|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
luinfalathiel
Menegroth
May 5 2008, 4:10pm
Post #1 of 25
(784 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Trolls problematic now?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now that the LOTR series has introduced a non-Tolkien-reading audience to trolls as unclad (mostly), un-English-speaking sort of monstrous work-horses (I'm thinking of the ones that open the Black Gate) ... how are they going to reconcile that with three trolls who not only speak a sort of Cockney English, but have clothes with pockets that contain wallets and keys, and can make obvious plans of action?
The "baby" troll seemed pretty stupid, and the other ones are never shown as doing anything but heavy labour. Bert, Tom and Bill seem to have nothing to do with Sauron, or Moria, living as they do in the woods WEST of Rivendell. AND Bill (I think it's Bill?) has a talking wallet - which is how they catch Bilbo in the first place. Will that be in the film? It sort of has to, doesn't it?
On another totally different note, the Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf are all following the Road - yet there is no mention or hint of going through Bree. Of course in the books there's no need to mention it, as if people are reading them in order, it doesn't really matter much. But now some people have begun by reading LOTR, and THEN reading The Hobbit - so, will Bree get a mention now? Especially since Gandalf and Thorin met there (or very near there) in the first place?
Follow my Korean adventures!
http://simulflow.vox.com
Grishnakh: Let’s put a larva-puncture in its belly.
http://pounce.skew.org/lotr/meetingtreebeard
the eye of luinfalathiel
|
|
|
acheron
Mithlond
May 5 2008, 4:25pm
Post #2 of 25
(523 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien put Bree and the Prancing Pony into the re-write of the Hobbit he started working on. Maybe the movie can show it briefly, so everyone recognizes it, but not spend any time there; or if there needs to be some dialogue at that point in the story, show Bilbo and Balin (or whoever) in the room at the Pony, rather than at a random campsite or whatever.
The talking purse isn't in the R-B Hobbit; the troll just happens to notice Bilbo picking his pocket. So it doesn't *have* to be in there.
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
|
|
|
Jazmine
Dor-Lomin
May 5 2008, 4:54pm
Post #3 of 25
(519 views)
Shortcut
|
This very point dawned on me yesterday, and I began quizzing my other half about how he thought they could work around it! (Nevermind the fact that he isn't really all that interested, if I want to talk Tolkien at him, I will go ahead and do it, regardless!) But anyway, back to the point, the whole troll thing has to be in there, as it's one of the most memorable parts out of the whole book. Plus, they have to be talking trolls, otherwise Gandalf won't be able to trick them into arguing til dawn. So how's that going to work?! I'm not sure how it'll go down with a movie-only audience.
I also had this thought with regard to the Rivendell Elves, who are all-singing and all-dancing and just downright silly in the Hobbit. How would that come across to anaudience who's last experience of Rivendell Elves was the very upright, serious ones in LoTR? I think that's a much easier problem to fix, you just cut out the sillyness. But as for the trolls, I really don't know. Perhaps it might work if they tinkered with their lines abit? Changed the accent?
*Jazminatar the Brown*
|
|
|
FrodoEyes
Ossiriand
May 5 2008, 6:28pm
Post #4 of 25
(477 views)
Shortcut
|
They can still be cockney talking trolls. After all we got cockney speaking Uruk-Hai. I don't think they need to be anything like the LOTR trolls. These are different trolls, as people will realise when they talk!
|
|
|
gt60x
Registered User
May 5 2008, 7:39pm
Post #5 of 25
(459 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Silly elves and cockney trolls
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Funny i was also thinking about both these things myself.
I reckon a clever bit of scripting/writing and directing will re-work the trolls.
Rivendell may not be as serious, but not as silly as the book.
Let's not forget the book is a children's novel and was written as such. GDT along with PJ and co will do us all proud.
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
May 5 2008, 8:00pm
Post #6 of 25
(477 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I believe there is no problem with speaking trolls...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But wallets and keys will most certainly have to be dealt with. I believe what should't talk at all are animals, to avoid a Narnia-ish look.
One important thing of this adaptation, as I see it, is to take out all those references to un-Middle Earth-like things.
