The Approaching Darkness (the "Other" Movie)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Based on some of the hints that del Toro has made in his interviews and posts over at TORN (which I think is really cool!) I think I may be starting to get a sense of what the framework of this additional movie might be. And if I am right, it might even be pretty good. Del Toro has stated that he didn't think it would be correct to call it a "bridge" film. He as said that "there will be certain things that we will see from the first movie but from a different point of view. He also said that it will describe the movement from a "Golden Age" to "Darkness".

I see this film being framed in terms of the contest between Gandalf (and his allies, including Elrond, Galadriel, and of course Aragorn) and Sauron. Thus we will see the beginning of the Quest of Erebor from the point of view of Gandalf meeting Thorin and coming up with the "foolish" idea of sending Bilbo with the Dwarves to combat the dragon that Sauron "might use with terrible effect". Enough of this is described in Appendix A that they could get away with that without having to use the Quest of Erebor. We would of course see the meeting of the White Council and the driving of the Necromancer from Mirkwood, and Sauron's declaring himself in Mordor. We would see the return of the Nazgûl. We would see Balin's foolish retaking of Moria from the point of view of a gambit of Sauron's, along with the various dealings between Mordor and the Lonely Mountain and surrounding areas. And we will see Aragorn serving Rohan and Gondor in disguise, and then souring on the world of Men, and Gondor in particular, from his interactions with Denethor after serving Ecthelion as Thorongil, and defeating the Corsairs. We probably will also see a bit of the Shire, with the Rangers guarding it from harm, though I doubt it will focus much of the Hobbits.

I think that using this framework, they would be able to tie all of these disparate story lines together and make a film that was both cohesive and compelling, and best of all based largely on Tolkien's work

[Frelga]

Sounds like a cross of National Geographic and History Channel special. It's all very nice, but whose story is it? Whose struggle, growth, triumph and failures are we supposed to live through?

The only obvious answer is Aragorn, but if it all leads to the infamous "he had chosen exile" outcome, I will find it really hard to get excited.

[Primula Baggins]

If they can somehow frame Aragorn's choice properly it might work.

Imagine if Aragorn knows that he has to wait until a certain moment before asserting his claim to Gondor. What if there is some reason he cannot tell anyone that he intends to do so? And so he has to take the consequences of appearing to choose exile, when what he is in fact choosing is the best moment to fight.

Something like this might not just work for this one film; it might repair some of the damage done to Aragorn's character as presented in LotR. When we see him for the first time we would understand why he is playing this role, and that there's a leashed power there waiting for the time to be unleashed.

[Frelga]

Imagine if Aragorn knows that he has to wait until a certain moment before asserting his claim to Gondor. What if there is some reason he cannot tell anyone that he intends to do so? And so he has to take the consequences of appearing to choose exile, when what he is in fact choosing is the best moment to fight.

That actually occurred to me, Prim. Aragorn who knows he has the right to rule, yet "chooses exile" rather than cause strife among his people (not at all relevant to today's politics, of course ). They could work with the hints in the appendix to develop a relationship between Thorondor and Denethor to show why Aragorn could not hope to claim his destiny without provoking a civil war. Of course, that would a) contradict the whole "same blood, same weakness" nonsense of the movies and b) make movie-Elrond look like an even bigger twit, but at least we would get a movie with a sympathetic protagonist.

It would also mean that 99% of the material V mentioned is completely irrelevant to the story and really should not be included.

Another possibility would be Gandalf as protagonist. That would allow to show more of V's material. While I love Gandalf, I think there's a reason while he is only a supporting character in all books. He is too powerful for his story to be compelling, IMO.

I doubt they'd make a dwarf-centric movie.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If it is anyone's story, it will be Sauron's. But I think it is too limiting to say that it has to be some particular person's story. Think a little outside the box, Frelga. I would be thrilled to see this film follow a more unconventional pattern. And I think that del Toro has the chops to pull it off.

[Primula Baggins]

The other films and LotR itself tell the stories of many different characters. Aragorn's story could be one thread woven with others without hurting the film.

I suspect it may end up being one of the most important threads, simply because there's more to work with from the Appendices about Aragorn, but that may not apply if they find a way to use other sources.

[Alatar]

I prefer "The Sprequel"

[Frelga]

Think a little outside the box, Frelga.

"Zoology, eh? That's a big word, isn't it."

"No, actually it isn't," said TIffany. "Patronizing is a big word. Zoology is really quite short."

Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men

The other films and LotR itself tell the stories of many different characters. Aragorn's story could be one thread woven with others without hurting the film.

A good point about the ensemble stories, Prim, and I do agree. Still, LOTR, for instance, is first and foremost the story of Frodo's quest, and other characters are there to help in their various ways. And I think it's not coincidental that the biggest complaint I hear about Tolkien's LOTR is that the characters are so inaccessible. IIRC even yourself didn't find Aragorn a compelling, sympathetic character (sorry if I misunderstood). I disagree, myself, but I do hear that quite a bit.

