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

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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
"Seven Things We Want From The Hobbit"...

diedye
Grey Havens


May 20 2008, 5:09pm

Post #1 of 22 (803 views)
Shortcut
"Seven Things We Want From The Hobbit"... Can't Post

From The Deadbolt:


Quote
Seven Things We Want From The Hobbit

by Tom Burns

It's hard to imagine, after the awe-inspiring success of the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy and barrage of legal debacles that followed its release (hope you enjoy that crow you're eating, Robert Shaye), that Peter Jackson is actually going to be returning to Middle-Earth for not just one, but two more films - one based on Tolkien's classic The Hobbit and the other... um, we're still not sure. (What exactly is a "bridge" film? Will it be "The Young Aragorn Adventures"?) Fine, Pete's not directing the new Hobbit-centric movies, but he is producing (and assumedly co-writing) them, and he's found a tremendous director, Pan's Labyrinth's Guillermo Del Toro, to follow in his footsteps. We'd never want to suggest that Del Toro is merely acting as Jackson's surrogate - particularly since he'd probably send giant cockroaches and Hellboy after us - but we're confident that Del Toro is a smart enough filmmaker that he'll take what he needs from Jackson and his WETA Workshop and find his own way down the rest of the Hobbit-hole.

And, while The Hobbit isn't scheduled to be released until sometime in 2011, Hobbit fever is already spreading like wildfire, with Jackson and Del Toro scheduled to host an hour-long web chat to field fan questions about the movies on Saturday the 24th. (You can register for the chat here.) Now that this opportunity to talk directly to the filmmakers has presented itself, it's gotten us at The Deadbolt thinking about what we really want to see from a film version of The Hobbit. The Hobbit is one of the classic works of children's literature, holding a warm place in our hearts that's reserved only for such youth-defining books as Where The Wild Things Are and The Phantom Tollbooth. While the other LOTR books are canonical works of modern fantasy, The Hobbit transcends the fantasy genre and is, unquestionably, the most universal work Tolkien ever wrote. With that in mind, we have a whole different set of expectations for Guillermo Del Toro's The Hobbit than we had for Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. We're much less concerned about battles and Balrogs and much more concerned about preserving the most memorable qualities of one of our favorite childhood fables.

And so, just in time for the inaugural Hobbit web chat, The Deadbolt presents...

The Seven Things That Any Good Hobbit Adaptation Must Have:

1. It has to be funny.

Sure, J.R.R. Tolkien was no Jim J. Bullock or Carlos Mencia (please note the sarcasm, Tolk-heads), but The Hobbit is a surprisingly funny book. The text is filled with slapstick, verbal puns, and wacky moments (the introduction of Thorin's dwarf gang and the ensuing breakfast debacle at Bilbo's house, for one) that you probably wouldn't expect after watching Peter Jackson's earnestly stoic Lord of the Rings trilogy. Let's be honest, while we all love the LOTR movies, humor isn't exactly their forte. In fact, aside from some anachronistic dwarf-tossing humor and Legolas and Gimli's running death toll, there's barely a chuckle in the whole trilogy. So, we're a bit nervous that, in an attempt to make The Hobbit fit in stylistically, that all the good-natured funny stuff is going to be tossed by the wayside. I mean, honestly, how exactly is Guillermo Del Toro going to handle the trolls tossing dwarves into sacks, sitting on them, and debating how to eat them without a wink and smile? If treated seriously, that scene will be borderline ridiculous. It doesn't help that Del Toro isn't really known for comedy (well, Mimic was funny for different reasons), and Jackson's sense of humor is far too in-your-face and wrong for Tolkien (watch Meet the Feebles and tell us if we're wrong). Just remember - The Hobbit is, by the intention of its author, a lighter, funnier, more family-friendly work than The Two Towers. Either embrace the light-heartedness or don't even bother.

