Official The Hobbit thread

[FVD]

I think the one movie would work out fine too. But I'm really keen to see Gandalf and his meeting with the White Council. I hope we'll get to see Cirdan and Radagast this time too. A pity after all the rumours that Christopher Lee may not get to reprise Saruman.

To see the White Council working to rid the Necromancer from Dol Guldur would be quite a scene in itself.

 

[Octoberist]

well was he that mad at Jackson for cutting him out in Return of the King? that's like 6-7 years ago. I hope he's over it.

 

[matrix_ghost]

He's not not pissed at Jackson. A little bit bummed bot not to such an extent that he'd wouldn't talk to him. Hell he gave such a honest speech after shooting his pick up scenes at the end of Return Of King.

 

[regwec]

Are you talking about the first film or the third film?

Dude, Aragorn can't control himself because uh, he's not real, fictional like you mentioned. And what the hell dude? Catering to the teenagers? You're overthinking it. I think that's the first time I ever heard someone say that.

You needed to establish the Narsil is in fact broken but he has a sword in its stead. You can't have a ranger without a sword. Why would he have a broken sword with him. In fact it helps Aragorn's story of not wanting to accept his destiny. Him distancing himself form the sword makes it better.

The point I am making is that Aragorn's character was modified to be less chivalric, less honourable, less "old fashioned"; more emotional, more angsty and more generic. In the book, he persuades The Hobbits to fall in with him, rather than forcing himself on them. That is because he chooses to respect people weaker than himself. He carries the shards of Narsil because he would not carry any other sword, or entrust Narsil to anyone else. He initially refused to surrender it to the Rohirrim outside Theoden's hall, and wouldn't let the guardsmen handle it. It was a fundemental represtentation of his destiny. He would rather have no working sword than a replacement. (I am confused where you found the rule that the Dunedain had to carry swords, anyway. If he had to have a weapon, he could have been given a cudgel or axe as medieval travellers used to carry. Anything but a spare sword).

I understand why Jackson et al did this. It makes Aragorn a more modern and flawed character, easier for the less sophisticated members of the audience to understand (and no, I don't include you in that). My point is just that they should have been braver, and treat the character on his own terms. Ditto Sam's relationship to Frodo as a social unequal- that didn't need to be glossed over.

Hmm, budget maybe? I think they had more important things to spend the money on rather than make them floating. And it's not that terrifying when you see a floating head with no physical presence in the film. And the only time you can see their physical presence is in the ring world.

I don't accept that the production was short of money. Many special effects and sequences were ramped up for visual appeal (hence Gandalf's combat with the Balrog at the start of TTT). In any case, the Ringwraiths could be made to be scary. Ralph Bakshi's Nazgul are more frightening than Jackson's, because they are more otherwordly and disturbing. I just feel that Jackson, though a great director, always thinks that more is more. Sometimes, a dab of subtlety would go a lot further.

Like I said, it helps introduce Aowen and their relationship easier and faster. Instead of mashing everything up to get introductions in. The Rivendell sequence was hard enough for them to write. When Frodo is struck by the sword, he is getting progressivley weaker. And all of a sudden he's riding a horse and outrunning more skilled riders? It wasn't a girl powered moment. And it actually gives Awoen something to do other than just sit there and questioning her father about what she should do. You've established that they trust eachother already, and are in love, while getting to everything else you need to tell later. It's a good starting point.

The point was that Frodo was put on an elven horse, which sped him to safety. He defied the Black Riders by himself, though. It's a shame Frodo was robbed of that moment. Jackson's Frodo doesn't seem to have the stones of Tolkien's.

Again, I know why Arwen's role was expanded in this direction. I just wish Jackson had the courage not to have done it.

Yes, I have read the book, although not for a while. But that doesn't matter, I'm talking what makes it cinematic. What won't work for film. And don't leave out that they probably did discuss it but agreed it would seem foolish.

I haven't read the book for over a decade, but I read it at a formative age where I remembered is well. It is important to recall the source matter, because it helps you to see exactly how its elements could work on film.

You don't understand. It IS about pacing. Findign the right tension until it becomes redundant. Moria is forboding as it is. You can't spend too long in it when they've already spent alot of time in it. This is one of the liberties you have to take when making a film. Things have to be moved and tightened. And no I'm not "Stupid" I loved Alien and especially its pacing. That is gradual. Moria is only one sequence. And they've already journeyed through the mines with Gandalf warning them about the evils that lurk.

Of course it is about pacing- that was uneven. In the original, it is unclear whether or not the party are in danger until they are attacked. But the tension builds. The response to Pippin's stone is just the distant tapping of a hammer. It chills the blood. In the movie, the party walk into the remains of a massacre, Orlando squeels "goblins", and they all draw weapons. It is certain from that point that there will be some fighting. The tension of the rest of the sequence is therefore flattened.

