The Hobbit Movie Forum

[marandahir]

I am aware of all those female characters, and glad for it. However, his male characters far outweigh the female ones. You have a point about the stay-at-home vs adventure nature of his stories. It's the heroes that make the stories, not the common man (unless the common folk are put in uncommon circumstances, i.e. Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).

I didn't feel it detract either, really. When I saw the movies and Arwen's presence, though, I was pleasantly surprised for more female characters in the story. Also, she didn't feel disjuntled at the end, popping up and marrying Aragorn when we only heard of her twice before, in Many Meetings way back in Fellowship, and only a passing mention plus a song heard as Frodo is leaving the Fire-room at that.

I understand your point about The White Council not being in the original source material, and that it was in the Appendices for Lord of the Rings. However, it is a story directly pertaining to the set up for the sequel; it's not a disjuntled "this is what was happening elsewhere in Middle-Earth at the same time" sort of plot; it has a number of ties in with the plot of The Hobbit, namely the finding of the key and map, the dwarves' desire for vengeance on The Necromancer as well, Gandalf leaving, Gandalf returning, the mentions of the White Council before Gandalf leaves. Things like this. It's a natural extension of the story, and a good use of space since we're breaking up the movie into two parts.

It also shouldn't detract from the feel of the second film, which should be darker and more of the underlying struggles and weariness that comes from an adventure that was more lighthearted earlier. Bilbo was sort of against it all and gloomy until now, but now it's serious business, because he needs to rely on his own power, and there's no one to save him.

[Eldorion]

However, it is a story directly pertaining to the set up for the sequel; it's not a disjuntled "this is what was happening elsewhere in Middle-Earth at the same time" sort of plot;

I am afraid that because the films are a prequel to the LOTR films they will try to expand it from The Hobbit into a more general glimpse of Middle-earth at that time period.

it has a number of ties in with the plot of The Hobbit, namely the finding of the key and map, the dwarves' desire for vengeance on The Necromancer as well, Gandalf leaving, Gandalf returning, the mentions of the White Council before Gandalf leaves. Things like this. It's a natural extension of the story, and a good use of space since we're breaking up the movie into two parts.

The key and the map had been found long before the Unexpected Party ever occurred, and the Dwarves had nothing to do with the White Council's movements against Dol Guldur. Gandalf is the only real story element tying the two together, but it is, as you say, an extension from the story. I don't see what's so bad about "just" adapting the original story and not trying to add to it.

Given that they will be adding to it though, I like GB's idea, as I said earlier.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well I'm glad the thread didn't get totally derailed , and things are back on topic.

But I must say I get a little kooky every time someone says Tolkien was just writing historically when it comes to gender roles in ancient times , so everyone please meet me in the Feminism thread.

By the way, for those who haven't found it, the Feminism thread is in the JRR Tolkien sub-forum.

GB

[Eldorion]

I'll check back in on that thread GB.

[Odo Banks]

Could it be the White Council is in? If so, the hopes of the True Believers are crushed! Yet again, the Heathens win, and the Darkness deepens...!

Odo

[anaclangon]

I dont agree that the white council will destroy the hobbit.

First off, LOTR movies, are adaptations, not regurgitations. Im sure that many purists went mad over the absences of Bombadil, the party at Rivendell showing the relationship between Strider and Bilbo...the list could go on.

I am fairly confident that what ever treatment they give The Hobbit, it will be a great movie

[Eldorion]

First off, LOTR movies, are adaptations, not regurgitations.

Yes, and since they are adaptations, they should not be radically adding to or altering the fundamental story. They're certainly not regurgitations (no one is saying that), but they're not recreations or entirely new stories either.

Im sure that many purists went mad over the absences of Bombadil, the party at Rivendell showing the relationship between Strider and Bilbo...the list could go on.

Personally I'm not too concerned over the changes you mentioned. The problem for me are the more major changes (Elves at Helm's Deep, the Army of the Dead at Minas Tirith, etc.) to the story itself.

I am fairly confident that what ever treatment they give The Hobbit, it will be a great movie

Almost certainly, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll be faithful adaptations.

[Gandalfs Beard]

I know I've already said this, but I agree with Anaclangon. The White Council and it's related events are all Tolkien's own material that explain the comings and goings of Gandalf. So it's not as if using that material is creating something entirely out of whole-cloth.

It is perfectly within keeping to put those elements into the body of the story itself and remain a relatively faithful adaptation. As I said before, it may be more advisable to relegate most of those elements to the second film, but if the article link recently posted on another thread (sorry, forgot which one ) is correct, it suggests that Gandalf's story will be running concurrent to The Hobbit. It's not the way I would do it, but I think it will still be good anyway.

GB

[Odo Banks]

We'll see, GB, we'll see...

Odo

[Odo Banks]

Eldorion, I thought the Army of the Dead did go to Minas Tirith?

Odo