2. It needs to work as a stand-alone film.

It would be a mistake to treat The Hobbit like LOTR 4: The Prequel. We're not saying that continuity and carry-overs should be ignored - we love that Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis are returning - but while Fellowship, Two Towers, and Return of the King were written as a trilogy, The Hobbit was written as a stand-alone adventure. More than any of the LOTR movies, this film needs to stand tall on its own merits. That means Del Toro can't assume that we know anything about Middle-Earth before we enter the theatre, and the story needs to have a definite beginning, middle, and end. We know that there's this nebulous "Hobbit sequel," based on a hodge-podge of Tolkien works, that's being filmed at the same time, but man, will we be p***ed if The Hobbit ends with a "To Be Continued..." The Hobbit is a perfectly contained story that begins and ends at Bag End, and is short enough that it doesn't need two movies to tell the tale. This has the potential to be one of the ultimate all-ages fantasy adventures of all time - just like the original book - so let's not taint its appeal by retro-fitting the story to make it a part of the Peter Jackson LOTR mini-series.

3. The whole movie can't be about the Battle of the Five Armies.

Don't get us wrong. We've been hard on Peter Jackson in our previous two sections, but we desperately love, love, love the Lord of the Rings movies. They, honest-to-god, definitely compete with the original Star Wars series (not the crap-tastic prequel trilogy) for the "best movie trilogy EVER" title. But, as much as we love Jackson's LOTR, The Hobbit was one of our favorite books growing up, so we treasure it a lot more than an Orlando Bloom movie, hence the tough love. And here's another hard truth that it might be difficult for WETA to swallow - the Battle of the Five Armies can't dominate the whole damn film. Yes, the final battle between the goblins and wargs and the armies of men, elves, and dwarves DOES bring the story to a general close and resolves the conflicts between most of the main characters, but it literally takes place during ONE chapter of the original book. We're totally fine with the battle closing the movie, but it can't be transformed into a Helm's Deep-sized uber-war that concerns most of the narrative, like it did in Two Towers. The Five Armies battle gives The Hobbit a very cool high-octane action note to close on, but Bilbo's journey and the confrontation with Smaug are infinitely more important. But Peter Jackson loves his epic-scale castle sieges, so we're a bit worried. Let's hope that Del Toro has a better sense of what's driving the story of The Hobbit, and, if the battle takes up more than 35 minutes of screen-time, we'll be very, very disappointed.

4. Smaug needs to be a classic movie villain first, dragon second.

Earlier this month, the ultimate LOTR fan site, theonering.net, published a fantastic essay about the "dragon problem" that's facing Del Toro and WETA as they begin pre-production of The Hobbit. The gist of the problem is that, thanks to poor special effects, overuse, and horrible movies like Dragonheart and Eragon, dragons have (to quote theonering.net) "taken a place just behind unicorns and rainbows as the most hackneyed subjects of fantasy art." So what does that mean for The Hobbit adaptation, particularly when the debatable climax of the story involves the interaction between Bilbo Baggins and one of the coolest, most breath-taking, bad-ass talking dragons in the history of literature, the treasure-hoarding Smaug? Renaissance festivals and lackluster CGI have defanged the dragon for modern film audiences, so how can Del Toro hope to make Smaug as cool as he needs to be? Our advice - concentrate on the drama and dialogue of the Smaug scenes first and worry about his design later. Smaug, first and foremost, needs to be a classic villain - we're talking Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, Hans Gruber, etc. - and we need to be much more afraid of his words and demeanor than his spiky claws or teeth. In fact, Del Toro should use the scene in No Country for Old Men between Anton Chigurh and the gas station owner as the model for the tone and level of raised stakes in the Bilbo/Smaug scenes. Chigurh was so scary it didn't even matter that he had the haircut that he did, so if Smaug's character is handled correctly, it shouldn't matter that movie audiences aren't afraid of dragons anymore.

5. Don't cut out all of the songs.

We can't believe we're saying this. We were totally in favor in clear-cutting all of the namby-pamby ballads and singing from the LOTR movies, and we happily mocked any nerds who claimed that Fellowship of the Ring was ruined by the exclusion of the karaoke-loving Tom Bombadil (one of the best decisions Jackson ever made). But, as we've mentioned, The Hobbit is a totally different beast. In terms of tone, The Hobbit needs to be a lighter and funnier film, and it also needs to be a Midnight Run-esque road movie, in which Thorin and his band of treasure-lusting dwarves eventually warm up to their vastly different Hobbit companion, Bilbo. And Tolkien's songs - The Hobbit contains probably his best lyrics ever - are a great vehicle to convey those changes in tone. There are some, frankly, hilarious dwarf songs and the moments where the wood-elves mock Bilbo and Thorin in song are priceless. Plus having Bilbo and the dwarves engage in a hearty fire-side sing-a-long might be the best movie male-bonding moments since the choruses of "Show Me the Way to Go Home" in Jaws. The key, however, will be to resist making the songs all sound like Enya-esque, Celtic lullabies, and instead make them sound more like the mead-hall ballads that Robert Zemeckis used so well in his Beowulf.

