The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Incanus 5,715]

The more I think on all these speculations and possibility of them being true the more I want to cry.

[Faleel 5,357]

I knew they would fit Belladona or the Old Took in there somewhere

[Incanus 5,715]

Hey maybe the Necromancer will reanimate some of the old Hobbit heroes like Bandobras Bullroarer Took or Bucca of Marish! We can have a whole epic fight between Bilbo and his ancestor in the Battle of Five Armies!

[Brónach 1,302]

To be fair, I don't think Tolkien used the word Necromancer randomly.

[Incanus 5,715]

No certainly not randomly but I think Tolkien also did not use it in the sense that he wanted to evoke and emphasize raising or communicating with the dead but rather for the exotic and outlandish feel of the word. Remember that this is a children's book after all and such a name is both mysterious and fires up the imagination. The connotation is evil magician rather than necromancer as we know it from the modern fantasy literature and games, which has become outrageously colorful and almost a caricature. We should look this from the perspective of 1930s after all.

[Brónach 1,302]

Ah, but he is an evil magician after all. Thus he needs something scary to do. And it just happens to fit the word.

I think the screenwriters just saw it in this straightforward way and thought it would be all right.

[Incanus 5,715]

Ah, but he is an evil magician after all. Thus he needs something scary to do. And it just happens to fit the word.

I think the screenwriters just saw it in this straightforward way and thought it would be all right.

They thought wrong. In Tolkien's world such names should be weighed carefully in their relation to the context. Especially if you are going to adapt the work. Magic is one of the most important yet the most delicate aspects in Tolkien's writing. It somehow feels very alien to modern needs for flashiness and showy effects yet it has a more profound meaning. To jump at the chance for some cool undead raising possibilities and walking zombified evil creatures seems like doing a disservice to the philosophy of his work. No matter how light hearted the tale might be, it should not be used as an excuse for all kind of excesses.

[Brónach 1,302]

Can we still allow the good guys to ally with an army of ghosts?

[Incanus 5,715]

Yes we can as that was an entirely different scenario and should reflect more relevant issues, especially Aragorn's destiny and role and it is also in line with the novel although the way PJ shot that was a bit overwrought.

[Brónach 1,302]

Can we allow the classic evil figures of Middle Earth to keep their magic and mockeries of life from the books?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,715]

Can we allow the classic evil figures of Middle Earth to keep their magic and mockeries of life from the books?

No doubt movies are a different medium and sometimes storytelling has to be altered so as not to defy modern sensibilities but again I would prefer for the film makers to find solutions closer to the text than away from it. And if reference, as in the Necromancer's case, is scarce then try to keep the new creations in the bounds of Tolkien's framework.

[Brónach 1,302]

Can we allow the villains to sort of come back from the dead after almost disintegration into a physical body as in the books?

[gkgyver 1,645]

Sir Ian says during the film's development has been forthcoming with Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. For one, he felt that the relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo needed a little history.

He suggested a scene showing the wizard being introduced to a baby Bilbo and his mother Belladonna Took and it was shot. He's not sure if the scene will make the final cut of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but his suggestion was taken seriously.

''We see Gandalf observing this little boy who's full of beans and full of adventure. And I let him play with [a] toy dragon that I've got.

''And when he's thinking, 'Who should we get? Oh, there's that little boy'. And he goes back to Hobbiton to meet this little boy who's now grown up and is a real stodgy, dull, settled, unadventurous person. And he's so disappointed. 'What happened to you? Come on! You've got to go on an adventure, it'll be good for you. Get back your childish enthusiasm!'''

Part of me likes the idea, part of me thinks it all sounds a bit cliché, and another part of me wonders where the fuck that scene could go...

This is sounds really awful. I HOPE it's not in the film.

However, if you listen to "My Dear Frodo", at 1:35 you hear this Shire variation with the triangle, that could really be that moment

when we see baby Bilbo.

And then, right after that, as the music becomes more epic and slightly threatening

it could be when Gandalf gives him the toy dragon, and we cut to the backstory of Smaug taking Erebor.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

Personally, I think that's unlikely, since that would make too much material for the prologue. Can you imagine? First, we are shown young Bilbo, then Smaug taking the Lonely Mountain, then Old Bilbo and Frodo talking about stuff, and FINALLY, we'll get to Bilbo and Gandalf's fateful meeting... Seems a bit much to me.

Dude, this is one third of a medium-sized book turned into a 150 minute movie! The running time must come from somewhere.

[Brónach 1,302]

Can we allow for the barrow-wights to animate the bones of buried Dúnedain?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,715]

Can we allow the villains to sort of come back from the dead after almost disintegration into a physical body as in the books?

