Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[John Locke]

Still no Evangeline Lilly promo photos? I'm sure she will look beautiful either way but I still want to see the precious.

She was in the Comic Con footage I believe.

 

[Boom]

 

[Marvolo]

If a third Hobbit film, or a bridge movie (which has no book to be adapted from, so will essentially be Jackson trying to tie together disparate threads from the Appendixes) is announced, then my anticipation for these movies and my respect for Jackson will plummet. It just stinks of a lack of self control on the part of the filmmakers and overexploitation of the source material. What started life as an adaptation of a short children's book will become a trilogy of movies fuelled by overindulgence. This is Tolkien - there will always be too much source material to adapt! If Jackson cannot except that and learn where to draw the line (which should be at telling the story of The Hobbit) then he has chosen the wrong material to put onto film.

A bridge film does have a book to be adapted from. There are 125 pages of apendices at the end of ROTK which Jackson used in his adaption of LOTR trilogy. I thought these apendices were more common knowledge.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Lovin' Gollum's new contacts.

 

[Boom]

A movie has to have a universal conflict at its core. There has to be a central plot that ties all of the storylines together.

Please, read through the Appendices and tell me what a movie adapted strictly for that material would be about, because I for one am drawing a blank.

 

[Marvolo]

What i find funny is that if Christopher Tolkien would allow Peter the rights to use the Silmarillion we would get a more faithful bridge film. Instead Peter can only use the Apendices which need some padding out. It can be argued Peter shouldnt make a bridge film at all buy i say go for it. Maybe Christopher will pick the lesser of two evils and let Peter use the Silmarillion so he can create a more true bridge film. I doubt it. Either way we are probably getting a bridge film and Christopher is probably foaming at the mouth hearing about it.

JRR Tolkien created a mythology and like all mythologies they are created anew and retold. Peter is doing that here. I know some wont agree.

 

[Solidus]

I dunno, we don't know all the facts, and I am willing to trust Jackson and co on this. They have given us three wonderful films adapted from Tolkien. While I admit this surprises me, if they have a way of doing it and it works, then I guess that is that. From everything I've seen so far I'm still impressed.

 

[Marvolo]

I dunno, we don't know all the facts, and I am willing to trust Jackson and co on this. They have given us three wonderful films adapted from Tolkien. While I admit this surprises me, if they have a way of doing it and it works, then I guess that is that. From everything I've seen so far I'm still impressed.

I know some have a real problem with Fran and her changes and im guessing the bridge film will have a lot of her on creations so it may not be received well among them. They however are a smaller group amongst a very large audience so the film should do fine if its good.

 

[Solidus]

I think the changes they did in LOTR (though much smaller then here) worked fine. Arwen's story completely fleshed out worked very well I thought. There are still some that hated the changing of the "Scouring of the Shire" (honestly I preferred the way they did it) and the exclusion of Tom. But overall I'm happy with what they did. Tolkien did add the appendices mainly because there was much more he wanted to add to the lore/story of The Hobbit, so I see it as that I guess.

 

[Armored Avenger]

A bridge film does have a book to be adapted from. There are 125 pages of apendices at the end of ROTK which Jackson used in his adaption of LOTR trilogy. I thought these apendices were more common knowledge.

I am aware of the Appendixes, having read through them many times. And like I said in my post, a bridge movie adapted from them would be Jackson tying together disparate threads to try and tell some kind of story. The Appendixes are tales, timelines, family trees, etc that have little connection to each other and any film made entirely out of this material would require a lot of original input to make it into a cohesive narrative. The weakest parts of the LOTR trilogy were where Jackson and the other writers overindulged on their own deviations, so I have little confidence in them being able to construct a story from what amounts to Tolkien's footnotes and have it be on par with the original trilogy adapted from Tolkien's fully realised and structured LOTR books.
Another problem with a bridge movie is it removes almost all of the 'introduction' aspect from the LOTR trilogy. The Nazgul don't need to be known about until they burst forth from Minas Morgul to hunt for the Ring. Aragorn's shadowy introduction in Bree and his questionable allegiance would be ruined by having him play a role as a hero in a prequel to the trilogy. Places like Rohan and Minas Tirith would have their introductions diminished by having them play an important part in any bridge movie. There is a reason the Appendixes are put at the end of the books.