6. Explain the ring.

This is going to sound like we're contradicting ourselves. We'd previously said that we didn't want The Hobbit to get mired down in the continuity of the other LOTR films, but there is one big element in the story that really will need to be explained within the context of the whole LOTR series - the One Ring. In The Hobbit, which Tolkien wrote before the other LOTR books, the ring is simply a magic ring that can turn the wearer invisible (and can make Gollum purr "My precious..." for hours). Even in the opening of Fellowship, Peter Jackson showed us that Gandalf and Bilbo had no idea of the ring's dark legacy. However, now, thanks to Jackson's insanely popular movies, we all know what the One Ring can do. So, when in The Hobbit, Bilbo wears the ring for weeks at a time to evade capture by the wood-elves, every card-carrying LOTR movie fan is going to think, "Wait, why isn't he being corrupted? Why doesn't he see the fiery eye of Sauron?" And, before Tolkien fans throw a fit, notice that we said "every card-carrying LOTR MOVIE fan," not fans of the original books. We're no Tolkien experts. We're sure that there's some footnote or appendix that explains why Bilbo could wear the ring for weeks and be fine and why, several years later, the ring turned Frodo into an emo-looking mess. But the thing is - most movie fans aren't versed in Tolkien's complete canon. We know (and love) the movies, so the ring disparity will have to be explained somehow in The Hobbit, just so us average joes don't spend the whole time wondering why the Nazgul haven't showed up and speared Bilbo's ass[ets] yet.

7. Don't be afraid to make Gandalf a bit of a b*****d.

The big difference between Gandalf the Grey (the pre-Balrog wizard) and Gandalf the White (post-Balrog) is that the Grey is a hell of a lot more fun. Ian McKellen did a terrific job of bringing a playful gravitas to Gandalf in the opening reel of Fellowship of the Ring - bumping his head in Bilbo's house one moment, showing off his awe-inspiring power the next - and we really want him to keep that same mischievous menace in The Hobbit. Granted, Gandalf does get some nicely heroic moments throughout the story - killing goblins, fighting in the Battle of the Five Armies - but the truly memorable Gandalf moments in The Hobbit are watching the wizard con Bilbo into becoming the dwarves' burglar or mysteriously disappearing whenever trouble is afoot. We're not saying that Gandalf is cowardly or immoral, but his Hobbit incarnation should have more of a Han Solo roguish charm than the stately, austere presence of Gandalf the White in Two Towers and Return of the King. (And, of course, we're talking about Han Solo back when he was allowed to shoot first and didn't suck.)

-- Tom Burns

//


So what do you think? Do you agree with their choices?

Join the "Save " Campaign





Elven
Valinor


May 20 2008, 6:27pm

Post #2 of 22 (342 views)
Shortcut
One step at a time ... [In reply to] Can't Post

   

Quote
1. It has to be funny.

Sure, J.R.R. Tolkien was no Jim J. Bullock or Carlos Mencia (please note the sarcasm, Tolk-heads), but The Hobbit is a surprisingly funny book. The text is filled with slapstick, verbal puns, and wacky moments (the introduction of Thorin's dwarf gang and the ensuing breakfast debacle at Bilbo's house, for one) that you probably wouldn't expect after watching Peter Jackson's earnestly stoic Lord of the Rings trilogy. Let's be honest, while we all love the LOTR movies, humor isn't exactly their forte. In fact, aside from some anachronistic dwarf-tossing humor and Legolas and Gimli's running death toll, there's barely a chuckle in the whole trilogy. So, we're a bit nervous that, in an attempt to make The Hobbit fit in stylistically, that all the good-natured funny stuff is going to be tossed by the wayside. I mean, honestly, how exactly is Guillermo Del Toro going to handle the trolls tossing dwarves into sacks, sitting on them, and debating how to eat them without a wink and smile? If treated seriously, that scene will be borderline ridiculous. It doesn't help that Del Toro isn't really known for comedy (well, Mimic was funny for different reasons), and Jackson's sense of humor is far too in-your-face and wrong for Tolkien (watch Meet the Feebles and tell us if we're wrong). Just remember - The Hobbit is, by the intention of its author, a lighter, funnier, more family-friendly work than The Two Towers. Either embrace the light-heartedness or don't even bother.





