Many folks like the animated film of The Hobbit despite its flaws.
I do agree that we would have probably had a single-film adapation of the book with compressions, condensations and deletions. Any nods towards LotR would likely have been limited to a cameo of a young Estel in Rivendell and nods towards the true identity of the Necromancer (instead of following the White Council sub-plot in detail, which would require at least a two-film adaptation).
If the movie was a success then we might still have gotten a LotR trilogy, but it's hard to be certain.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
BoromirOfWinterfell
Nargothrond
Feb 8 2013, 4:34pm
Post #9 of 16
(1182 views)
Shortcut
|
1.The cast would have been different, for one thing. Aidan Turner and Dean O' Gorman would've been too young to be in it, and Peter Jackson would most probably not have heard of Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. I can't imagine TH without them. This is my main concern.
2.The budget would have been a lot smaller, and that could have changed everything.
3. I doubt the opening sequence with Bilbo and Frodo would have been there - but if it were, it wouldn't have been as effective because we wouldn't be familiar with Frodo and Bilbo's actors. One thing I love about AUJ is the nostalgia that arises when I watch the film.
4. We'd be Legolas-less. PJ wouldn't have a reason for putting him in.
5. It would affect LotR drastically. A small example being Gloin; if Gloin looked a certain way, PJ would want to make Gimli look similar. Same goes for Thranduil and Legolas.
6. Would we have the material from the Appendices? The Battle of Azanulbizar? But I do understand your point on the Necromancer back story.
One thing I wouldn't mind would be a lack of Azog.
In the end, I think The Hobbit coming first would have changed LotR too much. And I adore LotR as it is.
Þæs ofereode, þisses swa mæg - that has passed, so may this.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 8 2013, 4:54pm
Post #10 of 16
(1148 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We might have still gotten a cameo of Legolas...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Probably only a cameo...or an explanation for the absence of Thanduil's son (perhaps it was his hunting party that was chasing the deer that dumped Bombur in the Enchanted Stream).
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
IdrilofGondolin
Nargothrond
Feb 8 2013, 5:01pm
Post #11 of 16
(1151 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It Might Have Changed the Overall Tone
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And, too, it all depends on whether PJ had the rights to all this material and decided to start with TH. Let's say he only had the rights to TH in 1996. Would the movie have been more whimsical and light-hearted? Would it have been oriented more for children? If TH had gone in that direction and PJ eventually did LOTR what would the elves have looked and sounded like? Dwarves? Orcs?
So then PJ chooses to do a serious LOTR and can't make a seamless arc between it and TH. Disaster imho.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Mithlond
Feb 8 2013, 8:52pm
Post #13 of 16
(1096 views)
Shortcut
|
Chaos theory, you know. Change history, change everything downstream.
|
|
|
glor
Nargothrond
Feb 9 2013, 5:03pm
Post #14 of 16
(1027 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The LOTR cast would be different too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The cast would have been different, for one thing. Aidan Turner and Dean O' Gorman would've been too young to be in it, and Peter Jackson would most probably not have heard of Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. I can't imagine TH without them. This is my main concern.
The LOTR cast would be a decade older and thus in many cases too old to play their LOTR Middle-Earth roles; no Sean Bean, Bloom, etc.
Of course we could play 'swap the casting'; Lee Pace or Aidan Turner as Legolas?, Richard Armitage as Boromir? ( ok that one would probably work)..
|
|
|
BoromirOfWinterfell
Nargothrond
Feb 9 2013, 5:10pm
Post #15 of 16
(1022 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Richard Armitage as Boromir...*spoiler*
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That would've worked well! Closer to Tolkien's description of Boromir in terms of having dark hair and such. Their voices sound similar, too. Also, they seem to die in everything they act in. 
Þæs ofereode, þisses swa mæg - that has passed, so may this.
|
|
|
glor
Nargothrond
Feb 9 2013, 5:53pm
Post #16 of 16
(1059 views)
Shortcut
|
..version of TH and probably as a PG rated children's film with live action 'disney style' dwarves. This would have impacted any subsequent LOTR films, with film companies demanding that they would also be PG rated.
The LOTR films did push their PG-13 rating, in fact a few commentators back in the day suggested that if the battle scenes in LOTR had been human versus human rather than, versus orcs, a la historical based epics, the LOTR films would have received an R rating or 15 rating like Ridley Scott's Gladiator.
Can you imagine a sanatised safe for children film version of LOTR, or even the Hobbit? The inability of any film-maker to show the darker, and deeper side of Tolkien's work, to show the consequences of battle, etc.
I seriously think that making TH first would have changed a lot, film execs would have children's book= proper aimed soley at children film, not only would that have affected characterization, created a highlysanitized/disneyfied middle-earth, it would have also affected the casting. I can't imagine Sir Ian, and quite a few of the other iconic cast members of LOTR or TH signing on or even being interesting in being part of such a child like M-E.
|
|
|
|
|
