The Hobbit

[ItisWritten]

Theoden's characterization in the movies suffers from another tendency I saw in the last 2 movies. This was the tendency to put the Fellowship characters into pivotal moments; for them to be the difference in unnecessarily obvious ways.

1. Pippin and Merry must convince Treebeard and the ents. Apparently, the movie versions aren't smart enough to understand the need to fight.

2. It's Aragorn who suggests the final ride out of Helm's Deep, as if Theoden needs to be reminded he is king. Theoden of the book never forgot he was king.

3. Pippin (at Gandalf's direction) lights the watch fires. Denethor might have been mad, but he wasn't so stupid to not send for help.

4. Sam must tell Faramir what happened to Boromir because, once again, Faramir isn't smart enough to figure it out.

In trying to understand the logic of these scenes, I keep coming back to the subtleties in Tolkien's writing, and conversion of book to movie. Still, did the secondary characters really need to be changed so much, just to make the Fellowship characters' journey more plain? Or worse, because the movie is all about the them?

[wayfriend]

I think so. Movie-goers, in which non-readers far outnumber readers, invest in characters, and like to see them doing things. While there's not enugh time to invest in too many secondary characters. By not making those changes, you create a movie where people can complain that the main characters don't do anything, they just watch everyone else do things. So, again, it's a movie requiring a different balance than a book.

[Kil Tyme]

Ya, I will admit that TTT was better by itself than the Hobbit. I've read TTT by itself at least a couple times without reading the others. Never read the Silmarillion, though I've tried a few times. Seems like a hard read, but haven't tried in about a decade. Bought the latest series of stories, but haven't opened it, yet.

But LOTR does explore the deeper side of good and evil and the human condition, and it has my man Sam.

I suppose I like the Hobbit better than the LOTR cause it starts out simple with a simple character with whom the narrater feels alot of empathy and makes the reader feel the same. The story line then becomes more dark as it continues and we see a great growth of Bilbo, but not as an auster and worrisome "growth" as Frodo. I like the variety of the dwarven personalities, too. Lastly, it's a happier ending.

[Zarathustra]

The Silmarillion is a hard read. But once you get past "On Beleriand and its Realms," (the worst chapter in all of literary history), it gets much better. You have to get into the meat of the story (Beren/Luthien, Turin/Beleg, etc.) in order to really see the appeal of it.

Actually, I just checked the table of contents, and there is a lot of really good stuff before that chapter, too, concerning Feanor, Melkor, Ungoliant, the Two Trees, etc. Really epic stuff, there. I don't think any fantasy or mythology can rival it.

Finally, the Silmarillion wraps up nicely, and ties things together with LOTR, ("The Third Age and the Rings of Power"). This view it gives, of seeing the whole interrelated project, is just breathtaking. But it is also heartbreaking to see so much beauty pass out of the world. Once you see the scale of things in the First Age, you really get a sense of how "small" everything is in the Lord of the Rings. This really was the last battle in a 30,000 year epic.

[Montresor]

The Silmarillion is simply the best High Fantasy work ever written, as far as I'm concerned. Truly great, fully realised, breathtakingly imaginative stuff. Well worth investing the effort into reading it.

[wayfriend]

Ah, but as a movie, one needs to ask, pick one sub-story of the Silmarillion to adapt in one movie, or try to adapt it as a pastiche of related stories combined, ala Sin City?

Both approaches have their down side.

I love the Silmarillion because I'm an LOTR fan. I admit a lot of the attraction comes from learning "how it all came to be". Maybe Star Wars proved that that is doable in movies. However, the original Star Wars movies did a much better job of making the audience wonder how it all came to be than the LOTR movies did. Very little of the history of the Elves or of the Numenoreans was left dangling tantalizingly. (I'm sure they were sacrificed for compression issues.)

Consequently, I think a Silmarillion movie needs to be more self-sufficient than the books were, as the books were not very. Yes, there are a few people who have actually read the Silmarillion first, and they will so testify I feel sure.

[Montresor]

Ah, but as a movie, one needs to ask, pick one sub-story of the Silmarillion to adapt in one movie, or try to adapt it as a pastiche of related stories combined, ala Sin City?

I think it's one of those books which is undoable as a movie. Like Perfume. Though someone tried.

I don't think they should try but - if they did - put Werner Herzog at the helm, and get him to make a series of brilliant and beautiful art-house epics which will make my jaw drop, but leave the plastic sword crowd shaking their fists.

[Menolly]

I don't think they should try but - if they did - put Werner Herzog at the helm, and get him to make a series of brilliant and beautiful art-house epics which will make my jaw drop, but leave the plastic sword crowd shaking their fists.

Hear, Hear.

I don't think I would give any other attempt at it a try.

[wayfriend]

The Hobbit, a.k.a. The Lawsuit of the Rings, could very well get put back on the shelf.

Tolkien Estate Sues New Line Cinema

The estate of "Lord of the Rings" creator J.R.R. Tolkien is suing the film studio that released the trilogy based on his books, claiming the company hasn't paid it a penny from the estimated $6 billion the films have grossed worldwide.

The suit, filed Monday, claims New Line was required to pay 7.5 percent of gross receipts to Tolkien's estate and other plaintiffs, who contend they only received an upfront payment of $62,500 for the three movies before production began.

... The plaintiffs seek more than $150 million in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages and a court order giving the Tolkien estate the right to terminate any rights New Line may have to make films based on other works by the author, including "The Hobbit".

Such an order would scuttle plans by New Line to make a two-film prequel based on "The Hobbit." "Rings" trilogy director Peter Jackson has already signed on to serve as executive producer on the project, which is tentatively slated to begin production next year, with releases planned for 2010 and 2011. [link]

[Cagliostro]

Umm...great Frith...New Line seems to be at the center of all these damn lawsuits, aren't they? Why don't they just pay people that they are supposed to pay? Frickin' pay them, New Line, 'cause if you do, the next two Hobbit films are going to make a bundle, and you will easily make that back. Morons.