It reminded me of this quote from an interview with GdT .....




Quote

00:35
Gavin Smith:
Its interesting that you mention that maybe that your second favourite genre is comedy because I mean it probably comes as no surprise to people who are Horror fans that the two genres are almost mirror images of each other, and the act of laughing at something is a lot like the act of screaming at something.

GdT:
You feel them ...

Gavin Smith:
They’re both releasers of tension.
Are you ever tempted to try and do a comedy?

1:04
Guillermo del Toro:
(laughing) I would say Hellboy was probably for me, you know .. (Audience claps and laughing) When people say to me “Will you ever do a romantic comedy”, I did, I did, and I’m doing the second part now, you know, so - for me Hellboy is When Harry Met Sally with an exploding girl. (laughing) That for me, that’s the vibe, I mean, I suffer from the fact that I serve some aesthetics, some genre, and then I don’t fulfil. But that’s because that’s the way I feel it. I love to serve the aesthetics of horror and the aesthetics of a comic book, but then I don’t fulfil the rest of the rules.



One thing I like about GdT is his sense of perspective - it honest - the contrast between horror and humour, and the many facets which catch the light and darkness of our senses emotionally, in between.
I think we'll see comedy if we're ready to receive it, in the Hobbit.
and as for LOTR ... there are so many moments which Peter made comical without being intentional. ridiculous or trying to be humerous - and those moments are brought through great writing and acting - they wash over you to ease some of the tension, and after a few viewings you find something else to become endeared to because some thing else takes your attention in that way.

I think GdT will not leave out the lighter side of the story, nor make a mockery of it to make it funny - though I am looking forward to a giggle soemwhere in there, because there is that availablility in the storys for that. Tolkiens writings had a very dry, sacastic, mature sense of humour - I catch it sometimes when Im in the mood too.

and if I go back over the last 2 pages of threads here, there has been some discussion about this aspect already ... Im just taking one step at a time - we've got a long way to go.

Cheers Elven x


Were off to Hobbiton finally!

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



leo
Rohan


May 20 2008, 6:33pm

Post #3 of 22 (343 views)
Shortcut
Explain the ring, good one... [In reply to] Can't Post

It might come across a bit silly to see Bilbo using the Ring so often, whereas Frodo was thoroughly warned against it, and even feared using it. And right under Gandalf's nose as well... Audiences will remember that...


Deni
Rivendell


May 20 2008, 6:49pm

Post #4 of 22 (343 views)
Shortcut
..a little wish^^ [In reply to] Can't Post

I“m really scared about the looking of the trolls...I don“t want that they“re going to be too tall....“cause I think it might look a bit silly then...you understand,what I mean???


diedye
Grey Havens


May 20 2008, 7:27pm

Post #5 of 22 (325 views)
Shortcut
Which trolls?... [In reply to] Can't Post

If you're referring to Bilbo's trolls, I'm sure they'll be the same ones that were in the LOTR movies, only before they were turned to stone.

Join the "Save " Campaign





Advising Elf
Rohan


May 20 2008, 7:33pm

Post #6 of 22 (354 views)
Shortcut
I overwhelmingly agree with six of them. [In reply to] Can't Post

The one I disagree with is #6-Explain the ring.

This is, to quote Jeeves, "...fraught with the possibility of mishap." There has to be an editorial insertion in the film ("Bilbo's log, supplemental: Unknown to any of at this time...") that would intefere with the story. I'm not one of those in favor of a "looking back narrative" form of telling the story, but if that is done it *would* fit in.