 

[Abudefduf]

I am aware of the Appendixes, having read through them many times. And like I said in my post, a bridge movie adapted from them would be Jackson tying together disparate threads to try and tell some kind of story. The Appendixes are tales, timelines, family trees, etc that have little connection to each other and any film made entirely out of this material would require a lot of original input to make it into a cohesive narrative. The weakest parts of the LOTR trilogy were where Jackson and the other writers overindulged on their own deviations, so I have little confidence in them being able to construct a story from what amounts to Tolkien's footnotes and have it be on par with the original trilogy adapted from Tolkien's fully realised and structured LOTR books.

This. Just this.
The Appendic(x?)es are nothing more than Middle-Earth's history book. They have little to no dialogue or context; all you know about the characters are their names and what they did at some point of their lives.

It would be like making a movie out of a book synopsis.

 

[Boom]

To quote everybody's favorite Internet critic:

The third film would probably pull a lot of material from the Appendices at the end of*The Lord of the Rings; Warner Bros does not have the rights to JRR Tolkein's other massive Middle-Earth work,*The Silmarillion, and Jackson believes they'll never get it. The Appendices are LOADED with material; Jackson could decide to tell a story about the history of Middle-Earth, as much of it is chronicled there. Or he could just keep the film to the years between*The Hobbit: There and Back Again*and*The Fellowship of the Ring. I mean, check out this one entry from the timeline of the history of Middle-Earth:

2957-80 - Aragorn undertakes his great journeys and errantries. As Thorongil he serves in disguise both Thengel of Rohan and Ecthelion II of Gondor.

That's smack dab between the two stories, and it's so vague that it has inspired a ton of fan fiction over the years.

Which, by the way, is what this film would be. If Jackson decides to limit the story to the time between*The Hobbit*and*The Lord of the Rings, he will be indulging in incredibly expensive fanfic. While the broad strokes of those years are covered in the Appendices, detail upon detail would need to be invented.

 

[Abudefduf]

Which, by the way, is what this film would be. If Jackson decides to limit the story to the time between*The Hobbit*and*The Lord of the Rings, he will be indulging in incredibly expensive fanfic. While the broad strokes of those years are covered in the Appendices, detail upon detail would need to be invented.

I don't really like the guy, but this time he nailed it. An incredibly expensive fanfiction... that's exactly what a third movie "based on the Appendices" would end up to be.

 

[Marvolo]

I don't really like the guy, but this time he nailed it. An incredibly expensive fanfiction... that's exactly what a third movie "based on the Appendices" would end up to be.

It would be an original film inspired by a source. Just because it is largely created by Jackson doesnt mean it is automatically going to suck. I just dont see how jumping to pessimistic conclusions and a doom and gloom attitude benefits us.

 

[Boom]

It would be an original film inspired by a source. Just because it is largely created by Jackson doesnt mean it is automatically going to suck. I just dont see how jumping to pessimistic conclusions and a doom and gloom attitude benefits us.

His original contributions to LoTR, King Kong, and The Lovely Bones don't inspire much confidence in me.

 

[Marvolo]

If a person disagrees with the film on a fundamental level in that it is disrespectful to tolkien that i can understand but if that is why one disagrees with this then said person shouldnt see this film no matter how good it may look. You cant disagree with something on a fundamental level and then do a 180 because it looks good yet i know some will. This is what i find odd. People calling this garbage and the like but most likely these same people will change their tune if it looks good.

