The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Gandalfs Beard]

For me, a broader colour pallette is always appreciated. Magnificent landscapes, more Magic and Mystery. And of course, Dragons. A little less Ugly "Faerie" folk and a little more Fair "Faerie" folk. Over all the films achieved a nice balance. But there was always a palpable sense of relief after the claustraphobic darkness of the mines, or the oppressive dreary Greys of the Jagged mountainous and wet region before Sam, Frodo and Gollum reach the marshes (sorry, brain freeze, can't remember the name). But of course that's the effect Jackson wanted to achieve. Really, any of the stories from the Silmarillion you can do that with would entice moviegoers. But for me, I prefer the less depressing ones.

Gandalfs Beard

[Beren]

I will agree and disagree Beren. I see your point with going with the Big Three. But for viewing audiences, think of this. They have already met Numenorians. Their remenents are a huge part of LotR. You have Aragorn, Gondor, Arnor, Weathertop, Hints at the Last Alliance, all sorts of Numenor and Westernesse references. Beren & Luthien get a pat on the back at Weathertop with Aragorn singing about it.

You are right here, but from my point of view, when I read and saw LOTR, I had no clue about Numenor. All I knew was that it was an island that was sunk by the gods (like Atlantis.) But I knew about Beren and Luthien. Or, at least, I knew that the Aragorn-Arwen relationship was kind of a "copy" of the relationship between Beren and Luthien. And I knew that Arwen was descended from Luthien. Even when I read the Silmarillion, I didn't pay much attention to Numenor. Or at least not as much attention as I gave Beren and Luthien. Maybe I'm just the romantic type It just seems like Beren and Luthien would sell better than Numenor. Probably being PG-13, it wouldn't have to appeal to the very young, just teenagers and up. And teenagers are all into love and all that (or at least, what they (or should I say "we?") think is love). And grown-up couples will watch it to remember their younger days as "lovers" or to fantasize about what they wanted their relationship to be like. Ok, maybe I'm getting too deep here. The point is, I think a love story from Tolkien (including the action and adventure and acts of courage) would be very appealing to the general audience. Numenor is just history. It is where the Gondorian people came from. It just sounds dry. Of course, it is FAR from dry, but it sounds much dryer than a love story.

[Otto's World]

Beren, the Luthien/Beren story IS a good one by itself to do for a film. Think of all of the drama! There's a bit of Rapunzel in it, shape-shifting, heroic loyalty, confronting the baddest of the bad, doomed love, Romeo & Juliet style love w/ parental disapproval and the mutual death deal, impossible odds....When I read that part I was sitting by a lake and I got totally transported. Couldn't stop reading. Time stood still. When I raised my head from the book and looked around after reading that story it was like waking up from a dream. Doesn't get much more thrilling than that.

The story of Numenor is an epic, yes? It's the story of the Numenorians' version of the Fall with a capital "F." It's like the Garden of Eden or Satan and his followers' fall after their War in Heaven. A filmmaker could get to portray what an ideally civilized race of man would look like. Like the golden days of Arthur and his round table, these people would be what we all dream of being. Then the drama of Pride and the Fall. Then the latter part of the movie would basically be like Titanic. Eeeew. Death by water, portrayed in all of its varieties on a large and glorious scale. Noah's ark made into a horror movie. But yeah, the moviemaker would probably have to invent a lot more stuff to fill in what is not described in Tolkien. But it's a chance to draw on some very fundamental themes.

[Gandalfs Beard]

You know, It's been waaaay too long for me. I Have to dig up my copy (or go to the library) and reread the Silmarillion and Book of Lost tales. Maybe then I can start on all the stuff I haven't read .

Gandalfs Beard

[anaclangon]

First my feeling is that Peter Jackson did a stunning job doing a "treatment" of Lord of the Rings. Its not the whole story...nor was it meant to be. You can only really do so much in film, and was so much that was left out. Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil..et al. Its an 'adaptation'. Just like the cartoons of the 70s and the Bakshi film.

What would be a good idea might be, not on the big screen but the small one.

"tales from middle earth".

There are a number of stories that you could tell, and because of the epoch type of stories, you could tell stories from any era.

Imagine if you had a 5 year arc (like Babylon5). With a few movies thrown in for good measure. Imagine the treatments that could be given to the stories.

Now I know that purists are squirming with this suggestion, but as I suggested its about "adapting" not nesseccarily "regurgitating". I believe that such an endevour is more in the spirt of Tolkien anyway.

Tolkien was creating a mythology, and in essence thats what this will do. Is really so bad if it is duetrocannonical?

[Eldorion]

Are you saying then, anaclagon, that the point of adaptation is not to give an accurate representation of the original story, just in a different media with some changes made to facilitate this; but is in fact to make a story that may or may not show similarities to the original? If so, I have two questions.

How does one determine to what extent you change the story? Why might it be okay to cut X (say, Tom Bombadil) but not Y (say, the Battle of the Hornburg)?
What is the spirit of Tolkien and how does changing Tolkien's story/stories remain in that spirit?

I'm honestly wondering ; I've seen arguments like this before but never much elaboration.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Different media by necessity require different artistic choices when rendering adaptations. Things such as time constraints, finances, live action, animation, small screen, large screen, playing to an audience unfamiliar with the source material, clarifying narrative, conveying character development in a convincing story arc (which may or may not have been done in the original source material), and other factors better known to directors, are all factors involved in choosing what to leave in, take out or add to any story being adapted.

A director has to make these artistic choices. While it's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of certain changes vs others, it is less reasonable to challenge the necessity for making such changes.

The most important thing in any adaptation is maintaining the integrity of the key story-lines, and staying true to the Spirit of the original material, if not the letter of it. Some films fail due to butchering too much of the original themes, plots, and characterizations.

I think PJ's version of LotR is brilliant . We were lucky to get a version as faithful as his .

GB

[Eldorion]

While it's perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of certain changes vs others, it is less reasonable to challenge the necessity for making such changes.

I'm curious as to how this is relevant, as I have never claimed that no changed need be made. I don't think that changing the fundamentals of characters (cases in point include Aragorn, Faramir, and Denethor) or the plot (bloating the Battle of the Hornburg into the climax of TTT, cutting the "essential" Scouring of the Shire) are necessary however, because they change the story that is supposedly being adapted. Adaptation does not necessitate changing the story since it is about telling that same story in a different medium.

The most important thing in any adaptation is maintaining the integrity of the key story-lines, and staying true to the Spirit of the original material, if not the letter of it. Some films fail due to butchering too much of the original themes, plots, and characterizations.

Please explain how on earth something as vague and subjective as "spirit" can possibly be used as a guide for adaptation (see my last post). While no one is saying that every last detail must be replicated exactly, the larger story is made up of smaller parts (characters, portions of the plot, etc.), and if they are changed the story is changed.

I think PJ's version of LotR is brilliant . We were lucky to get a version as faithful as his .

I agree it was brilliant if we were talking solely about the films as cinema, but since we're considering them as adaptations I have to disagree. How can the numerous changes (the first three essays linked from there are relevant but there's far too much to briefly summarize) not make the films unfaithful?

[Gandalfs Beard]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how this topic got derailed . I'm going to post my reply on the "What You Would Change..." thread.

GB

[Eldorion]

Good idea, GB.