Now, I am not saying that it necessarily needed to be longer. I do think that the order and weight of events should have been shifted, though, to build the atmosphere.

No, you're just thinking what they took out and not what they left in as a whole. These fillms have to most expository detail anyone can ask for. More than what they could of gotten. And please, stop thinking to people as the so called "stupid" audiences. It's about appealing to everyone and not just to the hardcore fans who will pick it apart anyway. They've done it to the best of their abilities.

Many audiences are stupid- that's not Jackson's fault, but it isn't my fault for saying so. It isn't their fault either. All I am saying is that, great though they are, Jackson's LOTR movies could have been a bit less patronising in their desire to keep us entertained in every single frame.

I don't think anyone could really argue with that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Okay, that's all fine and dandy and I get where you're coming from. That's all great. But in the book. You have to look at the logic of putting all of that on film. Yes, you might have had wished of what they've done, just appreciate to what they put in, which is more than anyone could ask for. And something like LOTR needs alot of exposition anyway. Alot of room to have sub plots and characters, but it's still a film and you have to tell a story for the film. As far as I'm concerned they've kept it very close to the material, albeit changes that were logical to be taken out or changed. A book is a book. A movie is a movie. I odn't believe in comparing of the two. Two completely different mediums in telling stories.

Personally I like the movies more. The books are great but don't pull me in emotionally as the films do. The characters to me in the book only act as players and not characters I can connect with. Maybe it's because I haven't read them in a while I don't know, but reading them, I didn't feel as invested as I did with the films.

 

[regwec]

I really like the movies, and I'm glad that Jackson made them, when I consider how they could have turned out. I don't want you to think that I reject any attempt to neaten up the narrative for film, either. I am not in the camp that insists on Tom Bombadil or the Barrow Wights, and I liked Saruman sending a blizzard to Caradras rather than the party being attacked by unseen snowbeasts.

The core of my problem with the movies is that Jackson seems to have underestimated his audience to some extent. This manifests itself in the modernisation of Aragorn, constant "event" in Moria, Gimli's *********ion jokes, even showing the goodness of Elves with bright white lights and choral music. In each case, I can see why the decision was made, but I wish Jackson had been just that little bit braver.

 

[Doctor Jones]

He actually was very brave. He did the unthinkable and filmed what was called an unfilmable book and shot all three back to back working for exhausting hours with constant rewrites. And he knew what he was getting himself into. If that's not brave enough I don't know what is.

And I don't seem to remember *********ion jokes from Gimli in the movie. And one of the things I liked was that the characters in the movies were given much more personality. Some of the characters to me just stood there and said their lines in the book, while in the film, all had unique and different personalities. And you could care about them more. I don't know if it's more difficult to do in books, but the movies certainly lifted them from almost lifelessness.

 

[regwec]

"No one tosses a dwarf".

If that's "more personality" then I'd rather Gimli kept it to himself.

With respect, I think you may not remember the books well enough to give them their due. All of the members of the Fellowship were perfectly well fleshed out. Gimli and Legolas had a friendship that was less stated but more touching than in the movies. Ditto Frodo and Sam, whose relationship was a good deal more complex. Aragorn was generally far more interesting in book, because he followed lots of mythic and classical heroic prototypes while bringing them down to earth. The Hobbits were in general more diversified, without recourse to cheapening them to comic relief.

The one character who I did think the movies filled out a bit was Boromir. In the book, he is basically a foil to Aragorn, showing how the heroic mold is fallible without humility. But he actually becomes much more sympathetic in the movie, though that is partly due to a fine performance from Sean Bean, who steals all of his scenes with Viggo.

As I've said many times, the movies are good and could have been dreadful in different hands. But I hardly think Peter Jackson is an act that can't be followed. Nor do I think he could have made a film as perfectly poised and as mesmerising as "Pan's Labryrinth".

 

[Doctor Jones]

So that's why you believe in Del Toro? You think he can deliver the goods? We'll see. I think he will do fine.

 

[regwec]

Yeah, I think he's great. He does an easier job in adapting The Hobbit, though. It's a pretty straightforward story without the depth, texture or nuances of plot of LOTR.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Very true. It is alot more simple. But still great. I haven't read the book in six years or so. But I played the video game which was great.

The tone should be a mix of Del Toro and the LOTR films for continuity sake. I believe they are doing that. But it still should be unique because it's a different film with a Del Toro stamp.

 

[regwec]

It'a a very different book, too. It is more traditionally fairy tale, written before Tolkien had solidified the fantasy genre which he more or less invented. For instance, the trolls could be the same trolls that torment goats crossing bridges.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It'a a very different book, too. It is more traditionally fairy tale, written before Tolkien had solidified the fantasy genre which he more or less invented. For instance, the trolls could be the same trolls that torment goats crossing bridges.

