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

[Encaitare]

Entertainment Weekly article: Will Peter Jackson Make "The Hobbit"?

Ack, the "inventing new material" part makes me nervous. So much of the story's charm is in its simplicity.

[Hyarion]

I just saw that as well, appalling. Over at Tolkien Gateway they've started the Dear Peter Jackson Project (a letter) in hopes of convincing PJ to stay as true to the books as possible. Since it's on a wiki you can add/edit the letter and sign your name if you agree. I'm almost open to PJ not directing it if he thinks because he has the money he can alter the story however he wants.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

Entertainment Weekly article: Will Peter Jackson Make "The Hobbit"?

Ack, the "inventing new material" part makes me nervous. So much of the story's charm is in its simplicity.

Well, it won't be as the book - I expect something in the style of LotR, more 'adult' & serious. Hence the spirit of the book will be lost. I would assume that any backstory would have to avoid the storyline of Quest of Erebor & come up with a new one, as that material was not sold by Tolkien, & expect the Estate would sue over copyright.

Inventing new material is hardly an issue in light of LotR, where characters, motivations & storylines were altered willy nilly.

The most surprising thing as far as I'm concerned is that they're only going for two movies - aren't trilogies the thing these days?

[Essex]

Originally Posted by davem

Inventing new material is hardly an issue in light of LotR, where characters, motivations & storylines were altered willy nilly.

I can see your point here but disagree with the term willy nilly. I don't think ANYTHING Jackson did to lotr movies was done willy nilly. It depends what your definition of willy nilly is I suppose.

Regarding copyright. I wonder if they can use the detail from the Tale of the Years and can do stuff around the white council / dol guldur?

What about the stuff from unfinished tales? im thinking in particular of the smoke rings episode with gandalf and saruman that is crying out to be filmed!!!! or is this 'untouchable' from copyright sense too?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

After that comment from Davem, I was just waiting for you to show up Essex

I don't know how I feel about 2 films. If the UT is used to make them longer, then go for it, but if it is just random stuff then I am a bit more sceptic.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

What about the stuff from unfinished tales? im thinking in particular of the smoke rings episode with gandalf and saruman that is crying out to be filmed!!!! or is this 'untouchable' from copyright sense too?

Everything apart from LotR & TH is copyrighted as far as I'm aware, & that copyright belongs to the Tolkien Estate. CT, who owns the rights to all his father's writings that were unpublished at the time of his father's death has total control. Given his stated position that the works are 'unfilmable' I can't see him agreeing to the UT material being used.

This would especially be the case if the scriptwriters intend to add material (ironic perhaps, in that Tolkien's will authorises CT to alter, add to, or destroy the material as he sees fit). Yet CT's clear intent from the start has been to treat it with the utmost respect. One suspects that Tolkien only named him his Literary Executor because he knew CT would take the approach he has.

CT considers his father's work to be great literature. PJ seems to consider both LotR & TH as 'first draft screenplays' for action movies. I cannot see that any agreement could be reached between them. I suspect this would be less of a problem if PJ intended to film TH as is - a 'simple' children's tale. As I said, my suspicion is that PJ intends to film TH in the style of LotR, & bring in extra material to that end.

I suppose that there is a chance that by the time work on TH begins CT could have passed away & the rights will have passed on. At that point, who knows? However, even then I can't see any agreement between PJ & the Estate being reached.

As to the idea that any of Tolkien's work is 'crying out to be filmed', well, we'll have to agree to disagree there.....

If we look at the statement on the Tolkien Estate page re Children of Hurin we find the following:

The rights in « The Children of Húrin » are owned by the Tolkien family via the Tolkien Estate, and the book rights have been sold in a worldwide deal to the Tolkien publishers HarperCollinsUK. There are no plans for the foreseeable future to license any other rights in the work (whether film or otherwise).

I think we can see CT's name written all over this addendum....

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Essex

What about the stuff from unfinished tales? im thinking in particular of the smoke rings episode with gandalf and saruman that is crying out to be filmed!!!!

can someone point me towards this passage in UT? Don't recall it and would love to give it a read...

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Sardy

can someone point me towards this passage in UT? Don't recall it and would love to give it a read...

the hunt for the ring chapter.
section (iii) conerning Gandalf, saruman and the shire (page 348 in my paperback copy)

[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.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, it won't be as the book - I expect something in the style of LotR, more 'adult' & serious. Hence the spirit of the book will be lost. I would assume that any backstory would have to avoid the storyline of Quest of Erebor & come up with a new one, as that material was not sold by Tolkien, & expect the Estate would sue over copyright.

Inventing new material is hardly an issue in light of LotR, where characters, motivations & storylines were altered willy nilly.

The most surprising thing as far as I'm concerned is that they're only going for two movies - aren't trilogies the thing these days?

Should he even be allowed to make a movie about a book that is so earnestly not a part of the Legendarium?

[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.

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Elladan and Elrohir

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.

I was not speaking of a page by page and word by word film treatment for goodness sake! I simply want to see a faithful adaption of the book, so sue me! Am I wrong for wanting a Hobbit film that follows the storyline of the book? Gee...

