"The Hobbit" Dilemma

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is a rare dilemma that GdT, PJ et al. face in adapting The Hobbit to the screen that I think is unique in the history of cinematic adaptations (or at least I'm not aware of any similar situations in my limited knowledge of cinematic history). The Hobbit of course was written before LOTR, with only loose connections to the Tolkien's already existing mythology. It therefore has a very different feel that LOTR does, even after Tolkien made a fundamental change to the Riddles in the Dark chapter to bring in more in line with the developing sequel. However, the filmmakers are faced with a situation where the LOTR films already exist, and an audience that largely will be familiar with them. So the dilemma is do they attempt to adapt The Hobbit in a way that is faithful to the book, which would essentially require that they disregard aspects of the already existing world of the LOTR films, or do they bow to the reality that the audience will already be familiar with the world of LOTR, and adapt the book with that reality in mind, necessitating certain fundamental deviations from the spirit of the original book? Or do they try to walk a fine line between these two extremes? What pitfalls will they face depending on which of these options they choose?

[Holbytla]

So the dilemma is do they attempt to adapt The Hobbit in a way that is faithful to the book

Faith is a relative term when it comes to adaptations.
I suspect in this case they will follow pretty much the same path as in LOTR.
Faithful to an extent while leaving themselves plenty of room to adapt and to create. And in this instance I mean faithful to the book.

As far as faithful to PJ's movies, well really I don't see too much wandering on the part of DT away from what PJ has already created. Financially it would be silly to mess with the success of the movies and really regardless of what PJ's title may be this time around, he will still have sufficient input in order to keep the movies pretty well connected.

And maybe having a different director will prove enough difference to somewhat match the differing styles of the Hobbit and LOTR.

I just hope for small amounts of creationism.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Structurally, The Hobbit really does lend itself to a faithful adaptation much more than LOTR does. But there is the added complication that the filmmakers have committed to making it two movies, and have apparently abandoned the idea of making the second film some kind of "bridge" film or "original prequel". I'm not sure whether having two films makes it more or less likely that the films will remain faithful to the source material. Probably a little of both.

I hope the filmmakers carefully study the Rankin Bass cartoon so that they can fully understand what NOT to do.

Edit to add: One critical point that the filmmakers will need to get right is the transition from the Dwarven army facing the Elven and Human armies in potential battle to being their allies against the Orcs and Wargs. That could be a disastrous scene if it isn't done correctly.

[Padme]

I think they will stay with the LOTR format, which will mean some of the Hobbit will need to be changed. I don't know if there will be talking animals in the movie and or a shape-shifting woodsman. I wonder about the whole dwarf party at the beginning and all those instruments, which even in the book seems a bit weird to me.

On the whole GDT will work closely with PJ and they will make the Hobbit movie much darker than the book to keep it in line with the other movies.

I have to say I did not know they had abandoned the 'bridge' concept, I thought that was still a go. Which makes me wonder is there enough for two movies in The Hobbit? Just saying it's not as intense as the other books, imho.


And I agree, they have to get the battle scenes correct.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think they will stay with the LOTR format, which will mean some of the Hobbit will need to be changed. I don't know if there will be talking animals in the movie and or a shape-shifting woodsman. I wonder about the whole dwarf party at the beginning and all those instruments, which even in the book seems a bit weird to me.

I doubt they will have talking animals, but GdT has stated that Beorn will play an important role in the film, thank God.

I think del Toro will make his own film a lot more than people expect. The only specific deviation from the LOTR films that I have heard is that he is going to redesign the wargs to look more like wolves and less like hyenas. Thank God. A small point, perhaps, but one that shows that GdT is willing to go his own way.

It remains to be seen how much "bridge" material is or is not added to the main narrative to fill out the two films. GdT indicated at one point that the first film would end after Smaug's death, but he shut up about details soon after that, and I am hoping that he'll actually break it early than that.

[sauronsfinger]

I opt for your choice of walking the fine line.