I found the differences in the Hobbit to LOTR to be interesting. I read Hobbit not too long ago, and one thing that I noticed right away was how Gandalf was much more the good matured, eccentric, old mentor type. Very "Dumbledorish" (Yes I know saying he's Dumbledorish is counterproductive, since DD is essentially based off Gandalf, but you get where I'm coming from I'm sure.)

I also found it interesting that Tolkien had Gandalf very much powered down from what he was in LOTR. In LOTR, Gandalf fights a Balrog, in Hobbit, Gandalf seems to be seriously fearing death by cause of a forest fire created by the Wargs.

It makes me wonder exactly when Tolkien decided to make Gandalf more than just a human wizard, since he is essentially the equivelent of an angel in Tolkien's world.

 

[regwec]

Gandalf the Grey was always powerful but always vulnerable, really. You have to remember that- behind the scenes- he had fought Sauron or "The Necromancer" during the course of The Hobbit. That's a similar sort of adversary as a Balrog. The fact that Gandalf had allies in the former venture but and was succesful is balanced by the fact that he was alone in the latter and was killed (apparently). And both G.Grey from the Hobbit and G.Grey from LOTR feared death at the hands of fairly minor enemies. They both responded to attack from Wargs and Orcs in similarly cautious fashion (after The Misty Mountains in The Hobbit and before Moria in LOTR).

Gandalf the White is a bit different. He is definately somewhat more powerful (he easily overcomes Saruman, where G.Grey was imprisoned by him), though it is questionable whether this is largely because he has more self belief. He did seem to be bested in a one-on-one confrontation with the Witch King, at the gates of Minas Tirith. Remember that the Witch King was just a subordinate of Sauron, who G.Grey had helped to defeat in The Hobbit.

So, I would say that Gandalf's abilities were reasonably consistent, but that his self belief varied in line with what Tolkien was using him for at the time.

 

[Solidus]

Gandalf the Grey was always powerful but always vulnerable, really. You have to remember that- behind the scenes- he had fought Sauron or "The Necromancer" during the course of The Hobbit. That's a similar sort of adversary as a Balrog. The fact that Gandalf had allies in the former venture but and was succesful is balanced by the fact that he was alone in the latter and was killed (apparently). And both G.Grey from the Hobbit and G.Grey from LOTR feared death at the hands of fairly minor enemies. They both responded to attack from Wargs and Orcs in similarly cautious fashion (after The Misty Mountains in The Hobbit and before Moria in LOTR).

Gandalf the White is a bit different. He is definately somewhat more powerful (he easily overcomes Saruman, where G.Grey was imprisoned by him), though it is questionable whether this is largely because he has more self belief. He did seem to be bested in a one-on-one confrontation with the Witch King, at the gates of Minas Tirith. Remember that the Witch King was just a subordinate of Sauron, who G.Grey had helped to defeat in The Hobbit.

So, I would say that Gandalf's abilities were reasonably consistent, but that his self belief varied in line with what Tolkien was using him for at the time.

Truly these are my favorite books, and it's been a few years since I've sat down and read them again. 17 years ago I would read it every year. So my knowledge of this is much less then yours regwec, but you have some very insightful things I must say in your posts.

But to talk about one point, I thought that as you said Gandalf seemed to be bested, and more afraid of the Witch King and Sauron, even though he defeated Sauron earlier.

I figured even though as Gandalf the White he knew how much Sauron's power had grown. After the War of the Last Alliance and earlier the Destruction of Numenor during the second age that Sauron was quite exhausted, and was not at full strength, so I figured when he was the necromancer of Dol Guldur he was still not at full strength compared to earlier, or even more so during the later parts of the Third Age. I just figured Sauron was weaker then, and so Gandalf and the others besting him was not much of a feat, because his power was quite weak.

Figuring that later being in Mordor and growing his army, I believed Sauron had gained incredible strength with the knowledge of the ring being out there some where.

So simply put I just figured that that Gandalf the White was wise to know that Sauron was extremely powerful, even for him. Though he did defeat him in Mirkwood earlier, but I just figured he was weaker then, so it was not the greatest feat.

But I say again I do not seem to have the extensive knowledge of LOTR as do you. But interesting subjects all around, can't wait to see these, and for the extended editions to be released on blu ray.

 

[regwec]

You probably know more than me; I just read the books at a formative age and remember them quite well. You're right about Sauron growing in strength, I suppose. Don't I recall something about his having been biding his time in Mirkwood, recouperating, though? If so, when he left Mirkwood for Mordor he must have been near the height of his powers (post-Numenor). The flipside of that is that it suggests he simply made a tactical retreat in the face of the White Council, rather than being really defeated.