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, the LOTR movies follow the storyline of the books. Whether they are a "faithful adaptation" depends on your point of view. I'd say they are, but I know there are plenty (even among those who love them) who would disagree.

I just think it's harder to be "really" faithful to the book than one might think. I'm often like you, Trotter; I wonder why Frodo and so many other characters were weakened, why Saruman forms the Uruks out of some primordial glop, why Aragorn has to fake his death falling off a cliff. And I still wonder why, sometimes. But, even though I know you hear this all the time, let me repeat it, that a movie is a totally different medium than a book, and has to be treated differently.

I think LOTR is an immensely difficult book to adapt into what ends up being about 11 hours of film. And I think The Hobbit, while not quite as monumental of a task, certainly poses its own challenges and difficulties.
So when we go into the theater in 2009 or whenever it may be, I think we can expect to see Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Gollum, Smaug, and Bard. We'll see the spider-battle in Mirkwood, the finding of the Ring, the Bilbo-Smaug conversation, and the Battle of Five Armies. But there will be changes from the book, and rightfully so. The important thing is whether it's still a story that we can call The Hobbit without cringing and wondering if JRRT is rolling in his grave. And if it is, I think PJ will deserve yet another round of applause.

[Trotter]

What really confuses me is when book scenes that would have transfered wonderfully to film are rewritten or cut altogether. There were many times in ROTK, during the siege of Minis Tirith, where I said, "what has he done? Why on earth didn't he keep the scene from the book? It would have been stunning, dramatic, and tense!" I have some idea about how the medium of film works, I have directed several small-scale productions myself, and through trial and error I have learned what works and what doesn't. Of course, I have never directed or written anything as big as LOTR, but from where I stand I do think that some of PJ's decisions were, to say the least, sloppy and totally uncalled for. These mistakes could have been avoided had the book been followed more closely.
My worry with The Hobbit is that PJ will make the same mistake, cutting wonderful scenes that would have transfered well in favor of scenes that he himself creates.
The bottom line is, he, and the other two writers, could have made a more faithful adaption of LOTR and it would have been just as popular as the one we got. It was like they chose LOTR as a foundation to build their own ideas upon, and as a result we got PJ's LOTR, complete with all of its plot holes, bad characterizations, pointless scenes, stupid dialogue, and bits and pieces of Tolkien's LOTR thrown in. And, no doubt, they will treat the The Hobbit in the same manner.
Don't get me wrong, PJ made good FILMS, BUT they could have been better had they been closer to the books. They most certainly would have been very different films altogether. Personally, I would like to see another director do The Hobbit, with a new cast and a different way of looking at Tolkien's works.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Trotter

The bottom line is, he, and the other two writers, could have made a more faithful adaption of LOTR and it would have been just as popular as the one we got.

I think there were some cases where Peter Jackson changed things for the sake of brevity and to introduce a more modern point of view. Introducing Bombadil would have been a dramatic digression, much more so in the movie than in the book. Putting Glorfindel in there would have introduced another character and removed the ability to make Arwen a more central character.

But I agree, for all of these, there are many other cases where Peter Jackson changed the story for no good reason--two best examples: 1) Gandalf and the Witch King, and 2) the handling of the scenes between Faramir and Frodo.

[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

[Essex]

The characters faithful!!?? What about the reworking of Frodo and the total maligning of his courageous character?

Movie Frodo WAS courageous. I admit, for example, that movie Frodo does not stand up to the Nazgul at the Ford. Movie Frodo was next to death's door and unable to reply - it doesn't make him a coward nor malign his character - I mean, the most courageous thing he did by far was crossing Mordor and making it up Mount Doom. This is included in the film.

But I put it to you that it was Frodo's COMPASSION towards Gollum and therefore his, and Middle-earth's, REDEMPTION that is a thousand more times important that his Courage. His compassion is what is important - that is what the whole message of Lord of the Rings is to me. And we see this Compassion and Redemption in the films.

What about the butchering of Noble Faramir?

If we strip the Change down to its bones, Faramir and the Hobbits took a detour. Movie Faramir needs the position made clear to him. Jackson puts in a detour to Osgiliath which I am not condoning, but have now realised it for what it is. A detour. We still seee Noble Faramir in his decision at the end of movie TT, and we see his nobility shine through in movie ROTK too.

What about the toned down and unsure Gandalf?

Don't you think book Gandalf had doubts about what he did in sending Frodo to Mount Doom? PJ has emphasised these points, yes, but why not? I would love all the movie characters to say and do exactly what they did in the book but we do not have the 54 hours required to fit all this in. Roll on the Mini Series of LOTR for this!

What about the complete degrading of Gimli son of Gloin?

Fair point, but then let's be honest, he doesn't have a lot to do in the book either does he? not much of a major character.... But I do cringe at his 'comedic' perfomance sometimes

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Trotter

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?

