Well,
this has not been addressed in a while, so I would like to throw the
door open for a discussion on THE HOBBIT were it made into a movie.
The folks that made LOTR would of course be expected to be involved.
They did such a great job on our movie that it is almost impossible not
to picture the opening in the Shire without the N.Z. landscape and our
own well remembered #9 Bagshot Row. They have the knowledge, the
experience and the dedication, so who better to do this than WETA, PJ
and Crew.
And yet . . . I have a few concerns if this were the case. Feel free to
argue -- I don't know anything really. Just meandering thoughts that
keep me curious about such a project.
If PJ were the director of this earlier story (which is much more
light-hearted) I fear that there would be such a disparity between the
two that it would be almost impossible to accept any of it as truth.
Not in terms of charactors/casting -- Bilbo was younger, so another
Bilbo rather than Ian would not bother me in the least. We are all
familiar with the convention of different actors playing the same
person at different times in their lives (picture Ya-Ya Sisterhood, for
example). There are, however, other continuity problems that I fear I
would not be able to reconcile. The Ring is the big one.
In LOTR, PJ made the RING to have an evil presence right from the
start. From the flash of the eye when Gandalf touched it, to the
distortion of the room in the Pony when Frodo slips it on his finger
for the first time. This was, afterall, his reasoning for making
Faramir different from the book. So how shall we reconcile the
light-hearted romp of Bilbo and the Spiders in Mirkwood (only a few
leagues from the Necromancer's/Sauron's hideout) if every time the Ring
is on, the picture now remains the same?
The Ring was alwasy evil, certainly. But I have always thought it was a
bit less direct in its coersion (at least until it gets to Mordor) more
like a subtle evil; a friend who gives really bad advice -- not an
enemy who dominates from the beginning. A sort of 'Bling-Bling
Wormtongue.' Who would put a Ring on that made everthing so much
different. Certainly not Bilbo, and he goes ON and OFF with this thing
all over the Hobbit.
Now, had the Hobbit been made first, we would have taken the natural
progression of intesity as the result of Sauron's return to power.
However, as we have already been exposed to these images, can we truly
ever return to a simpler time and NOT see them?
What are your thoughts?
Anna Estel:
Good questions Dr. G! I think the main thing
to
convey to non-reader movie audiences would be that the events of the
Hobbit happen much
earlier, and that Sauron here is barely more than a whisp yet of what
he will be. I mean, yes, Gandalf traipses off to deal with him but
Sauron's not a truly huge threat if Gandalf has time to mess with a
band of dwarves in the first place.
My fear would be that PJ does love his battle scenes. I can see an
inordinate amount of time spent in the goblin cave and with the Battle
of Five Armies and such. As you say, the Hobbit is much more light
hearted, and I'm afraid PJ might make it too dark and serious.
I would like to think that folks today understand the concept of a
prequel. I don't think it would be too hard for them to grasp that as
time passes the malignancy of the ring increases, but it would not
necessarily have been so overwhelmingly dark at the start. A few well
placed voiceovers could cover that. And there is no reason why at the
very end some hint couldn't be made of things to come (say, show a
closeup of Bilbo fingering the ring in his pocket the way he does in
LOTR as he waves goodbye to Balin at the end of the Hobbit).
I really can't imagine anyone other than PJ and Weta doing the
Hobbit. My only visual of that book is drawn from the Rankin/Bass
cartoon (I don't visualize well off a book alone, and since I saw the
cartoon first I'm ruined), and frankly I don't mind the thought of
having that visual replaced!!
modelnut:
I think Sauron's return to power is the key
here.
The only hint of Sauron mentioned in The
Hobbit is as the Necromancer to the south of Mirkwood in Dol
Guldur. By the time of The Lord of
the Rings,
fifty years later, Sauron had only mustered enough strength to take the
form of the Lidless Eye as well as gather his forces in to Mordor.
Inferring from the text, it was at this point that the Ring really gets
randy!