There is far too much money at risk here and far too much money to be made for them NOT to cash in on the Middle-earth that everyone knows from the first three films. Atthe same time, HOBBIT is a beloved book with many devoted fans. Both will be served within the context of making a good film.

As for pitfalls, who knows? Is continual sniping and second guessing from purists on these sites a pitfall? I have a feeling if they replicate the financial and critical success of the first three films, we here can type until our fingers get raw and it will make no difference in the greater scheme of things.

[Primula Baggins]

It never did make any difference in the greater scheme of things.

But it made for some fascinating conversations (along with a bit of shouting at times).

[Pearly Di]

As for pitfalls, who knows? Is continual sniping and second guessing from purists on these sites a pitfall?

'Sniping'? The buzz from the fandom seems overwhelmingly positive to me.

Which contrasts with the nervousness of Tolkien geeks when they first got wind in 1999 of PJ's designs and the general outrage that Arwen was going to be outshining both Frodo and Glorfindel.

I have a feeling if they replicate the financial and critical success of the first three films, we here can type until our fingers get raw and it will make no difference in the greater scheme of things.

As Prim said, it never made any difference the first time round.

It's all about us having fun, isn't it?

[sauronsfinger]

it sure is

I sometimes wonder if you go to OZ sites, are there OZ purists who have negative opinions about Judy Garland and the 39 pic and still pursue the grudge almost seventy years later?

[Padme]

Well if the movie was all that was referenced for OZ there wouldn't be a problem. The problem comes in with those people who have read and loved the books, sort of like Tolkien Purists.


Thanks V-man for the information. I am glad Beorn will be in the movie.

So if the first movie ends at the death of Smaug, the second movie would end with the Arkenstone and Battle of the Five armies, with perhaps a little bridge to the Fellowship?

The better make Smaug look good.

[Alatar]

Yes Padme, but it seems likely that Film 2 will be filled out with stuff from the appendices. I expect we'll see the deliberations of the White Council and the attack on Dol Guldor also. That should be more than enough to make two meaty movies!

[vison]

I hope so.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm really of two minds about including a specific attack on Dol Guldur and the White Council deliberations. Part of me thinks that it would be really cool to see that, but part also worries that it will pull the films too far from the heart of The Hobbit. Also, I worry that in expanding on the White Council material, but needing to avoid using or duplicating material from UT, they will go to far afield from the "real" story.

[Alatar]

Its a concern, certainly, but much more preferable in my mind to a fully invented "Bridge Movie".

[sauronsfinger]

Well I want Sideshow Toys to make a Dol Guldur polystone environment so I am all for those ideas.

[Dave_LF]

Its a concern, certainly, but much more preferable in my mind to a fully invented "Bridge Movie".

I don't know; at least that way all the made-up stuff would be in one place where it's easy to ignore.

[Aravar]

I'm really of two minds about including a specific attack on Dol Guldur and the White Council deliberations. Part of me thinks that it would be really cool to see that, but part also worries that it will pull the films too far from the heart of The Hobbit. Also, I worry that in expanding on the White Council material, but needing to avoid using or duplicating material from UT, they will go to far afield from the "real" story.

But if the current litigation is settled, there is scope for including the rights to use some of the UT material in the settlement.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't believe that is true. I would be very, very surprised if Christopher agreed to grant any rights to anything that was not previously sold.

[Padme]

I don't believe that is true. I would be very, very surprised if Christopher agreed to grant any rights to anything that was not previously sold.

I agree.

Adding that if GdT/PJ even so much as venture into crossing into any of those non-right territory, Christopher will probably go ballistic.

I also have mixed feelings about a fully made up bridge movie. I have faith in both GdT and PJ to write and make good movies, but IMHO, neither have the ability to write a ME story on par with Tolkien.

[Alatar]

I dunno. There were a few things like the Ring of Barahir in LotR that must have been taken from non-LotR sources. I'd imagine that unless they try to film Beren and Lúthien they'd get a bit of latitude. I mean, if they use a bit of the Quest for Erebor to make a better Hobbit, why would Christopher have a problem with that?