The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Gandalfs Beard]

Judging from Marandihir's arguments (with which I only partly agree), I think I have been presenting a Middle Path on the issue.

Marahandir makes some great points about Tolkien retrofitting The Hobbit to fit into Middle Earth. And also some good points about why The White Council should be part of the Story of The Hobbit.

But I agree with Eldorion and Odo, that the integrity and tone of the last published version of The Hobbit (which we all likely grew up with) should be maintained as much as possible in film 1.

With an expanded storyline, The White Council and Dol Guldur, plus the Siege of the Dwarfs and the eventual Battle of 5 Armies will be plenty of material for Film 2.

GB

[Lester Cat]

Anyone fancy a pint?

[Gandalfs Beard]

This is rather reminiscent of the Inkling's Brew Fueled debates at the Bird and Baby (Eagle and Child) isn't it?

I would love a pint or two right now.

GB

[marandahir]

I too want to preserve the feel of The Hobbit as it's final form in authorial publication.

However, the author did continue to retrofit it into his evolving Middle-Earth through the Appendices and the Unfinished Tales, and they're just as relevant to his story as the other retrofits that made it into the book.

However, it's a big deal adding a chapter here or there in later additions, as opposed to rewriting a chapter to fit better in with how an element is represented in the sequel.

The Hobbit is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, but only in the sense that The Lord of the Rings is it's sequel. No, it shouldn't have the same feel as The Lord of the Rings, and I don't think it will. The battles are few, and whether or not there will be an actual battle at Dol Guldur is still unknown. But there were definite darker themes that could easily accommodate the White Council and Dol Guldur and the Necromancer, and not detract from the story, but rather enhance it.

Tolkien said this with Lord of the Rings, and I assume he meant it for The Hobbit as well: the appendices should be treated as a part of the story that didn't quite squeeze into the breadth of the narrative. He really wanted Aragorn and Arwen in Fellowship, but with all the Council of Elrond and Shadows of the Past, it's a bit much. These are things that are a part of the story, but couldn't find an adequate way to ease into the story without feeling disjuntled.

Considering that The Lord of the Rings movies were arranged in a very different form that the books (interspaced works much better for movies than stopping, switching to a new group for many chapters, and then moving back), the movie of The Hobbit could well accommodate the White Council in the same way that the movies could accommodate for Arwen and still feel true to the original.

I'm certain that some details will be changed. This happens with movies. However, Guillermo Del Toro said that he wants to keep even closer to the books than the movies did. Not that he wants to ignore the White Council, but to the feel of the book, to its characters, and to its events.

I'm willing to trust that Guillermo Del Toro will handle things just well, considering El Laberinto del Fauno. I trust him more than I trust Peter Jackson with the book, actually.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Tolkien said this with Lord of the Rings, and I assume he meant it for The Hobbit as well: the appendices should be treated as a part of the story that didn't quite squeeze into the breadth of the narrative. He really wanted Aragorn and Arwen in Fellowship, but with all the Council of Elrond and Shadows of the Past, it's a bit much. These are things that are a part of the story, but couldn't find an adequate way to ease into the story without feeling disjuntled.

I definitely agree with this point Marandahir. I always felt Arwen and Aragorn belonged in the body of the text. And I think it would have been nice if Tolkien had included The White Council and the events at Dol Guldur in The Hobbit, though I suspect he would have run into problems for some of the reasons Eldorion suggests.

And in terms of filming and maintaining the "kid friendly" tone of the final version of The Hobbit, I think it makes much more sense to put the Darker and more complex parts of the story into the second film

GB

[Eldorion]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for the rather snarky tone of my previous post.

I too want to preserve the feel of The Hobbit as it's final form in authorial publication.

However, the author did continue to retrofit it into his evolving Middle-Earth through the Appendices and the Unfinished Tales, and they're just as relevant to his story as the other retrofits that made it into the book.

The Appendices to LOTR were part of LOTR from the very first publication of ROTK, and the Unfinished Tales is a posthumously-published anthology of writings stretching across many decades. More importantly however, these writings about Middle-earth are mostly not directly relevant to the story of The Hobbit with the slight exception of a few small parts of the Appendices and The Quest of Erebor. They are not, however, actually part of the story of The Hobbit. Much of the legendarium is relevant to TH, but only TH itself tells the story of TH. (How's that for a tongue twister?)

However, it's a big deal adding a chapter here or there in later additions, as opposed to rewriting a chapter to fit better in with how an element is represented in the sequel.

I agree, but did Tolkien actually insert any chapters? I was under the impression that Riddles in the Dark was the biggest change he made, though I may be wrong. In any event, I think there is a difference between the original author making a later addition (or, to be fair, a scholar making slight revisions to give a more accurate version as Douglas A. Anderson did for TH and Hammond and Scull did for LOTR) and a filmmakers who is supposed to be making an adaptation adding significant elements to the story.

Tolkien said this with Lord of the Rings, and I assume he meant it for The Hobbit as well: the appendices should be treated as a part of the story that didn't quite squeeze into the breadth of the narrative. ... These are things that are a part of the story, but couldn't find an adequate way to ease into the story without feeling disjuntled.

If Tolkien couldn't fit it into the narrative, what makes you think the filmmakers could do better than the man who invented the story and world in the first place. Also, I think you missed an important point: the Appendices are appended to LOTR, not The Hobbit. TH and LOTR are, after all, separate stories.

the movies could accommodate for Arwen and still feel true to the original.

