The Hobbit Film Trilogy Thread

[Henry B 50]

You mention integrity. The important point is whether "superficial" details are changed like main plot moments, characters (incidentally, I agree that Faramir's story arc was modified a lot, but it was done to stay faithful to his character - bringing out character traits that only appear as backstory in the book) etc., or whether actual "world facts" are changed. Like the nature of the Nazgul. Or the reasoning and threat of Sauron (him coming out of Barad-dur for a one on one combat with Aragorn would have been a major blow to that).

That's exactly what I'm saying. "World facts" don't matter, only their application to film. I'm sure there's a good reason for what the nature of the Nazgul is, but it doesn't come across in the films. They are ancient kings, twisted by greed and turned into Sauron's servants. That's about all we are told. Whether they became Sauron's servants in ancient times or during The Hobbit just doesn't matter. The manner in which they were - zombified? - doesn't matter. It has absolutely no impact on the story the film is telling. No offense meant at all toward the books. They are classic works that will always be there, and I don't question the intricate construction of Tolkien's world. It is, however, a world that can't ever be adequately conveyed by a film, so why try?

[Wojo 2,453]

If the Nazgul originally were nine kings of men, then their subjects intended them to die someday and thus prepared them tombs for their kings and families to ride to the afterlife in. This is common in so many primitive cultures it's not worth counting, and so the wealthy kingdoms of Tolkien's Middle-Earth would follow suit.

Now whether the Nazgul actually died at the end of a very long and twisted life, and got to lay dormant for a time before being "resurrected" and called into service by Sauron, or they never actually "died" and just gradually took on wraith form, leaving their "tombs" unclaimed but still very creepy -- and who knows, maybe they use them as a headquarters of sorts for their missions into those kingdoms far from Mordor (no human bits would remain, longing for a total death) -- is never stated, and not really important.

It's the Tenth Amendment of any movie-making: The liberties not delegated to the movie-maker by the author, nor prohibited by it to the author, are reserved to the movie-maker respectively, or to the movie-goers to imagine.

[Incanus 5,715]

That's exactly what I'm saying. "World facts" don't matter, only their application to film. I'm sure there's a good reason for what the nature of the Nazgul is, but it doesn't come across in the films. They are ancient kings, twisted by greed and turned into Sauron's servants. That's about all we are told. Whether they became Sauron's servants in ancient times or during The Hobbit just doesn't matter. The manner in which they were - zombified? - doesn't matter. It has absolutely no impact on the story the film is telling. No offense meant at all toward the books. They are classic works that will always be there, and I don't question the intricate construction of Tolkien's world. It is, however, a world that can't ever be adequately conveyed by a film, so why try?

Of course you can argue that the world and plot of such series of films has to be logical and make sense only inside its own sphere, not with any novels it is based on. But why make silly contrivances to set up plot points if it might have been made in a way that is in line with the novels and respect their story. Intricate or not the world could be easily portrayed on film with such respect it deserves and still made serve the plot. Things like Nazgûl tombed together (quite implausible and must have forced the writers to actually go well beyond Tolkien to explain this) and bunny sleds are deviations of small scale but in the end I would love to know their justification for them. How do they help the story? But as we can't really say how the 10 minute preview goes with the full story of the Hobbit films it is perhaps too early to judge everything adequately. If anything most fans of these novels want them done justice on-screen, be it that they have to be written and filmed in the terms of the medium. You can pick LotR films apart as a Tolkien purist but I personally loved the adaptation for the most part and accepted that films would never be exactly the same as the novel, just a sort of reflection of the whole essence of the story captured on film. Oh and then there were PJs overwrought moments but that's another story, director's indulgences.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,715]

Things like Nazgûl tombed together (quite implausible and must have forced the writers to actually go well beyond Tolkien to explain this) and bunny sleds are deviations of small scale but in the end I would love to know their justification for them. How do they help the story?

1. There are not "small deviations". They imply a lot of changes in the universe.

It is one thing to make changes to the story in order to make it work on the big screen, it is another to make changes that serve no fucking purpose!

They imply changes in the universe according to the novels, yes, but not so much in the world of the films. But the question stands, why deviate from the story and background of the novels when you could easily explain matters (even in film medium) more in line with them. Yes adaptation is still a creative process but do they have to go out of their way to be creative just to leave their own hand print on the material.