Anyway, we already know how the trolls will look. We saw them in Fellowship.  Remember the production won't change anything that has been established.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
keithf777
Lindon
May 5 2008, 8:50pm
Post #7 of 25
(416 views)
Shortcut
|
Surely, even a movie audience would be savvy enough to grasp the concept of there being more than one type or race of troll. Just like us humans. What the fellowship encountered in Moria would be considered a cave troll or something like that, right? I don't remember if that term was used in the book or not but you get the idea and so should anyone else, without the need for explanation IMHO...
I always felt the same about Goblins vs Orcs. Although it's pretty well established that they're the same basic thing, as a kid reading the books I always thought of them as somewhat different. If I recall correctly this is because their descriptions are not entirely the same. It's been a few years now since I re-read the books, so I'm a bit foggy, but anyway I hope the goblins (orcs) in the Hobbit film are not handled in duplicate fashion as in LOTR. Mix things up I say...
Cheers,
Keith
|
|
|
keithf777
Lindon
May 5 2008, 9:26pm
Post #8 of 25
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree... we know what the trolls look like, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But wallets and keys will most certainly have to be dealt with. I believe what should't talk at all are animals, to avoid a Narnia-ish look. One important thing of this adaptation, as I see it, is to take out all those references to un-Middle Earth-like things. Anyway, we already know how the trolls will look. We saw them in Fellowship. Remember the production won't change anything that has been established.
As some people have already encountered in my earlier posts, I am certainly not a purist or stickler for details when it comes to the movies. However, I don't get your statement "take out all those references to un-Middle Earth-like things." I am a Tolkien lover, and in my opionion if Tolkien wrote it, whether for children or for adults, it is Middle Earth-like no matter what you or anyone else thinks. The world is his creation... end of argument.
Going back a post or two, someone else commented on the behavior of the elves in Rivendell in The Hobbit vs that in LOTR. Why is this an issue? Isn't it just possible that at different times and for different reasons the elves might be inclined to act different ways? Should everything they do be entirely logical to an outsider? I think it would actually be very interesting if Del Toro tried to capture the feeling of Rivendell depicted in The Hobbit.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I never had any problem going straight from The Hobbit to LOTR. Nor did I really see The Hobbit as a children's book. By the time I read this I had already read Twain, Dickens, Hawthorne, Stevenson and other 19th century authors, as most kids of my generation probably would have as well. I recognized immediately that literary quality of the writing was miles beyond that of Grimm's Fairy Tales or any other standard children's fare. Sure, the tone of the book is light, but even as a teen my sense of the book was that of a fantasy being told in a style meant to recall the fairy tale. It was written in a way that could appeal to children but which should be appreciated by adults who are experienced readers as something far more than simply a children's book. The fact that Tolkien considered The Hobbit strong enough to act as a prelude to a greater tale incorporating his long thought-out mythology is proof that he took his 'children's book' seriously.
Cheers,
Keith
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
May 5 2008, 9:38pm
Post #9 of 25
(401 views)
Shortcut
|
and I do enjoy them in the books and would like to see them in the movie - not that I can image them being left out at all - theyve already made an appearance in LOTR - and them being their strengthens the Hobbit/LOTR connection.
Being the first real trouble the Company face, it could remain a bit lighter as opposed to being a dark - even darkly comical (as I see these trolls as comical in a sense - their simplicity and their constant arguing) ... though the purse doesnt have to talk, I think that could be left alone, but it could make some sound of sorts as Bilbo is pick-pocketing it.
I just hope they're not too Ogre like - or Shrekish.
Were off to Hobbiton finally!
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Elvenhome
May 5 2008, 10:00pm
Post #10 of 25
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ever since seeing the different Trolls
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in LotR, I've come to the conclusion that there are different factions of Trolls, just as there are Orcs of different types (Moria (non-speaking)/Land-dwellers (speakers)) and Uruk-hai of a variety of shapes and sizes (Berzerkers/Lurtz-types, etc.). There can be different types of Trolls as well. And the ones Bilbo and Company encounter are from 60 years beforehand and could be of a breed that died out as Saruman/Sauron both started using their own varieties of ingredients to create their own ;)
If anything, I think it'd be a great twist for The Hobbit to show a a different variety of Goblins, Trolls and Wargs to show the extent/contrast to those "corrupted/created/perfected" by Saruman and Sauron. They should be different.