This is just another example of fallout of some of the needless changes made by PJ, FW, and PB to the LOTR story. The whole "Sauron and the Nazgūl know when you're wearing the Ring" thing, as well as the wearer seeing Sauron, gave them a great opportunity for cool special effects, but it totally eliminated the possibility of really important scenes like what I like to call "The Temptation of Samwise".

They *could* include some kind of explanation about how Sauron hadn't openly declared himself yet, so the Ring wasn't really connected to him, or, considering PB's comments, it hadn't "been activated". However, this requires the whole "editorial" or "narrator" thing. It also makes it not a "stand alone film", even if it's just in a small way.

Yahoo!Group with good stuff to download:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LOTRgoodies/


Deni
Rivendell


May 20 2008, 7:37pm

Post #7 of 22 (306 views)
Shortcut
:) [In reply to] Can't Post

yes...they ....
but..for example in potc3
calypso looks a bit weird I think...“cause she“s too tall..!!!!!
but if they“re going to be like them in lotr...then I“m happy XDDDDDDSly


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


May 20 2008, 8:18pm

Post #8 of 22 (504 views)
Shortcut
A good list. [In reply to] Can't Post

The comparison of Anton Chigurh and Smaug is clever.

I am in partial agreement with AE that it could be difficult to explain the ring's lack of evil side effects within the story -- where nobody knows that this is the One Ring. If the film is narrated by Bilbo after the fact, as some here have suggested, it might work. (Personally, I wouldn't mind a statement to the effect that what was shown in the LotR films was just wrong, but that won't happen.)

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

Join us May 12-18 for "The King of the Golden Hall".


One Ringer
Tol Eressea


May 20 2008, 10:25pm

Post #9 of 22 (300 views)
Shortcut
More comic-relief . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

It would seem right to make the movie funnier, but not like a comedy. I just think more comic-relief will make it more appealing as a childen's story, but still maintaining the seriousness PJ laid down with LOTR.

Ash nazg durbatulūk, Ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulūk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.


Elenedhel
Rivendell


May 20 2008, 11:46pm

Post #10 of 22 (305 views)
Shortcut
Re:4. Smaug needs to be a classic movie villain first, dragon second. [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with you, but the only thing that really worries me about Smaug is that they might try to make him an "original" dragon, like the one in Enchanted or the centaurs in Harry Potter. I mean, seriously. What the heck was wrong with the classic depiction of the centaur??

"O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!
We still remember, we who dwell
In this far land beneath the trees,
Thy starlight on the Western Seas."

"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men,and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he was from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace..."

"Many folk like to know beforehand what is to be set on the table; but those who have laboured to prepare the feast like to keep their secret; for wonder makes the words of praise louder."






Morthoron
Gondor


May 21 2008, 4:45am

Post #11 of 22 (285 views)
Shortcut
Deep six number six [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think it's really necessary to explain the One Ring. After all, we can see what it has done to Bilbo by the time of RotK (and even so, there was no obnoxious 'Great Eye' graphic when Bilbo put the ring on in RotK). At the time of the Hobbit, Sauron was not actively seeking the Ring, there were no Nazgul in the environs of the Shire, and it had been literally buried under the Misty Mountains with Gollum for centuries. One thing that can be keyed on, perhaps, is when Bilbo blatantly lied to Gandalf and the dwarves regarding his escape from Gollum. Subtlety makes great movies, which is why I don't believe the LotR trilogy is as splendid as some of you proclaim.

THE EARL OF SANDWICH: "Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
JOHN WILKES: That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
John Wilkes (1727-1797)


Curious
Half-elven


May 21 2008, 4:48am

Post #12 of 22 (279 views)
Shortcut
An excellent article from a book purist, but I personally don't care. [In reply to] Can't Post

That's probably because I am not attached to The Hobbit the way I am attached to LotR. It's fine with me if Del Toro makes the movie much darker than the book, if he leaves us with a cliff-hanger ending, if he chooses to cut various parts of the book thus making the Battle of the Five Armies a greater percentage of the whole, if he glories in the dragon as dragon and deemphasizes the dragon's speaking role, if he cuts all of the songs, if he chooses not to explain the Ring (the one suggestion that is not about book purism), and if he chooses to make Gandalf more Angel than Trickster (even though I quite agree that in the book version of The Hobbit Gandalf is a Trickster). None of it matters to me because I am not nearly as attached to The Hobbit as I am to LotR.


