|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fragessu
Registered User
May 11 2008, 4:13pm
Post #1 of 12
(587 views)
Shortcut
|
Unfinished Tales -Hobbit II?
|
Can't Post
|
|
SO my first post...
So surely the second Hobbit movie will be based on events in 'Unfinished Tales'?
GDT mention of events running parallel to 'The Hobbit' are obvious referrals to Dol Guldor and the adventures of the White council, which are the most cinematic of situations in 'U. Tales', but I suspect the second movie will place most of its emphasis on 'Gandalf's plan' i.e finding a way to deal with Smaug before Sauron could use him, and halting Sauron's retun in Mirkwood, in fact if possible the addition of these movies will acend Gandlaf to an even more prominent position within the movie series, adding further emotional complexity to his death and return. I am very interested to see how the ring will be treated in the Hobbit movies as it will be apparently harmless
Are there any pieces from unfinished tales that anyone is particularly dying to see realized on screen?
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
May 11 2008, 5:18pm
Post #2 of 12
(449 views)
Shortcut
|
No. The sprequel will be based on the Appendices for The Lord of the Rings. This is feasible because Tolkien himself sold the rights to both books back in the 60's.
The rest of the books' rights are in the Tolkien Estate's hands, presided by Tolkien's son and literary executor who is openly against any adaptation in film or television of the rest of his father's works, and most importantly, those posthumously edited by himself.
Unfinished Tales is one of those books, thus, absolutely unthouchable for the movie. In tha case of The Quest for Erebor, any event implied in the Appendices is fair game, but if a particular thing is only present in the story as presented by Unifinished Tales, they culd get into Copyright issues.
What you mention, though, is likely to happen, albeit strictly adhered to the Appendices.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
Huan71
Menegroth
May 12 2008, 9:53am
Post #3 of 12
(373 views)
Shortcut
|
I find this quite an interesting topic.
If something in the Appendices is elaborated on and fleshed out in the films, can it follow something this is talked about in more detail ELSEWHRE in Tolkien ? Or, does the films detail have to be original work ?
"Futility is the defining characterisic of life. Pain is the proof of existance."
|
|
|
acheron
Mithlond
May 12 2008, 1:04pm
Post #4 of 12
(378 views)
Shortcut
|
The LOTR movies get away with using a bit of Silmarillion material here and there. Specifically I'm thinking of Grima's description of the Ring of Barahir in the TT movie.. it's taken directly from the Silmarillion. I think there was another bit too, but I can't think of it at the moment.
We'll see, I guess. Using the entire "Quest of Erebor" material whole cloth might be too much, but as you said, if it's implied in the Appendices then maybe they can get away with it a little bit.
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
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
May 12 2008, 1:30pm
Post #5 of 12
(362 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Generals and assumptives in, specifics uot, I'm guessing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
While things like Gandalf's banter with Saruman at the Council will have to be ommited for being too specific to Unfinished tales, other things that are alluded to in Appendicies can likely be fleshed out along the Unfinished Tales lines without much trouble, as most of it can just as easily be assumed.
For example, Gandalf's fear that Sauron would move to strike Rivendell first as his original plan appears in the Appendecies, and it does not take a visionary to consider the possibility (made fact in Unfinished) that he also intended to attack Lorien as soon as he was ready. Just as I and others have speculated that he would have sought aid from The Balrog in any assault on Lothlorien, so too could many of the things backed up as hard fact by Unfinished tales be assumed without ever reading the material. Even Gandalf's warning to The Council concerning the need to strike in Simarillion can be largely guessed at, for he discusses in other places that Sauron holds the Nine and three of The Seven etc.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
SmeagoloftheStoors
Menegroth
May 12 2008, 5:08pm
Post #6 of 12
(347 views)
Shortcut
|
be picking up my copy of the unfinished tails and brushing up on some of these events. I would almost bet that Bilbo will end up growing more and more protective of the ring as the movie unfolds but if the book is held with any esteem during the making of these films, that's about all that should be forboding about it.
Eglario Valar!
It's me!
|
|
|
Compa_Mighty
Dor-Lomin
May 12 2008, 8:45pm
Post #7 of 12
(357 views)
Shortcut
|
And you'd have to know the contracts to see to what extent they could do this or that. As someone has stated, the Ring of Barahir was taken from the Silmarillion, but is heavily used in an Appendix A storyline, with the Eskimo-like people, helping a King of Arnor.
As Tolkien repeats himself quite a bit, it is tough to know what exactly pertains to this or that specific piece.
For example, info on the Blue Wizards comes mainly from Unfinished Tales, so that would be off-bounds. Perhaps Gandalf encounter with Thorin near Ered Luin is also out of bounds, but Gandalf's actions during The Hobbit are reasonably expanded in Appendix C, so that might be legal for the most part, even if it steps a little into Unfinished Tales, one could always cover by saying the designers or the writers have read all of Tolkien's works and now have a very specific, almost unconscious image of something specific, but even that would be tricky.