 
Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
TORn's Observations Lists
(This post was edited by grammaboodawg on May 5 2008, 10:06pm)
|
|
|
Elven
Doriath
May 5 2008, 10:09pm
Post #11 of 25
(421 views)
Shortcut
|
do you mean like a decline in the way Saruman/Sauron created theirs - for servitude and war?
Tom Bert and Bill, as simplistic as they are do have some sort of civility ... they dress, they have commercial interests, they have a home - a cave which has treasure, they speak and interact, they have a family history (they have last names) and they are independent of an 'overseeer' - a boss or maker like figure - theyre self determining to some degree, they cook, they indulge in a bit of drink ... theyre not like the other orc and trolls, goblins and creatures we meet - who knows, they maybe becoming scarse.
The hybrids do not show these characteristics that we see - except for Saurans - and even then they have a more violent and detatched nature.
Were off to Hobbiton finally!
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
|
|
|
Malveth The Eternal
Menegroth
May 5 2008, 10:29pm
Post #12 of 25
(390 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought of this back in 2001...but I honestly don't think 90% of the audience (the non-Tolkien reading portion) will even think about it. And there's no way they can recycle the stone Trolls glimpsed in FotR - they just don't look right (to my eyes anyhow).
I thought this thread was about message board Trolls (!) attracted by the new movie.
There were way too many back in 2001.
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
May 5 2008, 10:46pm
Post #13 of 25
(388 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Neither did I have problems going from one book to another...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Man! The timer beat me! I had transcribed a large part of the the Preface to the 50th and 70th anniversary edition and I lost it.
Read it. I am not inventing anything. Tolkien himself thought those were un-Middle Earth-like.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
orcbane
Mithlond
May 5 2008, 10:49pm
Post #14 of 25
(401 views)
Shortcut
|
At the time of The Hobbit, Sauron is still thought destroyed and Mordor is supposedly not in business. The evil things of the world were for the most part scattered and no longer under a single master. Might trolls cut off in the mountains have become sort of civilized, or at least adopted what they liked of men-civilizations. Clothes made out of tents, etc. The Three Troll night is way too marvelous a dialog to abandon lightly.
'Troll purses are the mischief' Everytime I read this I think D&D. But what an anomaly! We need not only decent Trolls but possibily something magical about them. I look forward to seeing their solution, if its not dropped entirely.
The trolls glimpsed in Fotr might be heavily age weathered versions. Do you remember in Saving Private Ryan how the movie makes the shift of young to old Ryan, or even old to young Theoden ?
An Ent juggling spikey things ?
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
May 5 2008, 11:22pm
Post #15 of 25
(387 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To elaborate a little bit further
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am sorry, I had spent a while typing and transcribing, but in a nutshell:
- The Hobbit was not created as part of the legendarium, Tolkien himself says so.
- He elaborates on how it was just a story for the amusement of his own children.
- That it grew heroic because he could not get the legendarium out of his head.
- That Bilbo was comic and that he was joined by a group of inconsistent (amidst the consistency of The Silmarillion) Grimm-like dwarves.
- That he knew not what else to say about Hobbits.
- Later in his life, Tolkien said he regretted The Hobbit was written in a child-like way, namely blaming the narrator and real world references.
- That's why he tried to rewrite it.
- He left the new draft because he was advised to not mess with the charming story, not because he was satisfied with it.
- He repeatedly said the Elves were "borrowed" for The Hobbit, and that they had nothing to do at the time with the Silmarillion Elves, which, let's not forget, were at least 15 years older.
So, it's all Tolkien, my friend. Besides, make no mistake, these movies will follow the template of Jackson's trilogy. No room for remarks on how something sounds in comparison to a train, or to what kids would have for breakfast in real-world England. That's not how the movies are planned, that's not what Tolkien ultimately thought of The Hobbit.
If the book was left untouched, it was to keep the charm of it, not because Tolkien believed everything written there was part of his mythology.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
Malveth The Eternal
Menegroth
May 6 2008, 1:01am
Post #16 of 25
(377 views)
Shortcut
|
CM,
>If the book was left untouched, it was to keep the charm of it, not because Tolkien believed everything written there was part of his mythology<
Read The History of the Hobbit - it might change your mind.
It certainly convinced me that Tolkien thought of TH as being part of the ME saga from Day 1.