Also that last bit of news about Kili having some sort of amorous feelings towards an Elf is completely against the story both plot wise and to a degree in spirit. But I guess if Gimli can be smitten with Galadriel all Dwarves are now after a bit of Elven skirt as there is a precedent. But we will have to see how this is played out in the end.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,715]

I especially like those Bunnies of Doom. Perhaps those are a splinter group from the loyal sled bunnies and not sent by Radagast but only there to try to stop the Dwarves from looting the tombs of the Ringwraiths because they are you know, of Doom.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Starfish hairdo.... Did everyone forget?

[Quintus 5,399]

It'll be all the rage next season.

[Ren 75]

Speaking of the hobbit..... I am feeling like a bit of nostalgia today and will watch 1977 hobbit cartoon. Maybe later the secret of nimh.....

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Incanus 5,715]

Do yourself a favour. Just watch The Secret Of NIMH. Read The Hobbit.

Who needs the book when you have this:

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Ren 75]

Blood, I have the book. I'm just in the mood for some cheesy ballads

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

That's exactly what I'm saying. "World facts" don't matter, only their application to film. I'm sure there's a good reason for what the nature of the Nazgul is, but it doesn't come across in the films. They are ancient kings, twisted by greed and turned into Sauron's servants. That's about all we are told. Whether they became Sauron's servants in ancient times or during The Hobbit just doesn't matter. The manner in which they were - zombified? - doesn't matter. It has absolutely no impact on the story the film is telling. No offense meant at all toward the books. They are classic works that will always be there, and I don't question the intricate construction of Tolkien's world. It is, however, a world that can't ever be adequately conveyed by a film, so why try?

But the LOTR films were so good also because they were able to hint at tons of things we readers of the books could understand and place in the larger context. That only works when the world is essentially the same as in the source material. Significant changes to the nature of the story's universe diminish that effect very much.

It's like major scientific errors in scifi movies. They may not harm the plot (at times they may even just make it possible), but as a general rule they usually end up making the film ridiculous.

Of course, there are cases where you can make a good movie by deliberately placing it in an alternate history, essentially playing "what if" and deriving the plot from that. But that only works if you significantly base major plot points on that. And doing it with a rarely filmed fantasy source is just a little too meta for my taste. (You could probably do it with Shakespeare, just because his works are so well known and have already been adapted so many times.)

[Brónach 1,302]

Things like Nazgûl tombed together (quite implausible and must have forced the writers to actually go well beyond Tolkien to explain this) and bunny sleds are deviations of small scale but in the end I would love to know their justification for them. How do they help the story?

1. There are not "small deviations". They imply a lot of changes in the universe.

2.Yeah, how do they help the story? How does Kili falling in love with Tauriel enhances the story in any way? How does that Tauriel girl bring anything to the story? Didn't the original story have enough characters to begin with?

It is one thing to make changes to the story in order to make it work on the big screen, it is another to make changes that serve no fucking purpose!

I think you might be wrong here. You don't know yet! Films tend to name nameless characters in books. A lot of unnamed guards and people might be end up being a few named supporting characters.

As for Kili having a crush on Tauriel I can't blame the guy. We'll see how they handle it. I don't think it'll be anything important. It might just be a comedic scene. And in the end all these dwarfs are people and ought to react to things like people do. They're expanding on the dwarves adding things to them, and on Bard, and on the overall story...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I think you might be wrong here. You don't know yet! Films tend to name nameless characters in books. A lot of unnamed guards and people might be end up being a few named supporting characters.

I'm never wrong. You should know that by now. They didn't have to resort to that cheap trick in LOTR.

And, no, Hama and Gamelin do not count. They did appear in the books, and no character fell in love with them in the film. Well, there seemed to be something going on between Theoden and Gamelin, but that was it!

[Brónach 1,302]

I know they appeared in the book BloodBoal.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I never said you didn't.

[Wojo 2,453]

How does that Tauriel girl bring anything to the story? Didn't the original story have enough characters to begin with?

Tauriel brings TNA to the story. I don't recall a single female character in the entire story having a major role, aside from incidental elves in the Mirkwood court or people at Dale.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

We need TNA!

[KK 3,307]

You know what would be cool? If Bilbo felt in love with Tauriel too, and then there would be bad blood between him and Kili, which will lead to tensions in the group during their journey to the Lonely Mountain, with some dwarves being on Kili's side, and others on Bilbo's side. One group then decides it is better to go to the Ringwraiths' tombs, because they think the Dwarves' treasure must have been taken there by Smaug, while others think it is safe to assume the treasure is still at the Lonely Mountain, so the Company split into these two groups. When the first group reaches the tombs, they encounter the Bunnies Of Doom (sent by Radagast to warn them not to go inside), and quickly decide to go back to the Lonely Mountain after all.