Fifty years earlier when Bilbo first "found" it, The Ring had only
felt a stirring in the East and an urge to leave hiding. After some
three thousand years of sleepy hiding, fifty years might just be the
time it took the Ring to really wake up and get serious.
But you asked about an average movie goer's perception. Could the
public accept a watered-down version of this very evil
Ring?
That's a toughie. I think we
could, those of us who have known and loved Middle Earth for so long.
It would be like remembering what our old friends were doing twenty
years ago. We know their history and see no disparity between our best
friends as they were in grade school and how they are today. We were
there to see the changes. But how would a stranger see those changes?
Could they connect the dots?
I really don't know. I have been an inhabitant of Middle Earth for
more than half my life and can hardly remember the time before. I don't
even know who to ask. They would have to actually read The Hobbit to know enough to answer
the question.
I look forward to other contributions to this thread! Maybe we can form
an answer together.
Pi :
Hi Doc,
Regarding just who works on it rather than the ring issues you raised,
I'd actually like to see a different director than PJ. PJ seemed to
always ramp up the indecision, uncertainty, and "cliffhanger" status to
so many scenes in LOTR, which were not in the book.
Regardless of how they represent the ring and its effects on the
wearer, I'd much prefer a movie more true to the written text - I want
them to be true to the source!
Ladyhawk Baggins:
You bring up a very good question, in
particular about the Ring. Not only does the Ring reveal the Eye to
Gandalf and Frodo, but the history goes back over 500 years to when
Smeagol kills Deagol. Could a non-book audience grasp that Bilbo could
handle the Ring without killing Gollum for it?
Gandalf the Grey:
I have thought much on this in the past and
now
after the P.J. trilogy has come to pass. Here are some thought on it I
have dwelled upon:
~ I would like to see another director than P.J. do the movie. P.J.
has a distinct style and I would simply like to see another
interpretation on Middle Earth and one that does not stray from the
story too far or dwell too much on battles.
~ Movie makers will have a hard time putting a love interest in the
movie - something that most movies today seem to have whether it helps
the story or not.
~ Also, there are no heroic-men-types in the hobbit (except for
Bard, but his is a lesser part near the end), another problem that
movie makers like in most movies of this type. The lead characters
would be a hobbit and a bunch of dwarves with Gandalf thrown in for
good measure.
~ Would it be as an adult or children’s movie? Who can say. It is
certainly light-hearted enough to be a kid flick, but it could also be
for adults if the spiders and the battle at the end were done vividly
enough.
~Everyone is aware that there is an audience for this movie, and better
to make it sooner than later.
~ In the end, it is a good adventure tale, and I can only hope that
maybe they will just go-for-broke and make it for what it is and see
who goes to see it. I would certainly be the first in line.
Gandalf 921:
Gandalf the Grey wrote:
~ Movie makers will have a hard time putting a love interest in the
movie - something that most movies today seem to have whether it helps
the story or not.
No - Since it is adapted from a text which has no "love interest", then
I don't think it would be attempted.
Gandalf The Grey wrote:
~ Also, there are no heroic-men-types in the hobbit (except for Bard,
but his is a lesser part near the end), another problem that movie
makers like in most movies of this type. The lead characters would be a
hobbit and a bunch of dwarves with Gandalf thrown in for good measure.
Well... they're not really needed. Are they?
On the issue of the Ring, I think that that PJ would be able to turn
the ring into an innocent peice of jewellery. He had done that in the
early scenes in the Shire in Fellowship - Most notably Bilbo's
birthday. If they took out the inscription on it, and any
music/lighting/atmosphere associated with the ring, then it would be
possible to "pretend" that its a different ring altogether. It was
really only after we see Sauron's fortress being rebuilt, and Gandalf
researching at Minas Tirith that the Ring gains an entirely new
presence. This is because before that Sauron had not returned. And so
he would be even less powerful during The Hobbit . I think that most of
the audience would be able to accept this - or at least if they
understood the connection between the Ring's "ominousity" and Sauron's
strength and that The Hobbit did in fact take place before Lord of the
Rings .
