Two films for The Hobbit? Invented materials to "fill in the gaps"?

[Boromir88]

Well, it won't be as the book - I expect something in the style of LotR, more 'adult' & serious.~davem

Taking some exerpts from an interview with Mr. Jackson I would agree. Perhaps before the movie is even started we could pin PJ down as mutilating The Hobbit:

I would love to! If I was doing THE HOBBIT I'd try to get as many of the guys back as I could. I mean, there's actually a role for Legolas in THE HOBBIT, his father features in it, obviously Gandalf and Saruman should be part of it. There's things that you can do with THE HOBBIT to bring in some old friends, for sure. I have thought about it from time to time... Elrond, Galadriel and Arwen could all feature. Elves have lived for centuries. Part of the attraction would be working with old friends. I wouldn't want to do it unless we could keep a continuity of cast. I have zero interest in directing a Gandalf who wasn't Ian McKellen for instance. Strange to be even talking about it, for three years it's been in this rights situation limbo.

[...]

saw that. Yeah, we're supposed to be writing The Lovely Bones, but of course Phil, Fran and I read the thing on the net and spent most of this morning talking about The Hobbit. We think the two film idea is really smart. One of the problems with The Hobbit is that it is a fairly simple kids story, and doesn't really feel like The Lord of the Rings. Tonally I mean. It's always may be a little worried, but with two films that kinda gets easier. It allows for more complexity. At that implied stuff with Gandalf and the White Council and the return of Sauron could be fully explored.

The full interview can be seen here.

Of course I don't mind bringing back Mckellan as Gandalf, that would be nice, and some background to the happenings of The White Council and Dol Guldur, since that is all implied in The Hobbit. However, it seems like Jackson has these grand plans of just bringing back the 'fellows' (Viggo, Hugo, Liv, Cate...etc) and adding in all this extra junk that makes ill use of time management then actual scenes in the book must be cut out, because there isn't enough time and it's 'childish.' Hmm...sounds like LOTR.

[Essex]

It allows for more complexity. At that implied stuff with Gandalf and the White Council and the return of Sauron could be fully explored.

But this COULD make a very good movie if done well. Imagine Gandalf in Dol Guldur for example, and the smoke ring scene as I mentioned above or the White Council meetings etc.

therefore I would have no problem in having Galadriel and Saruman in the White Council sections of the film.

And to be fair, Arwen has lived for thousands of years, so why can't she be at Rivendell with her father? And exactly the same for Legolas with his father in mirkwood?

[Trotter]

It just comes down to a simple question... Do we want to see "The Hobbit," or do we want to see Peter Jackson's "interpretation" of it? Pete's LOTR was simply that, his LOTR, not Tolkien's. I guess it's okay if he adds to The Hobbit and stretches it into two films, they will doubtless be good movies, but they won't be J.R.R Tolkien's "The Hobbit."

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

When ever a book is made into a movie it will be an intepritation, you will never get Tolkiens LotR or The Hobbit.

Of course this should not keep us from bashing the films

[Boromir88]

But this COULD make a very good movie if done well. Imagine Gandalf in Dol Guldur for example, and the smoke ring scene as I mentioned above or the White Council meetings etc.

And as I said, I think this could also be very good for the movies. For the dealings with Dol Guldur and the White Council are implied in The Hobbit, and it wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing to expand more on what The Hobbit doesn't tell us.

Though (and perhaps I guess I should wait for the movies to come out, if they ever do in my life time to hold criticism - or even praise), I am growing a fear that Jackson's 'Hobbit' won't be about Bilbo and the Dwarves, it will be about progressing into Lord of the Rings. And 'featuring' characters that should not be featured in the story.

I have no qualms if a movie wants to be made about 'the rise of Sauron,' 'Aragorn protecting The Shire,' 'throwing in Arwen and Legolas,' no problems at all, but if a movie is made off of such, don't call it The Hobbit, and don't use Tolkien's book The Hobbit as a means to further the movie. For that movie is not about The Hobbit, it is events that take place during the time frame of The Hobbit, and leading up to LOTR, which is completely different from the storyline and plot in The Hobbit.

Basically if a movie is to be made off of The Hobbit, I want a movie that is about Bilbo, the dwarves, and their journey retaking Erebor, and that's what I want to see. I think expanding upon some concepts that are broader in LOTR (like Dol Guldur, the White Council, The Ring, Gollum...etc) that is perfectly fine too. But, I would not want to see a movie with Aragorn, and Legolas, and Arwen, and Galadriel, might as well make Gimli go with his father on the journey, as that has nothing to do with the storyline in The Hobbit, but something totally different.