Can we allow for the barrow-wights to animate the bones of buried Dúnedain?

Yes of course oh Socrates.

Well I would say Sauron and the Ringwraiths are the only exceptions in this case, all bound to the One Ring and thus shackled or anchored to Middle Earth.

And evil spirits could be summoned as Witch King does (and Sauron most likely could do) when he sends Barrow Wights to the Barrow Downs but again it is all about the flavour and how these things are used in the story. When you start playing around with them just because it's cool, it sort of falls apart or diverges away from Tolkien's ideas.

Do you feel all these things speculated in the above posts and TORN reports should have a place in a Hobbit movie?

[Brónach 1,302]

That for me depends of how awesome they are executed in the film. If it sucks, it sucks. If it becomes too important then it would also suck because I'd rather focus on Bilbo and the dwarves.

But I don't feel they can't be allowed to at least be seriously considered just because some sort of hidden Tolkien bible states what you can and you can't do. Specially in a rich, complex world as Middle Earth, of which we know but a small bit, and that came to be as a rich playfield for telling engaging stories and maybe not as much to make philosophy of the fantastic.

It might seem that the filmmakers just play around with the ideas just because they're cool or they like it... but bear in mind that for Tolkien himself, it was no different! Being a writer and all.

And now, about the Dead Marshes...

[Faleel 5,357]

I really hope some of those specualations are untrue, I DO NOT want to have t watch 6 films to get the full story.

[Incanus 5,715]

That depends of how awesome they are executed in the film. If it sucks, it sucks. If it becomes too important then it would also suck because I'd rather focus on Bilbo and the dwarves.

But I don't feel they can't be allowed to at least be seriously considered just because some sort of hidden Tolkien bible states what you can and you can't do. Specially in a rich, complex world as Middle Earth, of which we know but a small bit, and that came to be as a rich playfield for telling engaging stories and not so much to make philosophy of the fantastic.

I am opposed to needless additions for the sake of making something "awesome" or "cool" as it almost inherently implies that the original material wasn't good enough for the people who are doing the adapting. When you diverge and start to make up strands of story or outlandish inventions not even in the spirit of the source, then I think the adapters have lost the path of wisdom. Why adapt when you obviously want to make a film about something else than the source material?

I am completely fine with say expanding and deepening the character development and writing new dialogue for the main cast as it needs to be done for the large ensemble to work as more than background for Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin. I am certainly fine with trying to tie the movies with the existing trilogy by telling the backstory along with the actual plot of the novel. This is all fine and good. But certain "this is cool, let's put it in" moments PJ and the team has here (again based on rumours and speculation) ring somehow like excess and hollow when they are justified only by "this is light hearted, there has to be more humour" or the aforementioned "awesome factor".

Also justifying just about anything by citing appearances of certain aspects in Tolkien's work allows you to do basically anything without any limit to your own imagination. But are you adapting a work or doing something entirely different, when zombies walk the land because we have Corpse Candles, Barrow Wights attack and destroy Bree and Aragorn rides with the Army of the Dead to the Black Gates and kicks Sauron's ass just because it could easily happen if you write it like that? You could do all those in the framework of things appearing in the novels. It would be cool, it would be probably quite awesome.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Well said, Inky, well said. You seem to have gift to read my thoughts and write them in a better way than I could ever do. That is impressive.

But please, next time, leave my thoughts alone. I don't like the idea of someone checking my thoughts.

[Brónach 1,302]

Why adapt when you obviously want to make a film about something else than the source material?

I think you have more of a problem about making so much out of The Hobbit and this stuff is just a syntoma.

As for your question. I wouldn't see it as them wanting to make something else instead of the source material. Looking at the clear center stage of Bilbo in the film, I think they just want to set themselves additional goals over the main thing. On top of this I believe PJ is overcompensating for having gone through desperately cramming LOTR into three films (3 films he had to fight to get done instead of it) and now he's given free reign for The Hobbit... which was what they attempted to make first but couldn't.

[KK 3,307]

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the thing he's talking about have been discussed for quite a while now at TORN, by people who know a lot more about the films than we do (most of them already have all the tie-in books and things like that). I decided not to talk about it here, because I thought you guys already had quite a lot to deal with (Radgy's shit, Bunnies Of Doom, Starfish hairdos and whatnots...).