When the film's trailers come out if it looks great I wonder how many will suddenly forget that they disagreed with this film and go see the film.

 

[Marvolo]

His original contributions to LoTR, King Kong, and The Lovely Bones don't inspire much confidence in me.

Yeah i agree. If the film is bad it will be because Peter didnt do a good job. It will have nothing to do with it having very little source material. Something isnt inherently bad just because its source is an outline. Every original script starts from a basic outline. Jackson is doing what every screenwriter does. Creating an original script from an outline. Usually the outline is created by the scriptwriter. In this case however the outline was written by one of the greatest authors to ever live.

 

[Boom]

I'm pulling this from IMDb, because this guy pretty much nailed it:

Well, you asked... The reason you can't make a good film out of the "bridge" material is because nothing important was resolved in the years between the end of "The Hobbit", and the beginning of "FOTR".

- Gandalf spent most of the intervening years investigating the nature of Bilbo's magic ring, but didn't uncover the truth until the opening chapters of "FOTR".

- Aragorn had many adventures, but didn't claim his kingdom or his bride until the War of the Ring. Because of this, he spent most of the "bridge" years being very unhappy.

- Bilbo didn't have any more adventures during those years, he lived in the Shire and raised Frodo. Frodo didn't have any adventures while growing up, and neither did Merry, Pippin, or Sam.

- Sauron and his wraiths were in hiding.

- Arwen did a lot of embroidery.

- The White Council foresaw the coming war with Sauron, and prepared for the start of "LOTR". Saruman was the only one of them who did anything new or interesting during these years, but he maintained his cover until "FOTR".

- In Gondor, Denethor prepared for the coming war while his marriage went to hell. In Rohan, it was business as usual. In Rhovanion, peace and prosperity reigned.

So even if someone made a film of "The Hunt for Gollum", for instance, Gandalf and Aragorn wouldn't undergo any great personal transformation, that wouldn't come until the events of "LOTR" and they both know it. Of course there are lots of small stories that could be told of those years, but those are the stuff of fanfiction, rather than Major Motion Pictures.

 

[Gianakin_]

So, the trilogy thing is true? PJ=the new George Lucas confirmed.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Haha not quite, but it could be that way. If that happens, you know people are gonna turn a complete 180 on Jackson and treat him like the new Lucas or just look down on him. Just like every filmmaker. As soon as something happens that they don't like, their pedastal that they looked so high up on will collapse. I'm not saying we're all calling Jackson this now, but this doesn't seem to be something positive for Jackson as of this moment. I just hope people don't have this attitude going in, because no mater what, it's like they're expecting something bad. Nothing wrong with pragmatism or optimism though.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt myself. I'll wait and see what they have. People raise good and reasonable points here which is nice, but we're not there with them and what they're discussing. Who knows, it could actually be uh, good.

Now if they do make this and it's bad then I'll be proven wrong. But unlike some, I actually much prefer the changes the writers created for the films over the books. And despite them having material to adapt from, that's the point. They successfully adapted what was considered to be unadaptable. Fans nitpicking aside, you can't argue with the reception LOTR has garnered. And it's all because of Jackson and Co. Now you had Tolkien to draw from of course, but thse films turned out the way they are because of the filmmakers who adapted and made the decisions. And they're the same people doing this. And their track record is quite good with Tolkien.

 

[Tanin]

If they are of the same quality as TLoTR Jackson should be just fine.

 

[Kane52630]

I still have faith in PJ.

 

[Tanin]

I still have faith in PJ.

As do I, glorified fan fiction or not until the movie is bad I'll have faith.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah, people seem to be condeming this movie and we don't even know if it will be really be a movie yet.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I still have faith in PJ.

We haven't gotten to the point where we need to say this. People act like he made a massive disappointment in Tolkien for God sakes. Hell, I was saying this about Raimi and SM4. Jackson isn't at that point. No where near it.

My God, we haven't even seen the Hobbit films yet.