It is a little like that guy who claims many shots from the trilogy are based on Nasmith's paintings. He could claim that, and it might be almost evident to anyone who sees the still as compared to the paiting, but it is difficult to trace it directly when everybody knows the text. For all that matters, Lee or Howe could have woken uo one day and pictured another angle of what they had previously painted, and it *accidentally* looks similar to Nasmith's rendition.
I would have to insist that it is a matter of knowing the contracts, the clauses and to know how willing is the production to push the boundaries, especially after all the legal problems there have been with the Estate.
Then again, that might change. Krisitn Thompson says we will know something about the lawsuit May 14... on enever knows if Bewkes could butter the Tolkien enough for them to be even more flexible than we think they will be.
Here's to Del Toro becoming the Irvin Kershner of Middle Earth!
Essay winner of the Show us your Hobbit Pride Giveway!
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
May 12 2008, 9:37pm
Post #8 of 12
(336 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But movies *need* to be specific.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Case in point: if there's going to be a White Council, it needs dialog. There is dialog in UT, but it's contractually off limits. So the filmmakers will have to invent dialog that doesn't resemble it, and that, in turn, will be painful to serious Tolkien fans. It's a tough call.
As for the Ring of Barahir, it's entirely possible that it was cut from the TV precisely because it was pushing the boundaries a bit.
Ride with us in the Reading Room this week to see
the King of the Golden Hall!
Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'
|
|
|
Huan71
Menegroth
May 12 2008, 11:30pm
Post #9 of 12
(348 views)
Shortcut
|
That's a brilliant example...and far more clearly put than my effort ! lol
But it's just the type of thing i mean !
If there are lots of things being changed, for legal reasons, it might feel like we're not getting the "real" middle earth.
It's one thing cutting and changing things from book to film as part of a process to make it work better.
But a different thing if the only reason to change it is because someone wont let you use the genuine article.
Or am i just being silly?? :o)
"Futility is the defining characterisic of life. Pain is the proof of existance."
|
|
|
Ostadan
Ossiriand
May 13 2008, 6:55pm
Post #10 of 12
(312 views)
Shortcut
|
... the less I like the whole notion of this "Hobbit II" film. Whatever gets made will require an entirely new narrative (albeit using plot elements hinted at by Tolkien) if there is to be a coherent plot with a beginning, middle, and end, fitting into even a two-hour film. It will certainly not resemble Tolkien's own work except for various small bits; in other words, it will be just the sort of film that the most vocal 'purist' critics of the Jackson films feel they saw. "Based on Events from Unfinished Tales" (or any other source) does not a story make.
The only story that Tolkien told at any length (to which the rights are available) that might work as a film is the Tale of Arwen and Aragorn from Appendix A of Lord of the Rings. I doubt that it will be made - it would have relatively little interest for a general audience without any hobbits or other commonplace characters - and I'm not sure I want to see a story that feels like it's just there to set up the events of Lord of the Rings (as Star Wars Episode III felt like it was just moving the pieces around to set up the original trilogy). Many will doubtless disagree with me, of course.
In any case, this second film feels like a contractual-obligation work, rather than something inspired by an artistic need. It would have been far better to divide The Hobbit into two reasonable-length films.
|
|
|
merklynn
Menegroth
May 15 2008, 3:10pm
Post #11 of 12
(284 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Lets see what PJ and GDT say on this matter
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think it may be too early to judge the Companion film as being purely "contractual-obligation work, rather than something inspired by an artistic need" because we have not yet had the chance to hear anything tangible about it. It is early days, and with the announcement of the live chat with PJ and GDT, we have the first chance to get something more concrete about the artistic need that warrants the second film. Ie, what is it that PJ and GDT are excited about telling which makes it something from the heart and not for the pocket? I 100% believe PJ wanted to elaborate on the events shown in The Hobbit and LOTR and wanted the room to play that an extra movie would give. This excited me too, because how often will I get to see fantasy movies of this calibre in my life time. I was proud of LOTR for its quality of production among many other factors (also being a New Zealander), and seeing more exploration of the characters and events even if much is constructed from brief material is something I am keen to see.
Ostadan makes a good point that the only REAL substance that is actually available for the companion film due to copyright is the tale of Arwen and Aragorn. Now I thought the opposite of Ostadan on this subject, because I think romance is a key aspect of mainstream movies and a good foundation to build a story around. Ie Aragorn as protanist, with the sub plot of his angsty romance connecting the various events along the way. You can build any of the more sporadic and briefer mentioned scenes onto this Aragorn and Arwen skeleton. Ie Gandalf running around, Balin running around possibly, and whatever else you fancy. It seems like the only SAFE material is from the Appendixes. Material from Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales would have to be insinuated or filtered very carefully. It should not hinder the telling of a good adaptation of actual events Tolkien actually touched upon. However, if they make up entirely original adventures and make those the centrepiece of the storyline, then not many fans are going to like it. Even then I would personally give it a shot, although very nervously.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Gondolin
Jun 1 2008, 7:19pm
Post #12 of 12
(286 views)
Shortcut
|
I believe that the two Hobbit movies would be limited to content from "The Hobbit" & LOTR for which movie rights are held. Elaboration on the appendices would have to supply the content for the movies. Using books to which you have no rights would be a big No-NO.
Kangi Ska
|
|
|
|
|
