The Hobbit

Post by **wayfriend** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:39 pm

BTW, Martin Freeman and James McAvoy are the leading contenders in Bilbo casting speculations. Which, admittedly, was a hot topic back at the announcement of the movie but which has dried up since then.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:33 pm

This is unexpected news that really dissapoints me.

Empire Magazine wrote:“We’ve decided to have The Hobbit span the two movies, including the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur,” says Del Toro.

“We decided it would be a mistake to try to cram everything into one movie,” adds Jackson. “The essential brief was to do The Hobbit, and it allows us to make The Hobbit in a little more style, if you like, of the [LOTR] trilogy.”

I didn't mind the idea of a second movie so much, when the Hobbit was still a movie in its own right, which can be taken on it's own.

But two movies? There's just doesn't seem to be enough material.

Where would Part 1 End? The rescue of the Eagles? Reaching Laketown?

I just don't see this being a good plan. They'll need to beef up the movie with non-Hobbit material. And then it won't have that innocence and sense of a widening world which is the quintessence of the Hobbit.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:10 pm

Wayfriend, I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I'm trying to imagine it from their perspective. I can see how the Battle of Five Armies might be seen as the natural conclusion, and it would be very difficult to follow that up in the second film. What could possibly top that as a climax for Hobbit II? With this in mind, I can see how they would alter their plan.

So you ask the relevant question: where does Hobbit I end? I think the rescue of the eagles is a natural climax. If that's the case, then this means there is *more* room, not less, to present the sense of innocence and the widening world. In order to stretch out Hobbit I so that its climax is somewhere halfway through the book, they'll have to beef up the very part you're talking about. Sure, they could fill a lot of this with Gandalf's travels before he reached the Shire, how he met Thorin (as told in Unfinished Tales--quite a nice story), how he got the map, etc. But they could also fill in quite a bit about Bilbo, his life in the Shire, and the journey before they reach Rivendell.

This means that Hobbit II is going to rock. It's going to be action-packed. It would consist of all the best parts of the book, in addition to Gandalf's journey through Dol Guldur, which I imagine will be outstanding.

Actually, I can see Hobbit I ending just before they enter Mirkwood, with a "breaking of the fellowship" moment where Gandalf leaves them. That would be the natural narrative dividing point, for me. But it means that the lame Beorn episode would be their last adventure, which would make for a weak climax.

Let's face it: the Hobbit will have to be drastically changed in order to make it into a movie--more so than any of the LOTR movies. Sure, they could have just filmed it straight, and left out the parts which were "off-stage" in the book, but it's much too late for that now. From the very beginning, this has been a project that was an intentional deviation from the text. And there's part of me that's really excited to see how they do it.

Post by **Orlion** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:32 pm

In the style of LotR... not too sure how I feel about that...

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:47 pm

Malik23 wrote:But it means that the lame Beorn episode would be their last adventure

I like "the lame Beorn episode."
So much so my only child's real first name is that...

No matter how the film turns out, we will be seeing it simply for Beorn, if nothing else.

...but I do hope Smaug is done well...

Post by **Zarathustra** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:11 pm

Nothing wrong with the name, "Beorn." It's pretty cool, actually, but I've always thought the idea of a man turning into a bear is pretty silly--and I'm not sure that shape-shifting into animals is reproduced anywhere else in the entire scope of Tolkien's work (except for angelic beings like Sauron in the Silmarillion). So it always seemed a bit ad hoc and out of place, like griffins in LFB.

In addition, I've never liked the idea that Gandalf "cons" this man they are trying to befriend, and that Beorn is so gullible and malleable that a story is all it takes to minimize the threat of his hostility to guests.

There are many other things I think are lame about the Hobbit. The dialog of the trolls. The "tra-la-la" Elves. Talking wolves. A wizard who can fight nazgul and balrogs, but has to climb a tree to escape from wolves. I've always considered it part of being a "children's tale," so I've never complained much. But in finding a climatic end to the first movie, I certainly wouldn't consider the Beorn chapter to fit the bill.

Post by **Rigel** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:46 pm

Malik23 wrote: There are many other things I think are lame about the Hobbit. The dialog of the trolls. The "tra-la-la" Elves. Talking wolves. A wizard who can fight nazgul and balrogs, but has to climb a tree to escape from wolves. I've always considered it part of being a "children's tale," so I've never complained much. But in finding a climatic end to the first movie, I certainly wouldn't consider the Beorn chapter to fit the bill.

Let's be honest... Gandalf "can" fight Nazgul, but he didn't exactly survive the encounter with the Balrog!

Honestly, Beorn would be a good start to the second movie, I think.

Post by **Xar** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:47 pm

Malik23 wrote:Nothing wrong with the name, "Beorn." It's pretty cool, actually, but I've always thought the idea of a man turning into a bear is pretty silly--and I'm not sure that shape-shifting into animals is reproduced anywhere else in the entire scope of Tolkien's work (except for angelic beings like Sauron in the Silmarillion). So it always seemed a bit ad hoc and out of place, like griffins in LFB.

In addition, I've never liked the idea that Gandalf "cons" this man they are trying to befriend, and that Beorn is so gullible and malleable that a story is all it takes to minimize the threat of his hostility to guests.

There are many other things I think are lame about the Hobbit. The dialog of the trolls. The "tra-la-la" Elves. Talking wolves. A wizard who can fight nazgul and balrogs, but has to climb a tree to escape from wolves. I've always considered it part of being a "children's tale," so I've never complained much. But in finding a climatic end to the first movie, I certainly wouldn't consider the Beorn chapter to fit the bill.