The thing is, there is this Yazneg character they created for the film, which is supposedly an orc shaman, and who apparently will resurrect Sauron, using Azog's body as his avatar (it might already be discussed in the article. Haven't read all of it yet). Apparently, they have sources to back up their claim (as mentioned, tie-in books, plus some interviews of members of the cast that we missed). And that doesn't seem far fetched that PJ would make Sauron resurrect a few dead people to justify his title of "Necromancer". Sounds like a thing he could do.

Not that's just utterly absurd! I just can't see that happening and strongly believe those rumours are untrue. That stupid story isn't even remotely close to anything Tolkien. And I thought Boyens said everything in these films is tied to Tolkien in some way or the other. Stupid orc shamans and Sauron in an orc body is justs verging on Voldemort territory with some other stupid modern fantasy concepts. Not to mention, where are they going to find the time to squeeze all this in. Sauron needs to be manifested in the first film itself, and everything already seems to packed.

I call this theory hogwash. I seriously doubt its happening....

P.S.: Since you're ready for pretty much any news now, here is another rumor that has been discussed in TORN forum:

Apparently, Galadriel will not be physically present at the White Council. She will only be some sort of projection, which will explain why we never see her leaving that balcony in Rivendell in the trailer and TV spots).

I don't think that rumor will turn out to be true, though (unlike the Yazgne one).

I doubt this is true either. Both theories are stupid in my opinion (I don't care if they have this supposed evidence we've never heard of. I know PJ has his faults, but he's not going that far out of Middle-Earth).

Why adapt when you obviously want to make a film about something else than the source material?

I think you have more of a problem about making so much out of The Hobbit and this stuff is just a syntoma.

As for your question. I wouldn't see it as them wanting to make something else instead of the source material. Looking at the clear center stage of Bilbo in the film, I think they just want to set themselves additional goals over the main thing. On top of this I believe PJ is overcompensating for having gone through desperately cramming LOTR into three films (3 films he had to fight to get done instead of it) and now he's given free reign for The Hobbit... which was what they attempted to make first but couldn't.

But Chaac, if these rumours are true, some of the additions goes strays completely away from the rich themes of Tolkien and the Hobbit. Making Nazgul zombies, orc shamans, resurrecting Dark Lords does sound like adding stuff to make the story cool! It's like they're writing their own fantasy, not adapting Tolkien for mainstream audiences.

Also, it seems people are taking the "Necromancer" title far too literally. Tolkien never named as such because he raises the dead. It was used because the Necromancer is an archetypal character of both evil and shrouded mystery. He wanted to Sauron to take this veil in the novel to add on to the rich children's tale environment of the Hobbit.

EDIT: Never mind, Incanus explained this above.

[Incanus 5,715]

Also, it seems people are taking the "Necromancer" title far too literally. Tolkien never named as such because he raises the dead. It was used because the Necromancer is an archetypal character of both evil and shrouded mystery. He wanted to Sauron to take this veil in the novel to add on to the rich children's tale environment of the Hobbit.

EDIT: Never mind, Incanus explained this above.

Tolkien admitted that he didn't have a clue who or what the Necromancer was at the time when he wrote the Hobbit, other than a general manifestation of evil. He mentions in his letters that he often got questions about the character from curious readers before LotR was published. Only after he began writing the "sequel" to the Hobbit he connected this character to the mythology at large.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Not that's just utterly absurd! I just can't see that happening and strongly believe those rumours are untrue. That stupid story isn't even remotely close to anything Tolkien. And I thought Boyens said everything in these films is tied to Tolkien in some way or the other. Stupid orc shamans and Sauron in an orc body is justs verging on Voldemort territory with some other stupid modern fantasy concepts.

Yeah, you're right. It's not like Boyens was responsible for creating Tauriel, a female warrior character far from any modern fantasy concept... Hehehe... Shit just got real...

In any case, one thing is certain: Yazneg will appear in the film, and he is indeed an orch shaman. As for the rest, it has yet to be confirmed...

I never based my confidence on what Boyens says. And Tauriel does no major harm. But having stupid orc shamans somehow rising Sauron from the dead (wtf....) and putting him into an orc body?!

Well why doesn't Sauron get a cooler body for LOTR then....

It just sounds way too far-fetched to actually happen....

Also, it seems people are taking the "Necromancer" title far too literally. Tolkien never named as such because he raises the dead. It was used because the Necromancer is an archetypal character of both evil and shrouded mystery. He wanted to Sauron to take this veil in the novel to add on to the rich children's tale environment of the Hobbit.

EDIT: Never mind, Incanus explained this above.