All the same, I reason that Sauron himself would always have been a more formidable opponent to Gandalf than The Witch King, because the latter effectively borrowed just a part of the power of the former.

 

[Solidus]

You probably know more than me; I just read the books at a formative age and remember them quite well. You're right about Sauron growing in strength, I suppose. Don't I recall something about his having been biding his time in Mirkwood, recouperating, though? If so, when he left Mirkwood for Mordor he must have been near the height of his powers (post-Numenor). The flipside of that is that it suggests he simply made a tactical retreat in the face of the White Council, rather than being really defeated.

All the same, I reason that Sauron himself would always have been a more formidable opponent to Gandalf than The Witch King, because the latter effectively borrowed just a part of the power of the former.

I guess that is one thing I love about some things in LOTR, not everything is clear. I figured that in Mirkwood he did gain more power, and it very well may have been a tactical retreat, but maybe Gandalf felt that they over powered him perhaps? Maybe from Gandalf's eyes they defeated him? I can't remember exactly how Gandalf felt on his encounter with Sauron.

But I guess I just always took it as Sauron was not as powerful early on during the third age, as much as later on.

But I have not been following this film as well, what are the expanding in The Hobbit to make it two films? Are they filling it with The Simarillon, events from it or talked about in it? Or some of Tolkien's notes? It's exciting but I just want to know what the second film will consist of? The corrupting of Saruman? Or will it show Gandalf/The council taking on Sauron at Dol Guldur?

 

[regwec]

I understood that it was going to draw heavily on the appendices of "The Return of The King", which sounds pretty cool. I imagine we'll get a fair amount of innovation as well, though. One story that I don't think I have ever seen told is how Smaug got where he did. We know that Shelob, who is in a similar situation, was a child of Ungoliant (I think), but I haven't a clue about the dapper little dragon under the mountain.

 

[Solidus]

I understood that it was going to draw heavily on the appendices of "The Return of The King", which sounds pretty cool. I imagine we'll get a fair amount of innovation as well, though. One story that I don't think I have ever seen told is how Smaug got where he did. We know that Shelob, who is in a similar situation, was a child of Ungoliant (I think), but I haven't a clue about the dapper little dragon under the mountain.

Yes she was the last child of Ungoliant. And we will get to see her decedents in Mirkwood at least

It would be interesting to go into the depths of Smaug more. I am quite excited to see how they artistically create him for the film.

Does filming start soon? I saw them rebuilding Hobbiton but I just had no idea when it would start.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I believe in February. So I think the script is completed. No doubt there will be more rewrites and the same on set.

 

[Solidus]

Nice. Now for the first time in 6 months I have time to post on the Hype again. I've just been absent for so long. Can't wait for filming to start on this.

 

[Lucien]

I don't get how you can consider Gandalf being bested by the Witch-King during the siege of Gondor, unless you're only going by the movie. The book showed Gandalf completely steadfast with no mention of him being affraid. Even Shadowfax was unmoved by him. And it was Gandalf's will that made the Witch-King halt from entering (what would've happened after if the Rohirrim hadn't arrived is debatable though). Of what little confrontation actually occurred, Gandalf was shown as the more dominant.

As for confronting Sauron singlehandedly, I don't think he would be able to defeat him. Only if he possessed the Ring could he have, and even Tolkien thought that would be a very close battle. Without the Ring it would've been far more one-sided.

 

[regwec]

You probably remember it better than me. I only recall thinking that the Rohirrim's arrival was deliberately used by Tolkien as a means of recalling the WK from the breach of Minas Tirith. If so, the implication would be that the WK and his forces had effectively won the day before Theoden and co. equalised things. I admit that is scant evidence on which to assess the power that is meant to be innate in each character, but my feeling was definately that Gandalf (being Gandalf) was acting with bravery and defiance rather than confidence and control of the exchange.

I'll have to read the passage again when I next pass a copy. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Lucien]

There was definately defiance in Gandalf's challenge, but it's absolutely clear that it was by Gandalf's command that the Witch-King halts his entrance to Minas Tirith. I agree that the Rohirrim were used as a means to remove him from the confrontation, but I don't see it as implying his superiority, rather it was a plot device to prevent Gandalf interceding yet again. The Istari were sent to muster the people of Middle-Earth to fight, not to fight the Enemy for them. They weren't aloud to match the Enemy in power, and the Rohirrim were used to prevent that.

 

[what_19]

hey guys...loved the hobbit and the LOTR books...i remember checking out The Simarillon in high school..but i never got around to reading it...can you give me a quick heads up as to whats it about? is it basically the backstory to the hobbit and LOTR? is it good?

thx!