One Hobbit Good, Two Hobbits Bad - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Sauron the White · 02-02-2008, 03:09 PM

Many beloved and great films have been made from a great deal less than the material contained in the LOTR appendicies. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE was adapted from a holiday greeting card.

Lalwendë · 02-02-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Many beloved and great films have been made from a great deal less than the material contained in the LOTR appendicies. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE was adapted from a holiday greeting card.

Hmmm, it was at least original though. I'm thinking about "spin-offs", which this will be. In the main, spin-offs are not great. One which does work is Torchwood, taken from Doctor Who, but then firstly they have the character of Captain Jack and John Barrowman's personality to use, and secondly, Doctor Who was always written by 'committee' anyway, and wouldn't exist independently of the TV scripts. Whereas Tolkien's world does exist independently and it comes from one mind.

Sauron the White · 02-02-2008, 03:36 PM

Well BELLS OF ST. MARYS was spun off from GOING MY WAY and that was pretty good. On tv we had MORK AND MINDY which was spun off from a one shot HAPPY DAYS appearance. And then there were a whole slew of successful shows spun off from both ALL IN THE FAMILY and MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW.

Is that what you are looking for?

here is a rather lengthy list of TV spinoffs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sion_spin-offs

Lalwendë · 02-02-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Well BELLS OF ST. MARYS was spun off from GOING MY WAY and that was pretty good. On tv we had MORK AND MINDY which was spun off from a one shot HAPPY DAYS appearance. And then there were a whole slew of successful shows spun off from both ALL IN THE FAMILY and MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW.

Is that what you are looking for?

here is a rather lengthy list of TV spinoffs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sion_spin-offs

Not sure I know all those apart from Mork and Mindy (nanu nanu .... awesome

) and Happy Days. But like I say, TV spin offs and originals can't exist independently of the TV itself (same with films), but this Tolkien spin-off comes from something which already exists (i.e. Tolkien's stories), whether a film is made or not.

It's as if seeing the success of the Colin Firth Pride & Prejudice, the BBC decided to make a sequel...has that kind of thing been done before? Has it worked? Is it OK to do that?

Sauron the White · 02-02-2008, 03:53 PM

Lalwende....Maybe I am being dense but I do not completely get what you mean. And I am trying.

If a film is based on books or stories - like the Hobbit Bridge movie will be- then its a clear adaption regardless of how many dots need to be connected or additional dialogue written. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE would be an example of something where the source material was rather brief and it had to be extensively rewritten and fleshed out.

Its is a spinoff like a TV show, you can look over the wikipedia list and see that - like most TV shows - most are forgettable. However, if you look at the ALL IN THE FAMILY and MARY TYLER MOORE spinoffs they were of good quality and successful.

My personal favorite was FERNWOOD TONIGHT which was a spinoff of MARY HARTMAN MARY HARTMAN in the early 70's. And then they spunoff AMERICA TONIGHT from that with a bigger budget and more big name stars. Excellent American TV from that period.

I think when you deal with adaptions or spinoffs, the old Sturgeons Law comes into play. Theodore Sturgeon the sci-fi writer said "90% of everything is crap".
But its the other 10% that we like to remember.

Lalwendë · 02-02-2008, 06:02 PM

But this is what I mean - there is no story written for the 'bridge' film, nothing in the way of one of Tolkien's tales to adapt for the screen. All we have are a few notes and ideas, that's it. LotR and The Hobbit were/will be based on very well written stories, near perfect in terms of narrative structure. However the 'bridge' film has nothing like this and much of it will have to be invented - which is why I made an analogy to making a sequel to an adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. Has there ever been anything like that which was successful? In other words, a broadly new story following on from a successful adaptation of a famous novel?

Boromir88 · 02-10-2008, 09:16 AM

Ok, so from the looks of this article it sounds like the first film is going to be strictly The Hobbit and the second is going to be connecting the dots in that "gap" between The Hobbit and LOTR? Do I have that right?

If so, there is one big problem I see, not that there is a lack of "filmable events," but the vagueness of those events and a lack of a story. There is a boat load of events that happen between The Hobbit and LOTR, but it is not a detailed story like The Hobbit or LOTR. Mostly it's just a listing, or summary, of things that happened in that "gap." I believe as Mac mentioned where's the dialogue going to come from? Not that Walsh and Boyens did that fantastic of a job with a script, but there was still a lot of dialogue at their disposal.

