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

[Tuor in Gondolin]

well it all depnds on where thy break it up i thnk the last shot of the first movie would b the dwarves being dragged into mirkwod's dungeons

The trouble with that is it might come too late in the
story. What about when they enter Mirkwood or when the
dwarves or captured by the spiders (with Thorin by
Thranduil) and Bilbo is left frantic, while at
the same time the White Counsel is seen deciding to
attack Dol Guldur or even beginning the battle?

Of course, if PJ does such films you'd have to be
prepared for Aragorn being aged from 10 to about 20
so he could have his first trysts with Arwen (actually, not
altogether a bad idea).

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

Of course, if PJ does such films you'd have to be
prepared for Aragorn being aged from 10 to about 20
so he could have his first trysts with Arwen (actually, not
altogether a bad idea).

Please no.....

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Trotter

Please no.....

Well, at least, no Viggo Mortensen...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Another problem with doing stuff like Aragorn and Arwen's first meeting is that it screams "prequel." The Hobbit is not a prequel. It was not intended to be, and it remained a clear stand-alone even after LOTR was published. It deserves to be made a movie on its own merits with its own material, without making it LOTR Episode I.

That's one of the many things I don't like about the Star Wars prequels (don't even get me started about their many shortcomings). They repeatedly throw in hints and nods and allusions to the old movies. Even if you wanted to (which no one would), you can't watch the new movies without already having seen the old ones. I don't want The Hobbit to be like that. I want it to be a film you can sit down and watch, having never seen LOTR (even though everyone has), and enjoy.

[Essex]

I agree the Hobbit is not just a prequel - it's a story on its own. But really, I don't think it be such a success without some other 'background' story around it - as it's a very 1 dimensional story - unless we include the events of Gandalf and where he popped off to......

But this brings to mind what we COULD put in the film(s). If we consider the events of Dol Guldur, the history of Smaug taking over the Mountain, and then up to Bilbo arriving back home from his adventures, then we have a timeline of 882 years.....

2060
The power of Dol Guldur grows. The Wise fear that it may be Sauron taking shape again.

2063
Gandalf goes to Dol Guldur. Sauron retreats and hides in the East. The Watchful Peace begins. The Nazgûl remain quiet in Minas Morgul.

2460
The Watchful Peace ends. Sauron returns with increased strength to Dol Guldur.

2463
The White Council is formed. About this time Déagol the Stoor finds the One Ring, and is murdered by Sméagol.

2589
Dáin I slain by a Dragon.

2590
Thrór returns to Erebor. Grór his brother goes to the Iron Hills.

2770 Smaug the Dragon descends on Erebor. Dale destroyed. Thrór escapes with Thráin II and Thorin II.

2799
Battle of Nanduhirion before the East-gate of Moria. Dáin Ironfoot returns to the Iron Hills. Thráin II and his son Thorin wander westwards. They settle in the South of Ered Luin beyond the Shire (2802).

2841
Thráin II sets out to revisit Erebor, but is pursued by the servants of Sauron.

2845
Thráin the Dwarf is imprisoned in Dol Guldur; the last of the Seven Rings is taken from him.

2850
Gandalf again enters Dol Guldur, and discovers that its master is indeed Sauron. who is gathering all the Rings and seeking for news of the One, and of Isildur's Heir. He finds Thráin and receives the key of Erebor. Thráin dies in Dol Guldur.

2851
The White Council meets. Gandalf urges an attack on Dol Guldur. Saruman overrules him. Saruman begins to search near the Gladden Fields.

2890
Bilbo born in the Shire.

2939
Saruman discovers that Sauron's servants are searching the Anduin near Gladden Fields, and that Sauron therefore has learned of Isildur's end. He is alarmed, but says nothing to the Council.

2941
Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf visit Bilbo in the Shire. Bilbo meets Sméagol-Gollum and finds the Ring. The White Council meets; Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur. The Battle of the Five Armies in Dale. Death of Thorin II. Bard of Esgaroth slays Smaug. Dáin of the Iron Hills becomes King under the Mountain (Dáin II).

2942
Bilbo returns to the Shire with the Ring. Sauron returns in secret to Mordor. 2944 Bard rebuilds Dale and becomes King. Gollum leaves the Mountains and begins his search for the 'thief of the Ring.

How much of this history do we put into the films? And really, they become more a history of the millenium before LOTR rather than the Hobbit...........

Or will PJ use his artistic licence and change the timeline so we speed up all the events in dol guldur and have them happening around the time of the Hobbit (except for a flashback scene of Gandalf getting the Key from Thrain in Dol Guldur)

We could also just have a flashback with Thorin telling the Company the story of Smaug taking over the mountain as they sit in Bag End before there adventures start......

Hi. Long-time lurker, first-time poster.

I just thought I'd chime in on this debate as it is one that raged on in my head for a long time several years ago. Back when I was in film school I chose to tackle The Hobbit as my project for my screenplay adaptation class. I pulled the book(my favorite book as a child, by the way) apart and broke the story down into workable acts that were pretty much true to the events in the book. I was ready to start writing the script... and then I had a thought: what if I incorporated the mysterious events only alluded to in the books?

Certainly it would have broken up the action into two distinct stories I could cross-cut between(Your A story being Bilbo and the Dwarves and your B story being Gandalf and the actions of the White Council). I thought at first that it would add more depth and actually create a more compelling flow of action. But, the more I thought about it, the more I felt it was the wrong way to go. It would shift the focus too much off of Bilbo, whose personal journey is really what drives the novel.

I suddenly remembered the reason I loved this book had nothing to do with LOTR. It was all about Bilbo, a fat, silly little hobbit whose simple ways and common sense approach make him more a hero than any sword(even Sting) ever could. I quickly scrapped my grandiose plans and went back to the simple story I loved.

With all the recent talk of two Hobbit movies, I decided I would break out my good old singular script of The Hobbit and let someone other than my professors read it. If anyone is interested in doing so you can check it out here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hobbit_screenplay/

While I do stay pretty close to the book, I also throw in a few minor things from Unfinished Tales and occassionally simplify the action in the interest of saving screen time. I'd love to know what you think.

I really do think that a film version of The Hobbit should be just that. The big events that take place behind the scenes should stay off screen where they can lend a sense of depth and mystery. That's my take on it, anyway.

Thanks for listening.

[doug*platypus]

I agree with PeteS... there is no need to mess with what is a brilliant, charming and entertaining story. As Elladan and Elrohir pointed out, The Hobbit is not a prequel, and should not be treated as such, although that is of course how it would most likely be advertised if and when the film is made.

Essex pointed out that the story is one-dimensional, meaning that there is only one plot thread, and there would be no inter-cutting. I don't see this as necessarily a disadvantage. I find movies with only one thread easier to follow, and find that you can become more absorbed in them as you travel along with the main character. I see no justification for including extraneous details such as the White Council and the attack on Dol Guldur, which would detract from the main story and serve only to confuse viewers who were not acquainted with Middle Earth.

Two films? Pah! Invented materials?! Alas!! I would almost (not quite sure) prefer to not have The Hobbit made into a movie... the last thing I want is another The Two Towers.