I can't really think of any issues in the Hobbit film, apart from the
audience appeal one. The Hobbit is much more lighthearted and
kid-friendly than Lord of the Rings - so will the film be as well?
Lady of Light:
I would just like to see the adventures of
Bilbo. It would kind of fill in the spaces somewhat ( Like when frodo
talks to bilbo at Rivendell how his adventure turned out quite
different and that he (frodo) was not like bilbo and when bilbo is
telling the story to the children at the party . And to see more about
the Elves and Dwarfs just interest me. I see a lot of things that would
tie over into the LOTR which would be seen in the hobbit.I don't need
to see a love interest. The adventure is enough for me. Just my opinion.
modelnut:
I remember Ian McKellan almost immediately
started hinting to PJ that he should do The Hobbit
so that Ian could play Gandalf again. But since the story was more than
could be told in even a three-hour movie, Sir Ian suggested a
mini-series like those that the BBC had done from time to time
(Tripods, King Arthur, etc.) That way the episodic nature of the book
could work for the film instead of against it. You know how it would
break down...
Ep #1 The Unexpected Party
Ep #2 The Trolls
Ep #3 Rivendell
Ep #4 The Goblin Tunnels
Ep #5 Riddles in the Dark
Ep #6 Beorn
Ep #7 Mirkwood
Ep #8 Elven Hall
Ep #9 Lake Town
Ep #10 Smaug
Ep #11 Battle of Five armies
Ep #12 Road Home
The only thing I wouldn't like about that would be waiting for the
time to pass between episodes. It would not be a year-long wait but
still. If the meat of the story could be done well, I would be happy.
In the meantime, I will listen to Nicol Willianson read The Hobbit.
Sarahstitcher:
I think watching the Ring at the beginning
of
its "character arc" could be really interesting. You'd need a prologue,
something sort of like what was at the beginning of Fellowship, to set
up the creation of the Ring and its loss and hiding... establishing
that it's currently "asleep" in a way, so perhaps de-emphasizing a lot
of the Sauron/Elendil/battle stuff.
Doctor Gamgee:
I have been thinking long and hard over your
response to this one, SS. I keep coming to the question of "If the ring
is asleep while Gollum has it, then why does it so engulf him that he
dares to go to Mordor in search of it?"
The problem is that the Cinematic Ring (as we know it) is a force of
evil and its intent is made known at the outset (i.e. the flash of the
Eye when Gandalf touches it). But when Bilbo had it, NONE of that evil
intent was ever present -- a differing tale and a time simpler. Had we
not seen the LOTR, we could accept it. But can we really look upon this
Ring, found in the dark by an alreacy consumed Gollum, and believe that
it is anything other than the pure evil we have already seen?
Just curious as to your thoughts on this?
Ashlyn:
DoctorGamgee wrote:
I have been thinking long and hard over your response to this one, SS.
I keep coming to the question of "If the ring is asleep while Gollum
has it, then why does it so engulf him that he dares to go to Mordor in
search of it?"
I always thought that Gollum went to Mordor looking for the ring
because Sauron was "calling" the ring (and other wicked things) and
Gollum, having possessed it for so long, was susceptible to that call.
Quoting from Tolkien:
"Then why didn't he track Bilbo further?"
asked Frodo. "Why didn't he come to the Shire?"
"Ah," said Gandalf, 'now we come to it. I think Gollum tried to. He set
out and came back westward, as far as the Great River. But then he
turned aside. He was not daunted by the distance, I am sure. No,
something else drew him away...."
"... But I am afraid there is no possible doubt: he had made his slow,
sneaking way, step by step, mile by mile, south, down at last to the
Land of Mordor...."
"Yes, to Mordor," said Gandalf. "Alas! Mordor draws all wicked things,
and the Dark Power was bending all its will to gather them there. The
Ring of the Enemy would leave its mark, too, leave him open to the
summons...."
Rogorn:
The Ring and Sauron are utterly unimportant in this story, so
they shouldn't be the focus.
(Shock. Horror.)