[The Saucepan Man]

You know, it seems to me that Jackson's ideas might be along the very lines that many here have been suggesting for some time with regard to any Hobbit film - its expansion into two films and the inclusion of the White Counsel's assault on Dol Guldur. I always had some reservations about that suggestion for the very reason that it would take the focus off Bilbo, the Dwarves and Smaug.

Nevertheless, perhaps we should refrain from getting too worked up about it until it's a little clearer exactly how it's going to turn out (or, indeed, if it is ever going to "turn out" at all).

[Mithalwen]

I cannot but help in finding some irony in the director who chopped up LOTR assuming an average audience IQ comparable to that of a houseplant thinks that the Hobbit is too simplistic...

While I wish JRRT had written a "grown up version" with the tone of "The Quest of erebor", I cannot see any excuse for stretching The Hobbit over 2 films other than greed. It is a slender volume and I think that even if you started with Gandalf meeting Thorin rather than his arrival at Hobbiton, it could be managed. If PJ does it as a prequesl to LOTR (rather than someone else doing it on its own terms) then it is perhaps logical to include the White COuncil and cameos for familiar faces. So much of the Hobbit is description that I am sure one film could manage, and there are elements that could be cut ...Beorn springs to mind.

However I think there is a danger that a PJ Hobbit might be formulaic... he seems to have moved on and maybe a new director would be more interesting.

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

When ever a book is made into a movie it will be an intepritation, you will never get Tolkiens LotR or The Hobbit.

Of course this should not keep us from bashing the films

I disagree, a movie can be very true to a book if done correctly. The story, the characters, and the overall feel of a film can easily mirror that of the book upon which it is based. PJ's LOTR mostly failed in this respect, even though they are good films.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Of course they can be true, but they will always be an intepritation! We all read books differently, if you and I read the same book and was to make it into a movie and stay true to the books, there would still be different outcomes.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Magnificent post by Boromir above. That cuts to the heart of the matter: Yes, it would be cool to see all this other stuff, but we want to see The Hobbit. That's why I still hold that there should only be one movie, and that while you might include a couple White Council scenes, the focus should be completely on the Quest of Erebor.

Quite frankly, if you want J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, read the book. You won't get it in a movie, whether made by PJ or anyone else.

And finally, let me just stop everyone to point out that neither MGM nor New Line have even contacted PJ about helming this project yet, so we have absolutely no evidence that he will even be involved. That being said, I seriously doubt the companies will settle for anyone other than him as director, but for the moment, he's not (yet) part of this project.

But is anyone else THRILLED about this thing? There is not another movie in the world, whether real or imaginary, that I would rather see than The Hobbit. (Since LOTR's already been made, that is.) Assuming it's made by PJ, of course. You can talk about being excited about a new film, but I would not camp out at the movie theater waiting for midnight, for any other movie. I will do that and more, if necessary, for The Hobbit.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Trotter

I disagree, a movie can be very true to a book if done correctly. The story, the characters, and the overall feel of a film can easily mirror that of the book upon which it is based. PJ's LOTR mostly failed in this respect, even though they are good films.

I beg to differ. PJ's films WERE Middle-earth. Yes there were differences, but the story characters and plot were mainly faithful to the book.

PS - look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - that was very faithful to the brilliant book, but became a very boring movie!!!

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Essex

I beg to differ. PJ's films WERE Middle-earth. Yes there were differences, but the story characters and plot were mainly faithful to the book.

PS - look at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - that was very faithful to the brilliant book, but became a very boring movie!!!

The characters faithful!!?? What about the reworking of Frodo and the total maligning of his courageous character? What about the butchering of Noble Faramir? What about the toned down and unsure Gandalf? What about the complete degrading of Gimli son of Gloin? The list is endless my friend. No, PJ's LOTR was NOT faithful to Tolkien's characters. Call me a nitpicker if you will. It is true though that PJ's characters accomplished the same things as the book's characters, but the way they went about doing that was different. Yes, I have heard the arguements about how the characters had to be made more conflicted and unsure for the films, but I disagree with them. I know that a film should avoid being boring at all costs, and granted, changes must be made, but there is a line to draw my friend, and PJ never did that as far as most of the characters were concerned.

P.S. I really do enjoy PJ's films, as PJ's LOTR. But I still hold to the belief that they could be done better as far as characters and story goes. I do applaud PJ and his team for their stunning costume, effects, and music work though, no problems there.


Trotter