These bother me, with the presentation of Frodo bothering me more and more as I see it again. In the book, Frodo is shown as feeling the heavy heavy weight of the ring and its evil power, but he doesn't descend to the point of having to be urged on by Sam the way he does in the movie. Look at the scene right before they catch the coneys for lunch--Sam comes across as the only one leading him on, the only one seeing what is happening to him, while in the book, Frodo never loses sight of what he needs to do and is well aware of the evil power of the ring (this is why he is able to feel pity for Gollum, since he sees that he will descend to this in the end). And then later, he is conned in the movie by Gollum, sending Sam away. I thought a big part of the book was the essentially noble spirit of Frodo and that he was the main one who completed the quest, while in the movie, it seems like he is a basket case from the Dead Marshes on.

Faramir comes across in the end as noble, but not convincingly so. It isn't quite clear to me how the events in Osgiliath lead him to "understand" Frodo, which he could not do before. Anyway, this was a missed chance to contrast Faramir, a human with Numenorean blood and wisdom to resist the lure of the ring, with Boromir (who lacked this wisdom).

Gandalf is messed up to some extent as well, with him providing the doubting point of view in the Last Debate, which goes against everything before in which he is the prime mover against Sauron. And as bearer of the Secret Fire (the Ring), his express mission is to uplift the hearts of those against Sauron, and this scene certainly does not convey this.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I agree the Frodo-Faramir bit is bad, and the Two Towers is overdone in places. And Gandalf should not disagree at Last Debate, nor should he counsel Theoden to ride and meet Saruman (in the book he counsels Theoden to go to Helm's Deep as I remember). But overall the movies were good enough. Look at how bad Harry Potter is, after all! What really bugs me is the near-to-final scene. Frodo should not wrestle Gollum at that last bit, he should just topple over the edge. God, that bit bugged me. Although it does help with the Frodo-being-Courageous problem.

Oh yes, and I think someone other than PJ should do the Hobbit movie. He'll just over-do it with battle scenes and love-stories. It was originally for children after all.

THE SIXTH WIZARD.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

These bother me, with the presentation of Frodo bothering me more and more as I see it again. In the book, Frodo is shown as feeling the heavy heavy weight of the ring and its evil power, but he doesn't descend to the point of having to be urged on by Sam the way he does in the movie. Look at the scene right before they catch the coneys for lunch--Sam comes across as the only one leading him on, the only one seeing what is happening to him, while in the book, Frodo never loses sight of what he needs to do and is well aware of the evil power of the ring (this is why he is able to feel pity for Gollum, since he sees that he will descend to this in the end).

Yes, in the book Frodo is aware that he is almost under its full power, esp near Mount Doom. But the key thing to remember is that book Frodo is under its Power, in the same way movie Frodo is. That is why both book and movie Frodo need Samwise Gamgee to help him complete the Quest. Without Sam, the Quest would have failed too. As well as Frodo's Compassion, we also have Sam's Heroism to help him complete the Quest.

And then later, he is conned in the movie by Gollum, sending Sam away.

Yeah, I know. I don't like this, but I can understand why the scritwriters did this. Sam turns up to save the day but it also too late to save Frodo (and we wouldn't have the stunning scene of Shelob creeping up on Frodo). Also, we wouldn't have the very important interlude between Frodo and Gollum which perfectly shows Frodo's compassion towards Gollum which resulted in the Quest being succesful.

Faramir comes across in the end as noble, but not convincingly so. It isn't quite clear to me how the events in Osgiliath lead him to "understand" Frodo, which he could not do before. Anyway, this was a missed chance to contrast Faramir, a human with Numenorean blood and wisdom to resist the lure of the ring, with Boromir (who lacked this wisdom).

As in the book, Faramir decides to let the hobbits go once he has learnt of the truth of what his brother did. In the book, Sam is cajoled by Faramir the excellent 'interrogator' into giving away the Plan regarding the Enemy's Ring, and his brother's part in it. In the film, Sam berates Faramir into understanding the peril of the Ring by again explaining the effect it had on his brother. In both cases, Faramir lets them go.

Remember book Faramir was also tempted. Let's not forget that it was his WORD that was one of the deciding factors that helped his reasoning on letting the hobbits carry on with thier Quest. He said before he knew what the Enemy's weapon was Frodo carried that he would not pick it up if it lied on the side of the road. He kept to his word once he found out what it actually was. But he WAS tempted to take the Ring. Movie Faramir was 'more' tempted, and made a detour to Osgiliath before realising his mistake.

I'm not saying I agree with the Change, but I have learnt to live with it and see it for what it was. A Detour.

Gandalf is messed up to some extent as well, with him providing the doubting point of view in the Last Debate, which goes against everything before in which he is the prime mover against Sauron.

Ok, I understand this, but its not a real major point. Why can't Gandalf have a bit of self doubt? He's sent two little hobbits on a 'foolish Quest' to get rid of the Ring. He knows it's Middle-earth's only chance, but he has already stated (at the Council for example) that it was full or risks and foolhardy. Wouldn't you have some self doubt in his position too?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Well, this is a good discussion, and I ain't no mod, but praps we gets it back on topic, yes precious? About the nassty little Hobbit movie?

[Boromir88]

Well, this is a good discussion, and I ain't no mod, but praps we gets it back on topic, yes precious? About the nassty little Hobbit movie?

I second that...that's how things work around here right?

[Morsul the Dark]

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

[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.