It does not bring big changes to the story, since at the end, all the dwarves end up at the Lonely Mountain. I say it could be a great thing to do.

WTF is going on?!?!? I'm absent for a day and now dwarves are in love with elves?!?!?!??

Something fishy is going on up there in PJ's dark tower...starfish hairdos, crazy bunnies of Doom, Nazgul tombs and now dwarf crushes with elves.....I don't like where this is going.

That's exactly what I'm saying. "World facts" don't matter, only their application to film. I'm sure there's a good reason for what the nature of the Nazgul is, but it doesn't come across in the films. They are ancient kings, twisted by greed and turned into Sauron's servants. That's about all we are told. Whether they became Sauron's servants in ancient times or during The Hobbit just doesn't matter. The manner in which they were - zombified? - doesn't matter. It has absolutely no impact on the story the film is telling. No offense meant at all toward the books. They are classic works that will always be there, and I don't question the intricate construction of Tolkien's world. It is, however, a world that can't ever be adequately conveyed by a film, so why try?

The thing about the LOTR films is that while it takes much liberty with the novels, it largely remains true to the characters and true to the Tolkien's themes. And as Marian pointed out, there are plenty of hints that other directors probably would have left out for fans of the novels to appreciate.

With this film, Nazgul tombs completely deviate from the thematic significance of the Nazgul from themselves, which is a big "no no". The Nazgul are meant to live on endlessly as slaves of Sauron as a consequence of their greed and lust...making them zombies borders the film on being ridiculous.

And as for Killi, the film itself established dwarves' hatred for elves in the first film. Why on Earth now would you go against your established boundaries and make a dwarf fall in love with an elf?

The thing about film adaptations is that while they can take creative liberties with their source material, they should at the very least remain true to the spirit and the themes of the source material, especially with epics like Lord of the Rings. And consider Jackson has done to the best of anyone's abilities with the original trilogy, why would he mess up with this one? Because trust me, Nazgul tombs and dwarf crushes do interfere with the thematic integrity of the novel.

[Brónach 1,302]

And as for Killi, the film itself established dwarves' hatred for elves in the first film. Why on Earth now would you go against your established boundaries and make a dwarf fall in love with an elf?

I don't care. They're people. I don't see how this "a dwarf can't fall in love with Evangeline Lilly with pointy ears because dwarfs and elves are supposed to hate each other" makes any sense.

Also I remember Gimli perfectly able to recognize Galadriel's beauty.

[KK 3,307]

And as for Killi, the film itself established dwarves' hatred for elves in the first film. Why on Earth now would you go against your established boundaries and make a dwarf fall in love with an elf?

I don't care. They're people. I don't see how this "a dwarf can't fall in love with Evangeline Lilly with pointy ears because dwarfs and elves are supposed to hate each other" makes any sense.

Also I remember Gimli perfectly able to recognize Galadriel's beauty.

That was the exception. That's how remarkable Galadriel was supposed to be. Her beauty was so great it was able to touch the heart of a dwarf. But setting up a "romantic relationship" between Killi and this Tauriel is just ridiculous.

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't think it's ridiculous. And we don't know anything about a "romantic relationship", only that Kili "pursues Tauriel" (something probably doomed to fail.) I don't like these black and white set ups (why I like the existence of orcs is beyond me, I guess they're just cool).

If dwarf males and females look alike (that is, like a human male), they probably can see a human/(maybe elven) male as beautiful but the females are more alien to them. If a dwarf, who usually don't know any dwarf females, spends a lot of time in human realms and comes to like a female elf, I can only look at that as form of characterization.

[Incanus 5,715]

I don't like these black and white set ups (why I like the existence of orcs is beyond me, I guess they're just cool).

Well you can't get much more black and white than Tolkien though. Usually evil is evil and good is good with very little moral ambiguity in these stories. With few exceptions like Boromir, who have some ambiguity and dichotomy in their actions but who in the end redeem themselves or Gollum who, even if complex psychologically by LotR standards, in the end is a tool of fate and providence. I know they might want to add shades of grey to the stories on film to make them more plausible and real for the modern audiences which is fine. But this possible Dwarf/Elf romantic entanglement, however one sided or lopsided it might be, sounds a bit much for my overly sensitive Tolkien purist sensiblities.

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't see much place for Kili and Tauriel to interact. Unless she helps the dwarves to escape or unless her and others are sent to lake town for the dwarves. Or the siege of the Lonely Mountain.