Tolkien admitted that he didn't have a clue who or what the Necromancer was at the time when he wrote the Hobbit, other than a general manifestation of evil. He mentions in his letters that he often got questions about the character from curious readers before LotR was published. Only after he began writing the "sequel" to the Hobbit he connected this character to the mythology at large.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying, he never really thought this Necromancer character will be some dark mage who raises the dead. It's just another mysterious dark figure that will add to the vibrant texture of the children's tale.

It was later when he decided to take the details and fit it into the big picture of things.

[Incanus 5,715]

Also, it seems people are taking the "Necromancer" title far too literally. Tolkien never named as such because he raises the dead. It was used because the Necromancer is an archetypal character of both evil and shrouded mystery. He wanted to Sauron to take this veil in the novel to add on to the rich children's tale environment of the Hobbit.

EDIT: Never mind, Incanus explained this above.

Tolkien admitted that he didn't have a clue who or what the Necromancer was at the time when he wrote the Hobbit, other than a general manifestation of evil. He mentions in his letters that he often got questions about the character from curious readers before LotR was published. Only after he began writing the "sequel" to the Hobbit he connected this character to the mythology at large.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying, he never really thought this Necromancer character will be some dark mage who raises the dead. It's just another mysterious dark figure that will add to the vibrant texture of the children's tale.

It was later when he decided to take the details and fit it into the big picture of things.

Exactly!

I just thought to add that last bit as extra info on Necromancer that's all.

[Brónach 1,302]

WAIT... they are putting Sauron in an orc's body??? I didn't read that before. I don't understand. Why the hell would Sauron do that? What for? Plus isn't he a shapeshifiting Maia or something?

[KK 3,307]

Well according to what BB posted, the guys at TORN discussed Azgog being Sauron's avatar. Makes no sense.

Which is why I believe that this theory is way too far fetched and that even Jackson wouldn't go that far....

[Incanus 5,715]

WAIT... they are putting Sauron in an orc's body??? I didn't read that before. I don't understand. Why the hell would Sauron do that? What for? Plus isn't he a shapeshifiting Maia or something?

I hope that won't be the case in the film. It sounds cheesy and completely against Tolkien's writings. Sauron lost the ability to change his shape at will sometime in the Second Age. Also the more time Valar and Maiar spent in bodies the harder it was for them to leave them behind. This happened to Sauron in the same way as to Morgoth and was caused by their divesting much of their power into physical things and controlling the world around them. This physical form made them vulnerable to world. But one of the troubles with the world is that the spirits needed a body to function in it so Sauron had to gather strength to appear again in Middle Earth around year 1000 of TA. in a permanent physical shape, a body described by Tolkien in his letters as dark and tall, of more than human height but not gigantic.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,302]

Can't we have Bolg as the great villain instead? He looks great. And he isn't a zombie.

[KK 3,307]

Is the shaman and Azog's appearance in the events of the Hobbit a 100% certain?

[Incanus 5,715]

Can't we have Bolg as the great villain instead? He looks great. And he isn't a zombie.

Well that is something we have been discussing as well. Actually I asked the same question on the previous page.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Can't we have Bolg as the great villain instead? He looks great. And he isn't a zombie.

Indeed. I can't see why they can't address the conflict between Thorin and the goblins through Bolg.

[Incanus 5,715]

Can't we have Bolg as the great villain instead? He looks great. And he isn't a zombie.

He does look like a zombie, though.

Like Rob Zombie?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Looking up this Yazneg character, this is what I get:

I really hope this isn't a shaman and is rather just some orc villain....

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Oh boy, this film could have problems far greater than I imagined...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

But is all the stuff they say there to be taken seriously? I mean some of their posts make some really far-fetched speculation.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[alicebrallice 134]

Looking up this Yazneg character, this is what I get:

thdtat is fimbul, boy!

[KK 3,307]

Oops.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,370]

Yikes. These movies just became the star wars prequels overnight.

[gkgyver 1,645]

An orc shaman? Really?

Why not just have Gandalf say how it was, how he was ressurected, instead of showing it? Like Gandalf saying to Elrond in Fellowship how Saruman created the Uruk-Hai instead of really showing it.

[KK 3,307]

Alice knows her Orcs!

You, on the other hand, pretend to know a lot, but actually know very little...

I won't take such pathetic insults from the likes of you! I know quite a lot you silly boal,more than you'll ever know. But admittedly, I'm not very fluent with all these minor orc captains and warriors. Just the big cheiftains and guys like Azog, Bolg, Shagrat, Gothmog, etc.

Yikes. These movies just became the star wars prequels overnight.

It's incredible how true this statement is....

And to think, 3 months ago, BloodBoal was defending this film from all the prequel accusations.

Who knew it would come to this?