Another problem I see is if they are interested in making this a successful, watchable (which I'm not convinced they are), film than they will have to choose a main character to follow. Who will it be? Bilbo? Frodo? Aragorn? I will have no desire to see a film if they are just going to show all these events that bridge LOTR and The Hobbit. It will need to have a main character, support characters, the trials/conflicts of the main character, the growth of the main character, and a final resolution...pretty much I'm saying there will have to be a plot, or a purpose to the second film, and more than just "bridging a gap" if I will have any desire to see it.

Lal, you asked if there are any examples someone could think of where something like this has been done, and none really spring to mind. Or, not in the way that I think you (and the article in the Guardian) are thinking about. I'm sure there are cases out there, but right now nothing comes to mind. I will say though that I am reminded of what George Lucas attempted to do with Star Wars: Episode III and transitioning to Episode IV.

If you are familiar with those movies, the last 10 minutes or so of Episode III pretty much just bridge everything to Episode IV. Luke is sent to his aunt and uncle on Tatooine, Leia is taken in by Senator Organa, Obi-Wan stays on Tatooine to watch over Luke, we see Anakin's transformation from a human to Darth Vader (almost completely "machine"). And I really enjoyed Episode III (much more than I did The Phantom Menace and The Clone Wars), but I found the last 10 minutes of Episode III all too unnecessary and a drag, because I already knew what happened. The story Lucas showed in Anakin's fall, his broken relationships with Padme and Obi-Wan, the rise of Emperor Palpatine was emotional and well done, but the end where Lucas was connecting the dots from III to IV I just thought was a waste of time. It was something that wasn't necessary and could have been cut.

If I am reading this correctly (and if this is indeed how the two films are going to be) I feel the same way as I did by the end of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. It's unecessary to "bridge the gap" between The Hobbit and LOTR, because we know how LOTR begins. If they want to foreshadow how things in The Hobbit lead up to LOTR, they can subtetly do that in the first film. There is no reason to make an entire second film to "bridge the gap."

skip spence · 02-02-2008, 03:46 PM

As far as I'm concerned, two films are better than one.

Perhaps the second one (and it does seem like there's little material to make a good full length movie) will be crap. This would of course be disapointing but it wouldn't take anything away from Tolkien's written works. People who enjoy reading the books can keep on enjoying them even if the movie fails to meet their high standards. Besides, a movie is something all together different from a book, and can't be judged by the same standards. So, the way I see it, if the second movie is poor, nothing is lost really, exept perhaps a moderate sum of money and a couple of hours of your precious time which you probably would have wasted anyway.

Then again, it just might be really good too. Even if much of it is invented by the filmmakers and not by Tolkien himself. Then all the better.

I really enjoyed the trilogy despite lots of flaws and quite annoying simplifications of the storyline. I expect to enjoy the coming movies as well.

One thing though, there isn't much Hobbit stuff in the appendixes, is there?

02-02-2008, 03:36 PM	#3
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Well BELLS OF ST. MARYS was spun off from GOING MY WAY and that was pretty good. On tv we had MORK AND MINDY which was spun off from a one shot HAPPY DAYS appearance. And then there were a whole slew of successful shows spun off from both ALL IN THE FAMILY and MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW. Is that what you are looking for? here is a rather lengthy list of TV spinoffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sion_spin-offs Last edited by Sauron the White; 02-02-2008 at 03:39 PM.

02-02-2008, 06:02 PM	#6
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	But this is what I mean - there is no story written for the 'bridge' film, nothing in the way of one of Tolkien's tales to adapt for the screen. All we have are a few notes and ideas, that's it. LotR and The Hobbit were/will be based on very well written stories, near perfect in terms of narrative structure. However the 'bridge' film has nothing like this and much of it will have to be invented - which is why I made an analogy to making a sequel to an adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. Has there ever been anything like that which was successful? In other words, a broadly new story following on from a successful adaptation of a famous novel? __________________ Gordon's alive!

