One Hobbit Good, Two Hobbits Bad

[Boromir88]

That's just what I'm getting at! The story in itself is perfect with just The Hobbit and Rings - it's worked for millions of people so far so why does it need any extra padding?~Lal

To continue with the Star Wars analogy if I may...

It would be like if _________ (insert name of director) decided to make a movie in between The Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, filming the 20 (or however long it is) year gap between the two movies.

Let's forget about copyrights and all that legal stuff, why wouldn't some one attempt to insert another Star Wars movie between Episodes III and IV? Because there is no story, and one is not needed, to do so would being trying to suck every penny out of the successful franchise. Episode III told the story it wanted to tell, it shows Anakins fall to becoming Darth Vader and how Padme, the Jedi...etc were all caught up in it. Episode IV had another story to tell, who cares if it was ___ (insert number of years) later? To try to "force" a story showing those years of Luke and Leia growing up and Obi-Wan wandering a desert is pointless. It doesn't add to, nor does it matter, in the "big picture."

I would like to add that POC was taken from a Disney ride. So if a Disney ride can inspire three movies, whats to say Tolkiens work in the appendicies couldn't make a good movie?~Quempel

Yes, but they had free reign to make up whatever story they wanted. Someone can come in and do a little potpourri of scenes from all the various events between The Hobbit and LOTR, but they will still have to put it together and make a story out of it. I think the point is that since there is no story, one is going to have to be "invented." However, just because they would use the same names and have it set in Middle-earth and call it The Lord of the Rings, doesn't make it The Lord of the Rings.

In an effort to bridge the two stories (TH and LOTR) I can imagine the wild inconsistancies that would arise. We saw what some of Jackson's tweakings did and how it caused inconsistancies within the movies themselves. Just give Hollywood reign to force a story, where there is none, and then you'll see inconsistant.

[Sauron the White]

They make successful movies from notes on napkins, theme park rides, greeting cards, pop songs and heaven only knows what else was the inspiration for other successful and beloved movies. You do not need a completed 400 page book to make a good movie folks.

And for those of you offering these sage predictions of failure for that second movie, could you please throw a few date specific lottery numbers my way?

And for those invoking the evil god of making money - film studios are in business to make money. That applies to virtually every movie made outside of the rare artfilm made by somebody to show a few friends or win some festival recognition.
A movie being made to make money!!!!! I never.

Next thing you know we will all pretend to be scandalized to find out where babies really come from?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Certainly we can forecast based on historical data!

In the three existing movies, when PJ & Co attempted to insert 'original' material they made up, it was almost without exception bad. I think that's a reasonable basis for a prediction.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

In the three existing movies, when PJ & Co attempted to insert 'original' material they made up, it was almost without exception bad. I think that's a reasonable basis for a prediction.

Would you be good enough to fill us in on the standards of measurement you or others are employing when you declare those three movies as "without exception bad"?

[Nerwen]

STW, WCH didn't saying the movies were "without exception bad" (though I suspect he thinks so), he said the original material was "almost without exception bad". There is a difference.

I hope you two aren't going to start bickering yet again.

[Sauron the White]

I am merely trying to understand the point being advocated by another.

Original material: so in the books the lighting of the beacons is merely mentioned as a quick almost cast aside reference. In the film Jackson took that short mention, fleshed it out, gave it detail and depth and turned it into moments of awe and beauty. Is that what you mean?

Or would it be the change in a character like taking Boromir of the books who many say is a rather unsympathetic character who borders on arrogance and haughtiness but in the films Jackson gave him a soul and feelings that touched audience members. Is that what you mean?

Just trying to understand.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Yes, but they had free reign to make up whatever story they wanted. Someone can come in and do a little potpourri of scenes from all the various events between The Hobbit and LOTR, but they will still have to put it together and make a story out of it. I think the point is that since there is no story, one is going to have to be "invented." However, just because they would use the same names and have it set in Middle-earth and call it The Lord of the Rings, doesn't make it The Lord of the Rings.

Indeed, it would be that Lord of the Rings was just another brand name like Coke or Gap that could be sold to make more money. The reason people love Tolkien is that he gave us these great stories, why would people want to see something that wasn't one of his stories but had all the right Brand Names in place?

A lot of things that are good were halted at their height - Fawlty Towers, Father Ted, Mr Benn, etc. They never became stale or boring. Compare that with the ongoing flogging of a dead horse that you get from things like Mr Bean; even The Simpsons is way less harp than it used to be - they even have Ricky "I'm in everything" Gervais in it reprising his David Brent persona for the 1000th time.

A film of The Hobbit would be worthwhile. A film of random notes is pushing it way too far - like butter scraped over too much bread.