Kelvarhin
Half-elven


May 21 2008, 5:09am

Post #13 of 22 (262 views)
Shortcut
Maybe you could ask them about that in the chat? [In reply to] Can't Post

How are they going to 'explain' the difference in using the ring.


There he stood
Proud and solemn
Yet happy and gay


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 21 2008, 6:29am

Post #14 of 22 (263 views)
Shortcut
To not be distracted [In reply to] Can't Post

by our first impression of Smaug being a dragon, I hope that this section of movie is filmed very, very dark: No light in the hall apart from, perhaps, the occasional flame (from Smaug? From small fires on the floor?) which causes the gems and gold to gleam dully, so that we most hear (and feel and smell) Smaug as a deadly *presence* with just a hint of an enormous shape. Then when we finally see Smaug bursting forth from the mountain, we already know him as a character first, dragon second.

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


leo
Rohan


May 21 2008, 8:29am

Post #15 of 22 (305 views)
Shortcut
13 Gimli's... [In reply to] Can't Post

Gimli was supposed to be the light comic relief in LOTR (I didn't care for that at all...) Imagine a movie with 13 Gimli's burping and spilling beer all over the place :-/

But we probably needn't worry about that!


One Ringer
Tol Eressea


May 21 2008, 11:05am

Post #16 of 22 (261 views)
Shortcut
I can picture that . . . [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm actually laughing already! Laugh

Ash nazg durbatulūk, Ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulūk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.


Elenedhel
Rivendell


May 21 2008, 11:42pm

Post #17 of 22 (219 views)
Shortcut
That's actually a really good idea! [In reply to] Can't Post

Plus, it would create some suspense because the audience would want to find out what Smaug looked like.

"O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!
We still remember, we who dwell
In this far land beneath the trees,
Thy starlight on the Western Seas."

"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men,and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he was from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace..."

"Many folk like to know beforehand what is to be set on the table; but those who have laboured to prepare the feast like to keep their secret; for wonder makes the words of praise louder."






irodino
Bree


May 22 2008, 12:35pm

Post #18 of 22 (187 views)
Shortcut
yes its a good question [In reply to] Can't Post

Someone should ask it during the chat. Myself I think it wont be explained, not until the 'bridge' movie. In the Hobbit the audience will simply keep wondering, why doesnt the ring affect Bilbo like it affected Frodo? And, didnt those who read the Hobbit only after they read LOTR, have the same questions in their minds?

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that terrible in-between."


therogueranger
The Shire

May 26 2008, 8:57pm

Post #19 of 22 (125 views)
Shortcut
Re: #5 Keep all the songs- Glen Yarbrough [In reply to] Can't Post

I would also like if they include, even if only a very miniscule involvement, the music of Glen Yarbrough.
He totaly created the folksy feel for the cartoon version of the 'Hobbit' (the definitive visual work)and would tint the film with a little bit of that flavor. I agree NO ENYA music in this one.


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


May 26 2008, 9:17pm

Post #20 of 22 (117 views)
Shortcut
And I would pay pure gold to be let out of that theater from H*ll! [In reply to] Can't Post

Replace "tint" with taint, and I think you've got it.
Absolutely NO Glen Yarbrough.
I will, however, agree that Enya would be inappropriate.


therogueranger
The Shire

May 27 2008, 12:05am

Post #21 of 22 (120 views)
Shortcut
Glen Y. [In reply to] Can't Post

Why not?
I allways hear that but nobody gives a damn reason why not. What, people who still live in their mom's basement hate Glen Yarbrough? I don't get it.


ringbearer9
Lorien


Jun 22 2008, 2:16am

Post #22 of 22 (228 views)
Shortcut
I disagree... [In reply to] Can't Post

I love Enya, they just get the tone of it all. A song of theirs would fit in at the end. Or perhaps even durring credits. Anyway, wonderful to agree to disagree! :]

*Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed*


(This post was edited by ringbearer9 on Jun 22 2008, 2:19am)

 
 

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.