[wayfriend]

Apparently, LOTR was the only blockbuster New Line ever had. I'm sure it went to their heads.

[The Dreaming]

I worry about the ages of some of the significant potential actors... Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen.

How about the wrinkled old geez-bag who played Bilbo? I really hope they get someone younger for the role.

IAN HOLM IS ONE OF THE GREATEST ACTORS ALIVE YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH THANK YOU!

[The Dreaming]

I've never heard anyone say they liked the Hobbit more than LOTR. What's your opinion of the Silmarillion (my fav)? I'd love to see a series of movies based on that--or even a 2nd age Numenor movie (check out my thread in the Tolkien forum for a cool proposal I found for such a movie).

I finally managed to get through it recently myself. I thought it was a lot like reading the Bible. There were a lot of really awesome stories (Tolkien's creation story was absolutely beautiful.) bogged down by a lot of black beget blank between them. (Not that there is anything really wrong with that. Tolkien meant the Silmarillion to be exactly as a described it, and never meant to publish it.

As for all the LOTR book to movie debate, the movies as they are written are unfilmable. What he wrote was a self called "feigned history". Well, Jackson certainly took fewer liberties than the vast majority of so called, "historical" epics, with more attention to detail than most movies based on actual human events.

Personally, I am somewhat immune to bombast. What a lot of people call "Over the top" I call awesome. (Hence, some of my favorite bands are Dream Theater, Rush, Muse, and ELP) Spectacle is part of the reason movies are so much damn fun. Take the bridge scene in fellowship. I am sure it is exactly the kind of thing Montressar hated most about the movies. In the book it is a sentence. Instead Jackson decided to add some visual intensity and drama. Much like one of Pettrucci's flamboyant guitar solos, Jackson crammed every bit of intensity and excitement he could into the movie. The result is something unlike Tolkien novels. The result is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings. While the mood is different, it is still enjoyable. If you are the kind of person that hates most American movies, and busts a nut over European films, you aren't going to like it. (Not that I hate European films, just the pretentions of some of their audience. Personally, I find anyone capable of finding a piece of art pretentious the most pretentious of all critics)

The purpose of any piece of art is to bring joy to the consumer. (which brings joy to the artist's pocketbook). Certainly there are different levels of enjoyment. I do not enjoy Vertigo the same way I enjoy Dawn of the Dead. What Jackson did was craft an absolutely stunning and lovingly detailed blockbuster. And I don't think a movie should be dismissed just because it is a blockbuster.

[Cagliostro]

And I don't think a movie should be dismissed just because it is a blockbuster.

Oh, I do. But then again, I am quite mad. But I do agree with you completely about Ian Holm.

[Zarathustra]

Holm's acting was the best of the entire cast, and the choice of him playing Bilbo was the best casting choice made. His scene in Bag End with Gandalf, right before he gave up the ring, was incredible. (The music there is one of my favorite spots in the score, too, right after Gandalf has his "wizard moment," and then Bilbo begs forgivemess . . . that music is so tender and subtle, I love it). That scene is very close to the book, btw.

[Sunbaneglasses]

The story of Beren and Lúthien from The Silmarillion would make a GREAT film IMO.

[Menolly]

The story of Beren and Lúthien from The Silmarillion would make a GREAT film IMO.

My thoughts exactly, SBG. I don't think the whole book could be done in one film, but I do think The Lay of Leithian would make an excellent quartet of films...

Film One ~ Ainulindale
Cosmogony.
The Ainur sing the creation; the main geography and races are set up; first conflict with Melkor

Film Two ~ Feänor and the War of the Elves
The Darkening of the Trees; the seige of Angband; The Tale of Beren and Lúthien

Film Three ~ The Children of Hurin
The Battle of Unnumbered Tears; the falls of Nargothrond and Gondolin; the Voyage of Eärendil; Wrath of the Valar

Film Four ~ Numenore
(a film in itself)

[The Dreaming]

It tickles me so much that 2 of my favorite actors in the world are in Alien, but only one person is really remembered. (Ian Holm and John Hurt, and I really like Harry Dean-Stanton too actually )

Holm might be too old to play Bilbo in The Hobbit, but he would be so wonderful I'm not sure we would care. He is absolutely delightful in everything he is in, and he brightens every movie by his presence. (I think he brings The Fifth Element from a 3 to a 4 star movie all by himself)

[Cagliostro]

It tickles me so much that 2 of my favorite actors in the world are in Alien, but only one person is really remembered. (Ian Holm and John Hurt, and I really like Harry Dean-Stanton too actually )

Holm might be too old to play Bilbo in The Hobbit, but he would be so wonderful I'm not sure we would care. He is absolutely delightful in everything he is in, and he brightens every movie by his presence. (I think he brings The Fifth Element from a 3 to a 4 star movie all by himself)

Strange coincidence - John Hurt did the voice for Aragorn in the Bakshi version of Lord of the Rings.

[wayfriend]

The demise and demolition of New Line has probably added another year to the Hobbit. The new ETA is 2011 and 2012.

New Line in Warner's corner
Company ends 40-year run as indie studio

... "The Hobbit" has Guillermo Del Toro in talks to direct, and the picture will be unaffected by the ouster of Shaye and Lynne. Though the films won't be scripted until a director is hired, and Jackson wraps "The Lovely Bones," the expectation is that the films will be ready for release for Christmas 2011 and 2012. Harry Potter will have wound down at WB by then, and the corporation will surely welcome another fantasy franchise that has an eager global audience waiting. New Line will distribute domestically, while MGM has international rights. [link]