Is this for real?

[Primula Baggins]

I didn't think it would be a problem anyway, with or without those 17 years; they can stretch the second film out as long as they want, if the actual story of The Hobbit is really confined to the first film.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Oh drat! Now I suppose I'll have to read 'The Hobbit' for the second time. Yes, tis true .... I've only cracked open the pages once before and that was over 40 years ago And truth be told, I wasn't overly impressed .....

Sass, I hope you get a chance to read The History of The Hobbit some time. There are so many levels buried underneath the often childish tone of that book.

I think that the tone of the movie should be taken from the rewrite that Tolkien began in 1960 when he decided to try to more closely match LOTR. Unfortunately, he did not get very far with the project

[Sassafras]

Well, you know Voronwë, I was intending to read 'The Hobbit' after finishing LotR .... but somehow, I got sidetracked into reading 'Letters' from cover to cover. .... and since I'm only up to 131 there's quite a long way to go!

I must say that it's very rewarding to read sequentially instead of skipping about and using them merely as a reference book.

Still, based upon your recommendation, I will make the effort to get my hands on the 'History'

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I read the Letters from cover to cover when I first got the book. It definitely does give some good perspective. Some day I'll try to read the Chronology portion of Scull and Hammond's J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide from cover to cover, too. I think that would be a similarly enlightening experience.

[N.E. Brigand]

Now I suppose I'll have to read The Hobbit for the second time... I've only cracked open the pages once before... I wasn't overly impressed

Sass, I hope you get a chance to read The History of The Hobbit some time. There are so many levels buried underneath theoften childish tone of that book.

From a recent discussion elsewhere about what constitutes the "spine" of The Hobbit, i.e. that which must be kept in any faithful film version, I like this response and elaboration.

I think that the tone of the movie should be taken from the rewrite that Tolkien began in 1960 when he decided to try to more closely match LOTR. Unfortunately, he did not get very far with the project.

Does HoH indicate why Tolkien abandoned the effort?
And welcome back, Voronwë.

[solicitr]

But this is PJ's typically blundering, clueless take:

One of the problems with The Hobbit is that it is a fairly simple kids story, and doesn't really feel like The Lord of the Rings. Tonally I mean. It's always may be a little worried, but with two films that kinda gets easier. It allows for more complexity. At that implied stuff with Gandalf and the White Council and the return of Sauron could be fully explored. That's what we talked about this morning. Taking The Hobbit and combining it with all that intigue about Sauron's rise, and the problems that has for Gandalf. It could be cool. That way, it starts feeling more like The Lord of the Rings and less like this kids book. You could even get into Gollum's sneaking into Mordor and Aragorn protecting The Shire. That's what we'd do. Love to work with Viggo again.

Groan.....

[Alatar]

Solicitr,

One mans "blundering clueless take" is another's "inspired, bold move".

I've said it elsewhere. We already have a kids movie of the Hobbit. I'd like to see what fresh thoughts can be brought to the table.

Feel free to watch Rankin Bass any time you feel like a straight adaptation. Its as close as you're ever likely to see. Allow the rest of us to hope for something different.

[Holbytla]

Personally I can't charectarize a film that is a cartoon or that has Orson Bean in it a straight adaptation.

Although I may be more satisfied with a PJ adaptation than a Rankin Bass or a Ralph Bakshi adaptation, I would like a different approach to this. Not holding my breath though.

[N.E. Brigand]

One mans "blundering clueless take" is another's "inspired, bold move".
I've said it elsewhere. We already have a kids movie of The Hobbit. I'd like to see what fresh thoughts can be brought to the table.
Feel free to watch Rankin-Bass any time you feel like a straight adaptation. Its as close as you're ever likely to see. Allow the rest of us to hope for something different.

Well, while I think that the Rankin-Bass Hobbit may be the best cinematic version of Tolkien's work to date (though like almost everyone, I've never seen the 1966 short film that Gene Deitch claims to have directed), it's a dumbed-down and reductionist take on the book and rarely catches what squire describes: the "conflict between our perceptions of what is an adult and what is a child [that] is the theme of The Hobbit." So let's see a cinematic Hobbit that catches the essentials before we see a version that throws in a lot of tenuously-connected fanfiction by Jackson, Boyens and Walsh.

[N.E. Brigand]

Personally I can't characterize a film that is a cartoon ... a straight adaptation.

Why?

[Holbytla]

Well in a convoluted way, I need the film to appear real for me to be transported to an imaginary world, and I need that imaginary world as real as possible.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Does HoH indicate why Tolkien abandoned the effort?

Not that I've seen, so far, but I haven't finished it yet. Rateliff does quote the passage in Carpenter's biography in which he states that when Tolkien was asked by the publisher to revise The Hobbit for the Third Edition in 1965 (to preserve copyright rights in response to the unauthorized Ace edition of LOTR) Tolkien looked for his notes on revisions and couldn't find them. Rateliff comments that the notes on the revisions were in fact the 1960 rewrite (which is not a full rewrite, but rather a series of replacement texts) and that they are much more extensive than Carpenter realized. I'll comment more in the HoH thread once I've finished reading the section on the rewrite.