The Gandalf vs. Sauron movie that V outlined could be done, but the problem is, both Maiar are so powerful, and so immutable, that it's hard to get invested in them. And a story only really works when the reader/viewer is personally invested in at least one of the characters.

And of course the biggest problem for me is that the movie would only have a very slight connection to actual Tolkien writings.

[Primula Baggins]

Your memory is quite correct, Frelga—I've never been able to find Aragorn to be a compelling character, even in the book. I accept the explanation of the learned that the "distance" of the characters is conventional for epics, but I don't have to like it.

And I am deeply glad Tolkien didn't take that approach with Frodo and Sam. They are and always have been my "way in" to the story, and my anchor while I'm there. Though the last time I read it I also found I was moved by the proud, angry humanness of Éowyn, so maybe I'm beginning to "get it."

I'm hoping they use every possible shred of story that Tolkien himself noted, even if he never fleshed it out. Then there will be less room for any possibly unfortunate inventions.

[Jnyusa]

I haven't looked at the threads on TORN. So what is this that del Toro is proposing - a connecting movie that would walk us backwards from LotR to the Hobbit?

If so ... I think Alatar nailed it - the Sprequel.

That's about the only kind of arc we haven't had yet, isn't it? But it will have to be someone's story or there won't be any market for the action figures.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, that's what we're discussing, actually.

[Jnyusa]

Oh wait, I get it now ... had a look at the interview on TORN .... he'll start with the Hobbit and go forward toward the beginning of LotR. That makes more sense. I thought he was going to do it in backwards order, like ... start with the birthday party and then tell some intermediate story so that when we got to the Hobbit we knew who Bilbo was ... or something. That sounded arfully difficult to me.

[narya]

It will need a love story, even if trumped up from some appendix or apocrypha. Or just plain made up.

[Frelga]

It will need a love story, even if trumped up from some appendix or apocrypha. Or just plain made up.

Well, there's the start of Arwen and Aragorn. I suppose they could throw in some sort of unrequited hobbit-love?

I don't necessarily think it's a good idea, mind.

Good to see you, narya.

[Primula Baggins]

I think there's a wonderful love story that won't be trumped up at all. Aragorn and Arwen meet, fall in love, and plight their troth on Cerin Amroth during the years covered by this film.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Think a little outside the box, Frelga.

"Zoology, eh? That's a big word, isn't it."

"No, actually it isn't," said TIffany. "Patronizing is a big word. Zoology is really quite short."

Terry Pratchett, The Wee Free Men

Frelga, I apologize if you thought I was being patronizing. That was not my intention. I was just teasing you a little.

And of course the biggest problem for me is that the movie would only have a very slight connection to actual Tolkien writings.

I think a goodly amount of it could at least follow closely Tolkien's writings, although of course a lot of dialog and detail would need to be invented. That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be bad.

As long as they don't let George Lucas work on the script.

[Frelga]

Frelga, I apologize if you thought I was being patronizing. That was not my intention. I was just teasing you a little.

And I was teasing you back, V-dear. Although I admit, I am particularly allergic to admonitions to think outside of the box since a nasty bout of "redesign" at work.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Mrs.Underhill]

Sounds like a cross of National Geographic and History Channel special. It's all very nice, but whose story is it? Whose struggle, growth, triumph and failures are we supposed to live through?

Exactly! Every movie needs an emotional, human connection, someone to root for and identify with in the story.
It needs a protagonist - or several, like in LotR movies ensemble.
Otherwise it will be cold, and it'll bomb.

And yes, Aragorn seems the obvious choice for that. But darn I need my hobbits for true warmth and real emotional investment!

So just grasping at straws here: Gollum? But his real development, his real journey, starts after meeting of Frodo and Sam. And before that nothing but the lust for the Ring and anger at being mistreated (as he would see it) by various parties - Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Sauron, Elves.

Bilbo? But the implication is that it will be someone else's POV in the 2nd movie. Still I think that if they would go with "Bilbo adopting Frodo while being slowly subverted by the Ring" story, maybe just as one of the many plot lines, they would add a point of strong emotional contact for many people. I, for example, will be waiting for this movie with baited breath, and that'll get me invested into it like nothing else.
Tiny!Orphan!Frodo? But in PJ's movies he starts as a blank slate, as an embodiment of innocense and not much else. So like Gollum, he wouldn't have an interesting story before LotR. Unless GDT would want to go beyound PJ's LotR canon, which I would only approve.

Other protagonists could be Stewards family. Or maybe Théoden etc. family. And all those actors would still be able to carry their roles.

Also - Viggo could still play Aragorn, so if we hear this kind of announcement we would know that they'd go with Aragorn as a protagonist. And if they can throw Orlando into the mix many fans will go bananas. Legolas and Aragorn start as awfully close in FotR, so maybe the 2nd movie can show how they come to be such good friends? That would certainly make a certain part of fandom very emotionally invested.

[axordil]

That would certainly make a certain part of fandom very emotionally invested.

Not to mention keeping slash writers busy for years...