Maybe the thought of this morphing of the characters into mere brand names has been the straw which broke the Estate's back and they have finally laid the smack down?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I think they're going to film the Appendices. Wouldn't that be good!

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I think they're going to film the Appendices. Wouldn't that be good!

I actually like the way that Peter Jackson made the introduction to the Fellowship of the Ring with going through all the past history leading up to the War of the Ring. I actually wishe that he would have expanded on that part.

Yes, adding the Appendices to the film would be awsome, but than the fillm really shoudn't be called the Hobbit.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I think they're going to film the Appendices. Wouldn't that be good!

I know there's a movie called The Ten Commandments, but has Leviticus ever been made into a movie?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

STW, WCH didn't saying the movies were "without exception bad" (though I suspect he thinks so)

No I don't actually. There is much in the movies that is good. I really think so. Honest. For me unfortunately on balance the bad outweighs the good, but YMMV.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I know there's a movie called The Ten Commandments, but has Leviticus ever been made into a movie?

No. But if it were I'm sure it would beget a lot of sequels...

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGG, skwerels!

[Boromir88]

Or would it be the change in a character like taking Boromir of the books who many say is a rather unsympathetic character who borders on arrogance and haughtiness but in the films Jackson gave him a soul and feelings that touched audience members. Is that what you mean?~Sauron the White

Boromir unsympathetic in the books? I think not. And what's wrong with Tolkien deciding to make a conflicted character? A character who's pride (and yes arrogance) is in a constant struggle with his desire to do the right and honourable thing? What's wrong with Tolkien creating a layered character who is personally in conflict with himself?

And if you are interested, I actually think that besides a little moment in TTT EE Boromir was a character Jackson got right! Sure one could say Jackson probably made Boromir a little more likeable, but Tolkien's Boromir was far from unsympathetic:

'...and Pippin gazing at him saw how closely he resembled his brother Boromir - whom Pippin had liked from the first, admiring the great man's lordly but kindly manner.~The Siege of Gondor

Jackson simply smoothed out some of the rough edges in Boromir, I would hardly call that a "change" or "invention."

When I think of change, I'm talking about something that is completely invented (Elves showing up at Helm's Deep) or something that is contradicts what we know about a character. For an example, in TTT Aragorn stops Theoden from killing Grima in a fit of rage, yet in ROTK Aragorn, in a fit of rage, decapitates the Mouth of Sauron.

Am I 100% positive the 2nd film is going to be a bust? No, but I would bet on it, and as I talked about before I think we are going to see a lot of inconsistancies (since there is going to have to be a lot of "invented" material). Rather ironic if you think about it. I mean the desire to bridge TH and LOTR may actually may lead to making a mess causing even more unanswered questions that were caused by some of Jackson's tweaking.

Look what happened to the Star Wars franchise and all the "spin off" novels. Everyone wanting to get a slice of the pie, just inventing a bunch of tales and using some of the same names from the original so they could slap on the Star Wars title and suck out as much money as they can.

[Sauron the White]

Boromir ... sorry but I cannot discuss Star Wars on the same level with you. I have seen all the films and own them on DVD and watch them with my grandson from time to time. But I am no student of them.

One moment that stands out for me as changing Boromir was the throwing of the stone to agitate the Watcher in the waters ourside of Moria. Boromir is suppose to be this noble warrior, kingly of stature and all that implies. But Tolkien has him acting childish by throwing stones into the waters outside the walls of Moria. Then the Watcher emerges to attack the group and you are left wondering about the wisdom of such impetious actions. Jackson wisely changed that to having Pippin or Merry (do not remember which right now) throw the stones. It is a more immature action.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a conflicted character. I think Jackson would agree with you. However, Jackson selected Aragorn since he was central to all three movies. It gave Aragorn a character arc and gave the audience a chance to see him develop over the ten hours. Boromir was only in the first as a main figure. To have two warriors being conflicted and complex might have been one too many.

As far as the Elves go at Helms Deep it certainly brought a smile to my face and I thought it was a great thing to do. It made the battle even better for me. The Elves were not at HD in the book - but they did fight in other locations that were not in the film version. It is common and normal for a filmmaker to combine events as a way of saving time and money. This was one example and I think it worked and made the event even better.

There are other examples. In the book we only hear about the Ents destroying much of Isengard second hand. In the movie Jackson wisely made it something we see as it happens and balances it with the conclusion of Helms Deep giving some unity to the efforts of all against the forces of evil. I thought it worked perfectly.

Sure there are changes I did not like but not because they deviated from the book. The green scrubbing bubbles of the Dead render the entire battle on the Pellenor a futile effort. It was silly and way too overdone.

Just like you, I cannot see into the future either. That second bridge movie may be a real stinker or really great or something in between. I am willing to wait and reserve judgment until I see it.