[Wojo 2,453]

Duh. Facebook?

[Incanus 5,715]

Duh. Facebook?

Yeah like that was SO obvious Chaac. I mean yeah like totally.

[Faleel 5,355]

I don't see much place for Kili and Tauriel to interact. Unless she helps the dwarves to escape or unless her and others are sent to lake town for the dwarves. Or the siege of the Lonely Mountain.

yeah.

perhaps bilbo will meet her in the troll caves, heal her with her healing draught, then later she will help bilbo get the dwarves out of Mirkwood, and then meet him at the Battle of the Five Armies along with Corwin....

oh wait. thats The Hobbit Sierra Video Game version.

[Jay 37,369]

Ha!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,369]

The video player doesn't let me skip forward

[alicebrallice 134]

yeah, it has to load. annoying!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jay 37,369]

It's OK i realized you can skip once it loads to the point you want to skip to. Waiting for it to load in now

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[KK 3,307]

Billy Connolly talks about The Hobbit!

BEWARE! FILM SPOILER AHEAD! (IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN THE BOOK, AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO KEEP THAT A SURPRISE FOR THE SECOND FILM!

"It was great fun. I arrive riding a wild pig."

Hmm....yet another another anomaly to add to the long list of questionable things in the Hobbit....

[Brónach 1,302]

Depends of the kind of pig.

[Incanus 5,715]

It definitely does not. But of course this is PJs reinterpretation so all kinds of personal indulgences and excesses appear. If I remember correctly the idea was do create a film in line with LotR but to me it seems PJ is diving into this fairytale and children story mood and mode with alarming glee.

[Brónach 1,302]

Well, I don't think PJ is going to go into extinct creatures, so it'll be closer to what we understand for a pig. But it's not that weird. They can be domestic animals. They run a lot. They can be appropiately tall for a dwarf. Boars are awesome for example. And honestly I still don't see how this stuff is not in line with some stuff in the book. I was worried this film would be just like LOTR but if this is true then I'm surprised by the opposite. I wouldn't have expected it.

What might ruin the film is Jackson's screwing up the editing as usual.

I might not be a Tolkien purist, but I'm a purist for The Hobbit. You say the idea was to create a film in line with LOTR. They already did LOTR... Maybe that was your idea. I'm not sure what's their idea. My theory is that they want it to be a different story in the same world. So it might definitely look more fantasy-like and be more comedic. But it will tie to LOTR in places like Rivendell and the like. I'm going with this because they said it's quite funny and by some designs and ideas we've already heard of, plus some other stuff that will be straight out of LOTR (actor/sets/colours/music)

[Quintus 5,399]

Maybe the pig was del Toro's idea. Either way, I find this to be fine; unlike the worrying rabbit's things.

A big hairy beast of a pig could look pretty badassed saddled up as a dwarven steed.

[Brónach 1,302]

Put Dain in something like a giant forest hog and it would be awesome.

[Incanus 5,715]

So you think turning Tolkien's world into Warhammer Fantasy Battle is ok? Right...

You honestly do not see how Dwarves riding pigs and funny fluffy bunny sleds are not in line with the novel? First of all nothing of these is mentioned in the Hobbit and a small group of animals at Beorn's house serving the guests seem to justify every kind of variation on "animals acting funny" for these films. Dwarves do not ride pigs, never have and never will in Tolkien's world. There is not a slightest hint of this anywhere but of course you can say "Well Tolkien did not say they didn't" and justify everything with that argument.

Editing is my slightest concern when the story elements and out of place details start clashing and PJ's innovations run rampant.

As for the "in line with LotR" comment, I mean that we have established Middle Earth in Lord of the Rings, the tone and style and feel. You can make a story light hearted and more childlike in its wonderment without delving into fairy story like elements that were not present in the established world of previous films. Unless they somehow want to make the two Hobbit films entirely separate entity, which they don't the last time I heard about it.

[Brónach 1,302]

I can't wait for the talking little birds. And the giant intelligent spiders. And the giant intelligent eagle with a crown. Ad the wolf like creatures being used as mounts.

[Incanus 5,715]

Well this aspect was actually mentioned in LotR as e.g. Gandalf spoke their languages but let's see how they handle the talking Great Eagles, thrushes and ravens and Mirkwood spiders in the Hobbit. In LotR most people can't talk to animals nor animals can talk to people but through the Hobbit those species of birds are known to be exceptions. And there is the tone shift to be taken into consideration between the novels which caused Tolkien some continuity problems. But this is exactly my concern, how do they fit the tone of these things together in films. They are in the same world 60 years prior so they should follow an inner logic of the established world, not suddenly make the world radically different than it will be in mere decades.