02-10-2008, 09:16 AM	#7
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	Ok, so from the looks of this article it sounds like the first film is going to be strictly The Hobbit and the second is going to be connecting the dots in that "gap" between The Hobbit and LOTR? Do I have that right? If so, there is one big problem I see, not that there is a lack of "filmable events," but the vagueness of those events and a lack of a story. There is a boat load of events that happen between The Hobbit and LOTR, but it is not a detailed story like The Hobbit or LOTR. Mostly it's just a listing, or summary, of things that happened in that "gap." I believe as Mac mentioned where's the dialogue going to come from? Not that Walsh and Boyens did that fantastic of a job with a script, but there was still a lot of dialogue at their disposal. Another problem I see is if they are interested in making this a successful, watchable (which I'm not convinced they are), film than they will have to choose a main character to follow. Who will it be? Bilbo? Frodo? Aragorn? I will have no desire to see a film if they are just going to show all these events that bridge LOTR and The Hobbit. It will need to have a main character, support characters, the trials/conflicts of the main character, the growth of the main character, and a final resolution...pretty much I'm saying there will have to be a plot, or a purpose to the second film, and more than just "bridging a gap" if I will have any desire to see it. Lal, you asked if there are any examples someone could think of where something like this has been done, and none really spring to mind. Or, not in the way that I think you (and the article in the Guardian) are thinking about. I'm sure there are cases out there, but right now nothing comes to mind. I will say though that I am reminded of what George Lucas attempted to do with Star Wars: Episode III and transitioning to Episode IV. If you are familiar with those movies, the last 10 minutes or so of Episode III pretty much just bridge everything to Episode IV. Luke is sent to his aunt and uncle on Tatooine, Leia is taken in by Senator Organa, Obi-Wan stays on Tatooine to watch over Luke, we see Anakin's transformation from a human to Darth Vader (almost completely "machine"). And I really enjoyed Episode III (much more than I did The Phantom Menace and The Clone Wars), but I found the last 10 minutes of Episode III all too unnecessary and a drag, because I already knew what happened. The story Lucas showed in Anakin's fall, his broken relationships with Padme and Obi-Wan, the rise of Emperor Palpatine was emotional and well done, but the end where Lucas was connecting the dots from III to IV I just thought was a waste of time. It was something that wasn't necessary and could have been cut. If I am reading this correctly (and if this is indeed how the two films are going to be) I feel the same way as I did by the end of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. It's unecessary to "bridge the gap" between The Hobbit and LOTR, because we know how LOTR begins. If they want to foreshadow how things in The Hobbit lead up to LOTR, they can subtetly do that in the first film. There is no reason to make an entire second film to "bridge the gap." __________________ Fenris Penguin

02-02-2008, 03:09 PM	#1
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Many beloved and great films have been made from a great deal less than the material contained in the LOTR appendicies. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE was adapted from a holiday greeting card.

02-02-2008, 03:53 PM	#5
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Lalwende....Maybe I am being dense but I do not completely get what you mean. And I am trying. If a film is based on books or stories - like the Hobbit Bridge movie will be- then its a clear adaption regardless of how many dots need to be connected or additional dialogue written. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE would be an example of something where the source material was rather brief and it had to be extensively rewritten and fleshed out. Its is a spinoff like a TV show, you can look over the wikipedia list and see that - like most TV shows - most are forgettable. However, if you look at the ALL IN THE FAMILY and MARY TYLER MOORE spinoffs they were of good quality and successful. My personal favorite was FERNWOOD TONIGHT which was a spinoff of MARY HARTMAN MARY HARTMAN in the early 70's. And then they spunoff AMERICA TONIGHT from that with a bigger budget and more big name stars. Excellent American TV from that period. I think when you deal with adaptions or spinoffs, the old Sturgeons Law comes into play. Theodore Sturgeon the sci-fi writer said "90% of everything is crap". But its the other 10% that we like to remember.

02-02-2008, 03:46 PM	#8
skip spence shadow of a doubt Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Back on the streets Posts: 1,125	As far as I'm concerned, two films are better than one. Perhaps the second one (and it does seem like there's little material to make a good full length movie) will be crap. This would of course be disapointing but it wouldn't take anything away from Tolkien's written works. People who enjoy reading the books can keep on enjoying them even if the movie fails to meet their high standards. Besides, a movie is something all together different from a book, and can't be judged by the same standards. So, the way I see it, if the second movie is poor, nothing is lost really, exept perhaps a moderate sum of money and a couple of hours of your precious time which you probably would have wasted anyway. Then again, it just might be really good too. Even if much of it is invented by the filmmakers and not by Tolkien himself. Then all the better. I really enjoyed the trilogy despite lots of flaws and quite annoying simplifications of the storyline. I expect to enjoy the coming movies as well. One thing though, there isn't much Hobbit stuff in the appendixes, is there?