by Otto's World on Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:46 pm
Great point--especially the illustration about the spiders.
The Hobbit is not the same story as Lord of the Rings, but it IS the same world. That part is locked in by keeping Bilbo, Gandalf, Gollum, and Elrond in both books. But the tone of each is vastly different.
I had thought of that in regard to the dragons. We don't really know much about what happens in the Silmarillion because it is written in that distant, elevated style. We don't know exactly how different characters felt, moment by moment, the way we know how Bilbo experiences things. So Glaurung seems really noble and black and wicked and closer to Mordor as opposed to Smaug, who lives in the suburbs of evil. Glaurung would be too evil and wise to be outsmarted by a hobbit. Or maybe not. In Lord of the Rings we do not laugh at evil characters because we are too tired and worried about what will happen. The only events I can think of are when Eowyn says, "I am not a man" to the witch king--that gives him a shock--and when the orcs kill each other fighting over Frodo's dwarf mail after Shelob bites him. Otherwise we don't laugh at evil characters.
Maybe that will be a theme. If I were a director, sitting with my notes, trying to lay out the vision conceptually, one theme to explore would be the idea of sophistication vs. naivete--or the great city vs. the suburbs or the country. Because SO MUCH of the Hobbit has to do with Bilbo's lack of experience and how everything is wild and new to him. But I don't think you can depict that very easily in a film. I mean, you could have it be exactly the same world--except maybe the Dark Lord has been sleeping in the world of the Hobbit, and we know that more evil things are at work more actively in the LOTR--but you could have it be basically the same world, but show it through the eyes of somebody who has no experience. That would give you an excuse to make it more cartoonish or homespun or stylised like a storybook. But I don't know if the audience could be made to understand that this is what is going on. So if I were a director, I would consider that option but lament the difficulty in pulling it off. Another way of getting around the differences in tone is to exploit the idea of darker evil polluting certain areas more. Gondor is closer to Mordor. Those people are used to seeing and dealing with more dangers, so more heroes are made because they've got those constant threats. Eagles are noble and see a lot of the world, so they belong to the part of the world that is more dangerous and intense. We encounter them, because they help out--like Gandalf needs to call in the reserves to help out--but they belong to the more dangerous, noble world. The Shire is a protected place. Hobbits do not encounter many dangers at all, so they don't practice the arts of fighting and defending and such. They know that the Old Forest is creepy and dangerous, but most people just stay away from it.
I have to go for now, but I was also thinking about Beorn and Tom Bombadill. Since they didn't use Tom in the LOTR movies, he's fair game to be used in the Hobbit movie #2 maybe. It COULD be that there's a whole legion of people who are protecting the outer areas and keeping them relatively safe. We have the Rangers, and elves are always patrolling and protecting. Tom Bombadil seems to be cozy and happy and safe, and he probably is, but he also kind of chews out Old Man Willow and makes him cough up the hobbit he has grabbed, so we know that he has a lot of power. He has a lot of knowledge of older times.
Anyway, it could be the same world, but the evil creatures could be a bit less evil because of the decreased activity of Sauron and the vigilance of those who protect against evil encroachment. All of that--the story of those who protect--could make up the matter of the second Hobbit movie.