Inching closer to The Hobbit film

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I tend to see Beorn's animals handled by them walking
normal animal style, with perhaps trays, cups etc. taken fom
the backs of some by the mouths of others (easily handled
elegantly by sgi)- but with no talking. Thorin's bird mesenger
could be shown listening and then carry written messages
between the Iron Mountains and Erebor.

And, yes, it might be quite interesting to see Saruman's
struggle for self-control (perhaps even show the beginning
of his pipe-weed addiction ).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I again beg to differ

The very pattern of 'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid' 'rising up' seems positive concept to me. In 'real life' much more likely story would be the kid remaining isolated and self-absorbed, or becoming outwardly aggressive and bullyuing whilst inwardly remaning self-absorbed and weak. 'Only you can save mankind' is better message to plant for me than 'you are bratty and so will remain, noone understands what it is that makes you be, therefore, option A: whine your life away or option B: go to the boxing club to build up some muscle power and then show them all!

Yes and no. I don't agree with Sauron the White that the "kid saves the world" scenario is necessarily a bad thing. Recently a friend and I were talking about the dreary "young adult" novels we had to face (and study in school) in the late 80s and early 90s, in which the protagonist is typically a helpless victim. We both hated them, found them depressing and suspect they put a lot of kids of our generation off reading. (Teachers loved 'em, though...)

However, why does it have to be a

'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid'?

Why on Earth should they be the only type of kid catered for? I think those sort of stories work much better if the main character is likeable and relatively mature. Having a self-centred brat rewarded for his or her self-centred brat-hood is not, in my view, a good thing.

[Sauron the White]

My comments about bratty self absorbed kids were mostly inspired by that horrible boy in NARNIA. I was dearly hoping that he would be rewarded with the tortures of the damned as a reward for both his selfishness and his stupidity. Instead, he ends up with a kingdom and a crown. Great lesson for us all I suppose. And then there is the hero of HOME ALONE - while he does not save the larger world - he certainly does save his immediate world, his house. A more despicable child I have yet to see in the movies. I cheered for the burglars.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

My comments about bratty self absorbed kids were mostly inspired by that horrible boy in NARNIA. I was dearly hoping that he would be rewarded with the tortures of the damned as a reward for both his selfishness and his stupidity. Instead, he ends up with a kingdom and a crown. Great lesson for us all I suppose.

But doesnt the fact that he doesnt get tortured etc make it a more interesting story? for me it does. If everyone got their 'just deserts' as it were, then the story would just be a predictable and normal Hollywood ending. But there you have a twist, something unexpected, not the usual way a story should end. The lesson C.S. Lewis was trying to get across was much more to do with his own theology. The fact that Edmund dosnet get thrown to the wolves, as it were, invites the reader / viewer to ask questions and enter into the story.
If Edmund had been killed or something, I don't think Narnia would have worked as well as it does. Indeed, it would completely miss the point for which it was first written, I think.

Besides all this, the 'lesson' for Edmund is one of humility. He does realise his mistakes and even with them hanging over him like a dark cloud he must still face his siblings and hope for reconciliation. He can do nothing to change his past and must live with it and his character (in the film at least) seems to show remorse. Do you think this is a bad lesson for children to learn?

But I don't think this is really the point of this topic, so let's move on... (If, however, you want to continue this line of thought, you may want to start a new thread and see what happens).

[Sauron the White]

Hookbill - I am sure you are correct regarding the theology and intent of Lewis with the character of Edmund. I simply could not stand him - in fact loathed him. That may have nothing to do with Lewis theology but its just how I felt about the character.

Is it good to teach kids that you can screw up royally and then be redeemed and end up on top despite all your errors and failings? You could write a series of books examining both sides of that.

Tuors point about the serving animals in THE HOBBIT could work if done with a very deft hand so that the animals did not appear to be semi-human. The talking birds could also be handled in a more subtle way than the book does. Perhaps then everyone would be happy. (fat chance )

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, returning after a long hiatus, I see there have been about two posts relating to Hobbit-movie news in this thread. Ah well, can't say I'm that surprised or even that disappointed, really. It's the nature of discussion boards. I think some interesting points have been made in the discussion (as well as some meaningless rehashing of old arguments), but I do wish they could find a thread that was devoted to them at the outset.

Boy do I sound grumpy; sorry about that. I'm not. I love to think about and discuss and argue the merits of a Hobbit film; just don't like doing it in this particular thread.

Aw, what the hey; this one's a lost cause anyway, so I'll throw out this bombshell: I don't think the assumption that Jackson will completely PG-13ize The Hobbit is necessarily warranted.

That's not a statement of absolute belief, just a hunch. Crucify me...

[Sauron the White]

E&E ... you coud be correct. My suspicions have always run to Jackson doing several things with THE HOBBIT as a film. One would be to make it fit with the previous three films so that it is accepted as part of the same series --- and yes, I know it is not really. That would mean a more serious adaption. However, I also see him adding many moments that are lighter, sweeter and more in line with the feeling of the book. Sort of a best of both worlds approach.