Wargs are the least of such worries. They are used as goblin mounts in both stories and are as we later find out more than regular wolves.

But you would justify with that list of fantasy elements everything between heaven and earth the film makers can contrive as ok for the story as it fits the established world? As I have said I am a far too much of Tolkien purist to see this as fitting.

[Brónach 1,302]

Well one thing is the tone and other thing is the look of the world.

-The tone: given that it's a different story, with different circunstances, and that doesn't imply the end of the world or anything, a more playful tone tone seems appropiate.

-The look of the world. There are parts of the world we haven't seen and other connect directly or tangentially with stuff seen in LOTR. In my opinion, there should be a progression between the LOTR "world" and the "Hobbit" world and the other way around, as the story goes. I don't think need we need to have seen already all the actual details of places unseen in LOTR to believe they were there.

The biggest shift will be in special effects I think.

[Incanus 5,715]

Well one thing is the tone and other thing is the look of the world.

-The tone: given that it's a different story, with different circunstances, and that doesn't imply the end of the world or anything, a more playful tone tone seems appropiate.

-The look of the world. Several things help. There are parts of the world we haven't seen and other connect directly or tangentially with stuff seen in LOTR. In my opinion, there should be a progression between the LOTR world and the Hobbit world and the other way around, as the story goes.

Yes the playful tone can be achieved through different means in my opinion, not adding Nanny McPhee type of whimsy to the existing world in egregious amounts.

And the look of the world has to be constructed backwards in a sense since 60 years cannot have changed the world itself fundamentally in appearance or feel. New parts of the of the world should not suddenly be brightly and luminously colour graded Mirkwood, Lonely Lands, Dale or Erebor like some odd lollipop land like we had stepped into a new world of some kind where whimsy and sugar plum fairies rule. I do not think they will do anything of the kind but what I meant by that rather hyperbolic example was that the visual style nor the inner workings of the world should not be that much different between the stories happening in the same world mere 60 years apart. Perhaps the animals should not speak but the people around could understand them without them opening their mouths to utter actual words. Perhaps Bilbo wearing the Ring has the power through it to understand the Spiders' communication. These would be just a few solutions to make the shift of tone from children's story of adventurous feel to a world enveloping war between good and evil less abrupt and kept the world more in line and "real" and coherent.

Lord of the Eagles obviously left the cumbersome crown at home in LotR to make himself more aerodynamic. And it was heavy anyway.

[Brónach 1,302]

Yes the playful tone can be achieved through different means in my opinion, not adding Nanny McPhee type of whimsy to the existing world in egregious amounts.

I was thinking on dialogue, acting, situations, music.

And the look of the world has to be constructed backwards in a sense since 60 years cannot have changed the world itself fundamentally in appearance or feel. New parts of the of the world should not suddenly be brightly and luminously colour graded Mirkwood, Lonely Lands, Dale or Erebor like some odd lollipop land like we had stepped into a new world of some kind where whimsy and sugar plum fairies rule. I do not think they will do anything of the kind but what I meant by that rather hyperbolic example was that the visual style nor the inner workings of the world should not be that much different between the stories happening in the same world mere 60 years apart. Perhaps the animals should not speak but the people around could understand them without them opening their mouths to utter actual words. Perhaps Bilbo wearing the Ring has the power through it to understand the Spiders' communication. These would be just a few solutions to make the shift of tone from children's story of adventurous feel to a world enveloping war between good and evil less abrupt and kept the world more in line and "real".

I wouldn't change the world at all for a 60 years of difference. It's more of a change in space, of exploring new areas. The world changes now in 60 years, but not back in the day. Plus Middle-Earth is in medieval stasis anyway.

[Incanus 5,715]

Yes the playful tone can be achieved through different means in my opinion, not adding Nanny McPhee type of whimsy to the existing world in egregious amounts.

I was thinking on dialogue, acting, situations, music.

Well in these things we are pretty much in understanding and agreement but the pig thing will forever be a rift between us.

I wouldn't change the world at all for a 60 years of difference. It's more of a change in space, of exploring new areas. The world changes now in 60 years, but not back in the day. Plus Middle-Earth is in medieval stasis anyway.

Indeed. The change is finally triggered by the beginning of the Dominion of Man and the passing of the Elves, as if the history itself suddenly thought it should finally move on. But this is more of a mythical way of thought, an idea of ages of the world.