Hehe. I'll explain. Sauron is tucked away in Dol Guldur, which is in
Mirkwood all right, but nowhere near the area the hobbits pass through
or Thranduil inhabits. The evil presence in the forest is due to him,
but the baddies are the spiders, the orcs and in particular Smaug, who
should be enough in his own right.
The Ring at this stage is little more than an excuse for Bilbo to be
able to overcome his limits and sneak away from the orcs and then into
Smaug's lair. As has been mentioned, its pull is weak for some reason
while in Gollum's possession, who only uses it to ambush orcs and vary
his diet a bit. The book doesn't stress any of these two elements, so
why should we?
I find it quite amusing that summing up everyone's visions here we come
up with a concoction that would like to keep the light and even funny
touch of the book while at the same time exploring dark themes even
beyond the hints that we get in the book. If you read 'The Hobbit'
without taking LOTR into account, you'll see that the Ring is just a
cool trinket that makes you invisible from unpleasant people like orcs
and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and 'The Necromancer' sounds more like
David Copperfield with a mask.
But I think the concoction could be done, though. For the first part I
would go all comic relief, even getting in all the bad Gimli jokes that
they couldn't use in LOTR - in fact, what's sillier than bring
instruments all the way from the mountains? The trolls, Beorn, the
spiders, the drunk elves in Mirkwood, the barrels down the river... all
have the potential to be hilarious.
'You laugh and you laugh and then you stop laughing', as Tarantino says
of 'Reservoir dogs'. Now we get serious: Smaug is a nasty beast, and
his anger and destruction must be real, and the battle of Five Armies
should have lots of intensity, WETA trademark, with real emotion in the
death of Thorin and maybe Fili and Kili, who could have done the
rascally-Pippin-and-Merry routine - and now that we care for them, we
are moved at their passing. It's the death of the clown, you can't fail
with that. It works a treat with Mercutio in 'Romeo and Juliet'. Not a
dry eye in the house.
In the meantime, the mid-point climax with Bilbo and Gollum and their
riddle-game could be something in between. The riddle game could be
quite fun, but Gollum should convey a real sense of menace, with a hint
of younger make-up - Andy Serkis should be able to do it in his sleep.
Finally, find a balanced tone to wrap up on the way back to the Shire:
you have laughed, you have cried, you have been scared. No reason why
it shouldn't work. But people should be made to understand that the
grandeur is scaled way down from LOTR, and therefore be able to find it
really satisfying anyway.
Sarahstitcher:
Well, Ashlyn and Rogorn have done a better
job of answering you than I could! I like very much the idea of
the laugh and cry structure. R&J is an
excellent analogy, it starts off as a comedy, then oops! people get
killed! and it turns into a tragedy. The Hobbit goes on to recover from
the battle tragedy, so that's nice.
The Ring isn't exactly asleep when it
ensnares Gollum. We've see
that bit in the ROTK preview. But I think being hidden under the
mountains with Gollum for so long, while Sauron was also mostly
inactive, did quiet it down a lot. Gollum didn't even wear it much,
only sometimes held it and stroked it. In the dark, he didn't need it
to catch fish very often. I think the moment when it left Gollum and
was found by Bilbo, was a kind of just-beginning-to-wake up moment, as
Sauron was also just beginning to stir also. But it really wasn't in an
active mode yet. I agree that the Ring isn't the focus of the Hobbit,
and the film won't have to spend a lot of time on it. The
prologue/setup can be quite different from that for LOTR, in fact it
should be. If it's made relatively soon, the film makers can almost
assume their audience will have seen the LOTR films, or can go watch
them at home if necessary, so they don't have to repeat a lot from
that. And since LOTR was about the Ring, and the Hobbit isn't, not a
lot of overlap.
It wouldn't surprise me, if it's PJ and our LOTR crew at the helm, to see stuff in the previews that isn't in the film, but which is intended to set up the film for the viewer. After all, we did see things in TT previews that didn't show up in the film, for instance. Partly that was because the film itself was still in the process of being winnowed, but part of that was because a trailer has a totally different mission in life than the whole film does.