Without wanting to derail this discussion too much, I think it's highly debatable that the Arwen scenes were true to the original. At least they didn't put her in Helm's Deep though.

I'm certain that some details will be changed. This happens with movies.

I think everyone realizes that there will have to be changes to adapt the story from one medium to another, but I feel that changing the story itself defeats the purpose of adapting it.

[Odo Banks]

On a point of clarity. Tolkien did some updating of The Hobbit to make it link better with LOTR, but what I was referring to was an attempted total rewrite from much later which he abandoned. I'm not sure how much of it was written, but there was quite a bit, I think.

As always, Eldorion, we seem to be (mainly) on the same page with Tolkien. Some folk on this forum seem a bit wrongheaded to me about what TH actually is.

Funnily enough, T himself seemed to have come around to have a LOTR perspective on The Hobbit and he tried to "match it up." I feel that T failed in the attempt because (somewhere deep down on a sub-conscious level) he was meant to. TH was so good even its creator could not in the end meddle with it too much! The task was beyond him.

PJ and Del T are apparently good enough though...

Odo

[marandahir]

I really didn't mean that GDT with aid from PJ could do what the author couldn't and make the story better than the book. The book will always be the superior form, just as the book of LotR is far superior to the movies.

However, the movie format, and the way it jumps between and meshes scenes to produce dramatic effect, rather than following one group, then jumping back in time and following the next group, and so on and so forth (as Tolkien does, and later is adopted as the format of choice by many fantasy writers, such as Robert Jordan), can assimilate this storyline more easily than the book could. We saw how the Paths of the Dead were an after-story in the books, told by Legolas, to achieve the affect of surprise at the end of the Battle of Pelennor Fields. The movies chose the option of showing the journey of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gímli as it happened (though took some liberties with the tale). It didn't continue that same element of surprise, which I was disappointed about, but it gave a clearer and more tied into the tension with the Paths of the Dead (mirroring Frodo and Sam's journey in Cirith Ungol as well).

They're able to produce a mirror effect more prominently, where different character groups' plotlines resonate with each other in this way. This is a lot harder in a book.

I was unaware that Tolkien tried to rewrite the entire book to retrofit it into the history, but I am not surprised. He disliked the book based on it's appropriation of real world languages, names, and the the fact that Hobbit and Gollum were words and concepts created in an idle hour without the depth of meaning behind them that his histories had. He later retconned Hobbit to hobytla, through Lord of the Rings, Concerning Hobbits, and the Appendices. You can see how desperately he really wanted to reconform the book to his Legendarium.

Yes, it'll use lines that aren't in the book or the appendices, yes, it'll be something that wasn't originally in the book. But I feel it may be a positive difference between the two mediums, even if it's not a perfect mirror of the book, which a movie can never be, and when it gets close to it, it just as much divides the fandom and viewer base (such as The Watchmen did).

I lament the loss of Glorfindel, but Tolkien didn't write many female characters, and this is a flaw of his that I'll hold, a flaw that detracts, but doesn't ruin his books. He wasn't sexist. He championed woman in the deconstruction of the whole Man and man that he flaunted around throughout his Legendarium through Éowyn and "But no man am I." The movies expand the feminine presence, and I think it's a positive thing, even if there were some poor choices with Arwen in the later parts of the movie with her being tied to the fate of the Ring, and Sauron using her as a fear-bartering parley tool thing.

[Odo Banks]

I actually agree that Arwen was an improvement. If T was still with us, I'd say so to his face. (He might even agree!) I can also live quite comfortably with the parallel threads in the LOTR Movies, because T had them himself. Playing out scenes that were "off screen" "on-screen" is alright by me too.

As to retrofitting TH, yes, T grew to dislike the way he approached it. Fortunately, it was too late for him to change. TH was a Classic (my favorite book even after all the years I've been a keen reader), but not the Classic T wanted in the end - still a Classic! T could not improve it. He knew it. It's only sad he did not enjoy TH (in the end) as much as I and millions of fans (especially children) do.

Odo

[Eldorion]

marandahir, I can see your arguments about different groups and they are well taken, except for my aforementioned point that the White Council is not part of the story of The Hobbit! I really feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but seriously, the issue of following different groups around wouldn't be an issue if the filmmakers would just stick to the more or less linear story told in the book (though of course with some minor changes made in the process of adaptation).

As for women in LOTR, I don't think it detracts from the book at all. I think it quite realistic for women in Middle-earth to not be going out and doing all the same things as men; far more believable than if Tolkien had tried to apply modern notions of feminism and women's rights to a story set thousands of years ago. That's not to criticize feminism or women's rights, but to be honest I don't think they have a place in LOTR, simply because there would be no way those ideas would exist.

Relating this back to the lack of female characters, it depends on what you consider a lack. Tolkien did not write about people who stayed at home, he wrote about adventures and Quests. Given the believably misogynistic setting of Middle-earth one could hardly expect women to go on a lot of adventures and Quests. However, there are plenty of female characters if you keep your eyes open. Melian, Miriel, Luthien (a big one), Galadriel, Aredhel, Idril, Morwen, Nienor, Elwing, Silmarien (only briefly), Tar-Miriel, Arwen, and Eowyn all come to mind.