Actually, off the top of my head, there is at least one instance of shape-shifting in the Silmarillion which is not performed by "angelic" beings such as a Maia or a Vala: when Beren and Luthien attempt to enter Angband to steal a Silmaril, she uses the skin of a slain werewolf to disguise Beren (it's implied he is made to magically take the werewolf's form, although not explicitly stated) and she uses the skin of a dead fiendish bat in the same manner to disguise herself. Granted, it was through the implied use of the magics Melian had passed on to her daughter, but even so, neither Beren nor Luthien were Valar or Maiar in their own right.

Post by **Orlion** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:53 pm

I believe Earendil's wife was transformed into a seagull as well towards the end, though that may have been because of divine intervention.

Post by **Xar** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:11 pm

Orlion wrote:I believe Earendil's wife was transformed into a seagull as well towards the end, though that may have been because of divine intervention.

That's also true, although that was direct intervention (implied to be from the Valar) due to the fact she was carrying a Silmaril. Nevertheless, later on it is said that after Earendil and Elwing chose the immortality of the elves over the mortality of men (both of them were half-elven, and this is the same choice which was later offered, among others, to Elrond, Elros and Arwen), and Earendil (who bore the Silmaril Elwing had carried) was given the task to sail across the night sky as a sign that the Valar were coming to shatter the power of Angband, it is said that Elwing wouldn't go with him on his journeys, but lived in a tower where the seagulls and birds would come talk to her, and that she would fly to meet her husband every dawn when he returned from his journeys. If I remember correctly, it doesn't exactly specifies how she flew (her original form was restored when she landed in Aman), but no mention of devices is made, so either she had retained (or been bestowed) wings in her humanoid form, or she could shapeshift into a bird altogether. Depending on which possibility is the one Tolkien envisioned, she either was a unique winged elf, or she was a shapeshifter similar to Beorn...

Post by **Orlion** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:26 pm

I'll have to look it up, but I think Elwing changed into a seagull to meet her husband, but that could just be me making presumptions.

Though having wings might work as well, since she is called El Wing...

Post by **ItisWritten** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:45 pm

Malik23 wrote:In addition, I've never liked the idea that Gandalf "cons" this man they are trying to befriend, and that Beorn is so gullible and malleable that a story is all it takes to minimize the threat of his hostility to guests.

I never saw it as a con. More like Gandalf "handled" Beorn, which made quite a bit sense with a shape shifter who liked his solitude. I always assumed Beorn realized what Gandalf did, but forgave him because, well, it was Gandalf.

Post by **wayfriend** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:08 pm

That's how I feel. Gandalf didn't trick Beorn, so much as be diplomatic. However much Gandalf may have misled Beorn, he provided the truth moments later, and such action was entirely justified in light of Beorn's rather short temper. It is, ultimately, what everybody in midieval times does who comes before a king seeking a boon - they prudently avoid raising the king's ire.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:15 pm

Fair enough. You guys make some good points. It's just not my favorite chapter. Though I do like the weird animal sounds that scare Bilbo during the night.

Post by **Rigel** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:33 pm

I hope Beorn is in it; after all, he was present at the Battle of Five Armies, and I would love to see him kicking a** there!

YouTube · Post by **Menolly** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:48 pm

Malik23 wrote:Fair enough. You guys make some good points. It's just not my favorite chapter. Though I do like the weird animal sounds that scare Bilbo during the night.

Oh, it is far from my favorite chapter. I think that distinction for me has to go to Riddles in the Dark.

But, as small as his part is, I think Beorn is my favorite character in The Hobbit. More so than Bilbo; more so than Gandalf, although I love them in LOTR. I mean, think about him. A vegetarian, shape shifting bulk of a man who lives on the edge of a sinister forest; who has animal servants that willingly serve him, I assume out of love for him, and who is actually quite gentle in spirit, as long as he is dealt with respect, honor, and diplomacy.

Yet simmering underneath it all, is the threat of what is seen at the Battle of the Five Armies...

Unless I missed it, I must admit I was disappointed to not hear any mention of the Beornings on the Western front in the movies already released...

...but then, I guess you could say I have even more reason to be biased towards Beorn for the last 15 years...

Post by **Zarathustra** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:53 pm

Menolly wrote: who has animal servants that willingly serve him, I assume out of love for him,

Oh god, I forgot about the animal butlers carrying trays of food and drink on their little forelegs. I suppose I blocked out that detail. Man, I hope that doesn't make it into the movie. Imagine seeing that. Dog and goats serving you hors d'oeuvres just doesn't belong in any movie with dragons, orcs, trolls. I'm sorry, but this circus is one of the most out-of-place scenes Tolkien ever wrote.

But a rampaging bear might fit in just fine.

Post by **stonemaybe** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:02 pm

For some reason I always perceived Beorn as a sort of berserker character - the bear thing was just cos he was big and hairy and went a bit wild when he was fighting, maybe wearing a bearskin.

Post by **Cagliostro** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:12 pm

Malik23 wrote:
Menolly wrote: who has animal servants that willingly serve him, I assume out of love for him,
Oh god, I forgot about the animal butlers carrying trays of food and drink on their little forelegs. I suppose I blocked out that detail. Man, I hope that doesn't make it into the movie. Imagine seeing that. Dog and goats serving you hors d'oeuvres just doesn't belong in any movie with dragons, orcs, trolls. I'm sorry, but this circus is one of the most out-of-place scenes Tolkien ever wrote.

But a rampaging bear might fit in just fine.

Well, they said the same thing about walking talking trees, and I must say they carried it off better than I expected.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:09 pm

Well, *I* never said that walking trees would be silly. Trees reciting poetry? Maybe.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

The Hobbit