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
May 6 2008, 1:17am
Post #17 of 25
(387 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'll be so sad if we don't get silly elves.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The ones in the LotR movies were downright lugubrious. The ones in the LotR books were mostly serious, but there were some light moments (references to them laughing at least in Rivendell), and I really missed that feel in the movies. I would *love* to hear a chorus of "Tra la la lally".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Empedocles
Ossiriand
May 6 2008, 1:25am
Post #18 of 25
(377 views)
Shortcut
|
That's funnny, that is one of the parts of the book that I skip every time I read it. I can't stand the idea of Elves jumping and singing and tralalallling. I love how they were shown in the movies, and I specially love how they are described in the Silmarillion. Didn't like Celeborn though, in the theatrical version the three or four lines he says sound like he's from outer space, but in the extended edition he talks normal.
So, I'll be rooting for the other side, the side of the more Christopher-Nolanized Elves.
Please, give us back Glorfindel!!!
|
|
|
keithf777
Lindon
May 6 2008, 2:56am
Post #19 of 25
(368 views)
Shortcut
|
|
well he didn't The Hobbit, so it is a part of the mythology
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am sorry, I had spent a while typing and transcribing, but in a nutshell: - The Hobbit was not created as part of the legendarium, Tolkien himself says so.
- He elaborates on how it was just a story for the amusement of his own children.
- That it grew heroic because he could not get the legendarium out of his head.
- That Bilbo was comic and that he was joined by a group of inconsistent (amidst the consistency of The Silmarillion) Grimm-like dwarves.
- That he knew not what else to say about Hobbits.
- Later in his life, Tolkien said he regretted The Hobbit was written in a child-like way, namely blaming the narrator and real world references.
- That's why he tried to rewrite it.
- He left the new draft because he was advised to not mess with the charming story, not because he was satisfied with it.
- He repeatedly said the Elves were "borrowed" for The Hobbit, and that they had nothing to do at the time with the Silmarillion Elves, which, let's not forget, were at least 15 years older.
So, it's all Tolkien, my friend. Besides, make no mistake, these movies will follow the template of Jackson's trilogy. No room for remarks on how something sounds in comparison to a train, or to what kids would have for breakfast in real-world England. That's not how the movies are planned, that's not what Tolkien ultimately thought of The Hobbit. If the book was left untouched, it was to keep the charm of it, not because Tolkien believed everything written there was part of his mythology.
I knew very well that Tolkien was not entirely happy with The Hobbit, but his complaints all fall under the heading of problems that he brought upon himself. And why should I be bothered to care? He could easily have written a sequal to The Hobbit in short order and kept his grander mytholgy a seperate work. Or maybe, just maybe, things were fated to work out the way they did because he would have tinkered around forever and never published anything were it not for The Hobbit and the public pressures that it created. I am inclined to believe just that.
I'm also inclined to believe that the invention of Hobbits and the inclusion of Grimm-like beings such as Trolls, Goblins and Dwarves is what made The Hobbit and LOTR great, and kept them from being boring, dry mythology like The Silmarillion (which is interesting but still bores the crap out of me after 4 labor-intensive readings over the years). These lower beings bring the stories down to earth and add crucial levity to the proceedings. Maybe Tolkien didn't mean for his great mythology to be mixed with this 'children's story' but he went with it so too freakin bad!
I'm sorry if I sound dismissive, but I think you're wasting a lot of time reading Tolkien's letters and taking his pointless grumbling to heart. The remarks which seem to bother you about how something sounds in comparison to a train are not taken by me as problematic since this and other similar remarks are simply an aside between narrator and listener, part of the style of the narrative. If Tolkien himself complained about this to me I'd say 'sod off you silly old man, and stop wasting my time!'
In any event, the fact remains that Tolkien never published a revised edition of The Hobbit and never publicly renounced the relationship between it and the Trilogy. Therefore, regardless of how he might have grumbled about the various imperfections of his earlier work, I, the reader, have no option but to accept the Hobbit as it is. I mean truly, one can't expect a reader to pour over post-publishing rants of an author, note down all the things he would want to alter, and then worry about all that stuff as you read the text. Reading should be fun. That doesn't sound fun, it sounds like work.