And welcome back, Voronwë.

Thanks. It's good to be back. And for those who don't spend much time in Bag End but may be interested in my trip, I've started a running commentary about it here

So let's see a cinematic Hobbit that catches the essentials before we see a version that throws in a lot of tenuously-connected fanfiction by Jackson, Boyens and Walsh.

Not possible, I'm afraid, any more than a cinematic Beowulf that catches the essentials was really possible.

And I doubt that we will have a virtually naked animated Angelina Jolie playing Smaug, either.

[Primula Baggins]

Oh darn.

[Holbytla]

After having seen what PJ and company are capable of, I think I would be more interested in seeing a version that stretched the adaptaion to its limits rather than pay lipservice to it. You know, maybe a Baz Luhrman type of thing.

[solicitr]

I'll stick with clueless and blundering. PJ unsurprisingly loses sight of the essential and goes for what he thinks "cool." Having no idea of the child/adult tension, he simply dismisses "simple kid's story" and launches into his idea of "adult", which apparently means 'intrigue' and politics. And lotsa fights. How adult.

Not to mention dwarf-tossing jokes and belches.

[vison]

Jeez. I thought and still think that The Hobbit was a simple and not terribly good kids' story. I would never in a million years have read LOTR if I had read The Hobbit first.

I am not emotionally invested in this story. However, it would be nice to think that something rather grand could be done with it. If a moviemaker can bring some of the "tone" of LOTR to the screen, lift the twee and silly tale into even the Lower Reaches of LOTR's Middle Earth, think how lovely that would be?

Should someone (and I doubt that it could be PJ) manage to weave The Hobbit with the pre-telling of Aragorn and Arwen's tale, show us Galadriel and Celeborn and Saruman and Elrond et all as the White Council, etc. I would be thrilled to teeny-weeny little bits.

Why, maybe they could drag out the bits they filmed of Bombadil?

Put me in charge. It would be Splendid!!!!

[Northerner]

I'm not that emotionally invested in The Hobbit, myself. My friend was wild to get me to read LOTR, but I couldn't get through The Hobbit. Finally, I skipped it, then went back to it after re-reading LOTR a few times. Too tra-la-la-lall-y for me.

It's PJ-there will be lots of battles. There will be some brilliant stuff. There will possibly even be some unexpected heartbreak. There will be some scenes that make you want to throw objects at the screen. It will make buckets of money.

[Trazúviel]

Should someone (and I doubt that it could be PJ) manage to weave The Hobbit with the pre-telling of Aragorn and Arwen's tale, show us Galadriel and Celeborn and Saruman and Elrond et all as the White Council, etc. I would be thrilled to teeny-weeny little bits.

I'm all for that. I've read the Hobbit, oh, three or four times, and really enjoyed it, but I'm not so protective of it that the movie has to be exact. I wish LotR was a bit closer to the book (like bringing in Tom B and Old Man Willow and leaving out the deuling wizards ) but I think the Hobbit has room to expound on details like Aragorn and Arwen, etc.

[kams]

Should someone (and I doubt that it could be PJ) manage to weave The Hobbit with the pre-telling of Aragorn and Arwen's tale, show us Galadriel and Celeborn and Saruman and Elrond et all as the White Council, etc. I would be thrilled to teeny-weeny little bits.

I'm all for that. I've read the Hobbit, oh, three or four times, and really enjoyed it, but I'm not so protective of it that the movie has to be exact. I wish LotR was a bit closer to the book (like bringing in Tom B and Old Man Willow and leaving out the deuling wizards ) but I think the Hobbit has room to expound on details like Aragorn and Arwen, etc.

But wouldn't "The Hobbit Movie" in two parts be all about hobbits??

I don't see where elves, Aragorn and Arwen come in.

[River]

Most of the good intriguey stuff happens either before or concurrent with The Hobbit, which is why I'm anxious about a movie that would be set between The Hobbit and LOTR. That was, as far as I can tell from the literature, a waiting time. There were some rumbles that something was amiss, Saruman hunted the Ring, but not much that would look good on screen (and that's what cinematic stories have to be: stuff that looks good on screen).

The Hobbit and LOTR have very different tones. I read The Hobbit first, when I was 20. I felt like I'd gone back to the Redwall series but there was just enough of something in there to keep me engaged. I felt like a stone skipping across deep water. There was something down there but I wasn't seeing it. I just sort of knew it was there. Then I read LOTR. Totally different experience. I wasn't skipping across deep water, I was immersed in it. I might have even drowned, but I can handle high-sounding dialog. I went back and re-read The Hobbit just to catch the references. And then I read the Sil because I wanted more.