As far as the movie goes, all bets are off. I'm not a purist by any means, and I think the filmmakers should handle the movie in such a way that is respectful of the original work but also works as a great cinema experience as well. However I think that some of the elements that Tolkien didn't like about The Hobbit ultimately helped make it a great and popular book, and subsequently the catalyst that moved the author to continue his writings and leave us with the LOTR. Sometimes an author just might not be the best judge of his own work. Unless you try to deify him, but I'm not from that school of thought. Tolkien is not God, just a man. Imperfections just like you and me. So if you try too hard to remove the 'child-like' elements that make The Hobbit great as a novel, then your movie could be a bore. I think Jackson got it pretty good with LOTR. He kept the fun and humor in.
Cheers,
Keith
|
|
|
keithf777
Lindon
May 6 2008, 3:02am
Post #20 of 25
(355 views)
Shortcut
|
Long live the dancing elves!!
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
May 6 2008, 3:16am
Post #21 of 25
(359 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But Jackson's humor was different...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Anyway, I guess you have touched an important point there. The Silmarillion was extremely interesting for me.
Perhaps I'm also sounding as if I did not like The Hobbit... I have to tell you I like it way better than Lord of the Rings, and along with Beren and Lúthien, it is my favorite Middle Earth story.
However, I do tend (as I always do in everything) to see beyond forms, and what I appreciate in The Hobbit is the story. even if I'm not bothered by the very things I am saying shouldn't be in the movie, I think the story would benefit (even more) from a more serious treatment in those departments (no creation of Golf, for example. That passage could stay exactly as it was without that mention)
I am not asking for ultra seriousness, just to keeo in line with what was Tolkien's mythology, which is for better or worse, The Silmarillion, and The Lord of the Rings as a completion to it. That was the tone Tolkien wanted for the mythology, and in many ways, it was the tone established by Jackson's movies.
I really appreciated Middle Earth being treated as a historical place (I'm a history buff as well, and care deeply for details such as the tapestries and craft of the armours), and even orcs felt historical you know? I'm not saying turn The Hobbit into Braveheart, but there are ways to picture a dragon... and there are way to picture a dragon...
If Jackson's trilogy was a success in that department, to my eyes at least, this movie, which is sure to follow its steps (perhaps loosely, perhaps tightly) should benefit from the same assets.
I got your point much better with your last post, I hope you better understand where I'm coming from with this one.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
keithf777
Lindon
May 6 2008, 4:02am
Post #22 of 25
(348 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand your point, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I really appreciated Middle Earth being treated as a historical place (I'm a history buff as well, and care deeply for details such as the tapestries and craft of the armours), and even orcs felt historical you know? I'm not saying turn The Hobbit into Braveheart, but there are ways to picture a dragon... and there are way to picture a dragon... If Jackson's trilogy was a success in that department, to my eyes at least, this movie, which is sure to follow its steps (perhaps loosely, perhaps tightly) should benefit from the same assets. I got your point much better with your last post, I hope you better understand where I'm coming from with this one.
I see where you're coming from. I liked the serious treatment and the historical feel of the trilogy movies as well and I agree with you that I would like that aspect to remain intact.
But some of the examples that your posts and others cited as things that would be bothersome (like dancing elves or talking animals), just don't seem to me like things that would detract from that feel. Of course I could easily be proved wrong if those things were mishandled by the writers and/or director.
It's just a matter of taste, I guess, but I think your preferences will probably win out with the filmmakers in question. Which I can live with.
Cheers,
Keith
|
|
|
leo
Nargothrond
May 6 2008, 9:36am
Post #23 of 25
(364 views)
Shortcut
|
I forgot about those... It would indeed be silly if they would change them. And knowing PJ I am sure those statues are around somewhere...
|
|
|
leo
Nargothrond
May 6 2008, 9:42am
Post #24 of 25
(358 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Silly is not the way to go, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I guess the Elves can be a bit less 'distant' then they were in LOTR. I remember then trotting around taking Arwen to the Havens and in the FOTR EE. They didn't seem too concerned about what was going on around them. They should be a bit more social in The Hobbit, and that can involve singing when the Dwarves arrive in Rivendell.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
May 6 2008, 12:03pm
Post #25 of 25
(368 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To keep from losing your posts...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Man! The timer beat me! I had transcribed a large part of the Preface
...try hitting "Preview Post" before you've typed very much; that might help.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us May 5-11 for "The White Rider".
|
|
|
|
|
