Hobbit film pitfalls

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In many ways, The Hobbit seems like it would be a much more straightforward book to adopt than LOTR. The structure is linear, and much of the dialogue could translate easily directly to the screen. But there are a lot of potential pitfalls that the filmmakers face, and I think it would be fun to discuss what they are, and what potential solutions there might be.

The one that I am potentially most concerned is how they will present the transformation of the armies of the Dwarves, Elves and Men from opposing each other to joining together against the Orcs and Wargs. I think there is a significant chance that it will come across as completely unbelievable.

The other big one that I think about has they will succeed in demonstrating just how much courage it took for Bilbo to approach Smaug in the dark. That is the true climax of the book, and should be in the films as well.

What say you?

[axordil]

I think the main challenge is making a film with fourteen guys, none of whom are George Clooney or Brad Pitt, and all but one of whom have long beards.

But all that aside: the armies of Elves, Men and Dwarves had not yet actually engaged, at least in the book, so showing them all whipping their heads around (so to speak) doesn't strike me as problematic.

The animal servants in Beorn's are more of an obstacle to me, because they're one shade too kiddie-book for the rest of the story.

RE: Bilbo and Smaug. Doing a scene with limited light can be very effective, or muddy and useless. 3-D isn't going to help matters.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The animal servents will be easily dealt with; they simply will be (and should be ) removed.

I'm surprised that you dismiss the problem of the change of the armies from enemies to allies. I think it is something that needs some really subtle development, and I suspect that it is going to be tied to the Dol Guldur storyline, and make it more about contesting Sauron the Necromancer. Which could be really good, or really bad.

[axordil]

I think it is something that needs some really subtle development, and I suspect that it is going to be tied to the Dol Guldur storyline, and make it more about contesting Sauron the Necromancer. Which could be really good, or really bad.

That is the elephant in the den. If they're doing two parallel plot lines (which I'm still not sold on) they almost have to connect them.

I wouldn't bet on the animals being ditched, though. The CGI folks love rendering fur.

[Kezmoid]

I agree with axordil on this. Having the Elves, Dwarves and Men suddenly join forces to fight the Orcs and Wargs doesn't sound problematic to me. The reason for them going to war in the first place strikes me as a more of a problem.

As for Bilbo and Smaug - the scene will be brightly lit by floodlights considering PJs approach to lighting in Shelob's Lair and Moria.

I will make a prediction though: some of the scenes from "The Hobbit" which we believe would be incredibly cinematic straight from the page will prove disappointing. Those scenes that we thought would be difficult to translate to screen will turn out to be some of the best moments of the films and PJ will surprise us by expanding brilliantly on some part of the book we never even considered.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think it is something that needs some really subtle development, and I suspect that it is going to be tied to the Dol Guldur storyline, and make it more about contesting Sauron the Necromancer. Which could be really good, or really bad.

That is the elephant in the den. If they're doing two parallel plot lines (which I'm still not sold on) they almost have to connect them.

I'm not sold on it either, particularly since I think it is being driven by the profit margin of having two films rather than one. But I'm willing to give it a chance. That is someplace that I think that Guillermo's influence could be really helpful, because he is a really skillful storyteller.

I wouldn't bet on the animals being ditched, though. The CGI folks love rendering fur.

True. Well, we'll see.

Edit to add: I think that is a good prediction, Kez.

[Dave_LF]

I hesitate a bit to get hung up on particular scenes because, for all we know, the details will be changed so much that the concerns no longer even apply (remember all the talk about The Voice of Saruman and The Choices of Master Samwise?). I'm more concerned with the fact that Gandalf can't be shown to even suspect that Bilbo's ring is the one, despite the fact that he's got Sauron and dwarf-rings on the brain.

[axordil]

Dave--

From a bookish POV, Gandalf can be excused because it wasn't his field of expertise. He was working off of Saruman's body of knowledge on the Rings, and Saruman was even at that point suspect. The elves of Eregion evidently spit out a lot of low-grade magic rings while working up to the big ones.

From a movieish POV, Gandalf wasn't sure of the Ring's ID until he went to Gondor and came back with the fire/letters test. Actually, that jibes pretty well with the books.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, the whole question of how they handle the Ring is a huge question mark, particularly since if anything they ramped up the Ring's importance in in LOTR. That was a good idea at the time, I think, but it does set up a potential pitfall for making a film of The Hobbit afterwards.

[axordil]

"Hey, why isn't there any whispering when he holds the Ring?"

[yovargas]

Because the ring isn't fully "activated" until Sauron shows up, right? Isn't that the actual answer?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would say the "actual answer" is that the ring wasn't the One Ring in The Hobbit. As for the "not fully activated" type answer that a lot of people try to point to, I think that is going to be hard to pull off while at the same time playing up the Dol Guldur/White Council/Necromancer/Sauron storyline.

[Elentári]

Well, one way of looking at it is to pin it on the nature and resiliance of Hobbits, (which is why Bilbo was able to have the ring for so long with minimal side effects.)

Secondly, We know the Ring has a kind of sentience of its own, it was actively working its way back to its master, so took the opportunity to slip from Gollum to a new owner, but we could say that it was not fully awake until the beginning of FotR whenGollum had spilled the beans to Sauron. Also the Ring did not shine like a homing beacon until Frodo actually got to Mordor - it was the proximity of the Black Riders calling to it that caused the Ring to answer.

Therefore I think in THE HOBBIT it still works to have a dormant ring, and don't forget, PJ is supposed to be expanding Gollum's story, which presumably might entail having him leave the Misty Mountains to go after the "Thief" because of the hold the Ring has over him. That in itself should help demonstrate the dormant evil in the Ring.

[eborr]

thats going to be the crucial challenge, switching the emphasis of the hobbit so it fits into the the lotr. No issue with this at a visual level, but in terms of the story and thhe characters. How will "junkie" gollum fare at the riddle game.

[axordil]

The "best" junkies are the clever, cunning ones.

[Inanna]

"Hey, why isn't there any whispering when he holds the Ring?"

[SirDennis]

Gollum should be played quite differently for the later "junkie" angle to hold. During LOTR, being deprived of the Ring held him in perpetual withdrawal. In The Hobbit he should be much more relaxed but also more potent and menacing. In short a high functioning addict and sociopath.

[vison]

Gollum was really wicked. He stole babies from their cradles and what do you suppose he did with them? Since I'm not a character in Tolkien's books, I don't have to pity Gollum.

I also think that it isn't necessary or maybe even desirable to make The Hobbit fit EXACTLY with LOTR. First of all, many of the people who will see The Hobbit will not have read either book and, given the length of time that has passed, many of them will not have seen the movies, either.

The purists among us will moan and whine no matter what's done and every one of us will have different things to whine and moan about. I think PJ's "duty" is to make a good movie, first and foremost. Since his idea of what constitutes a good movie is rather far from mine, I don't expect to be content with what he does anyway.

To be honest, I don't see any way to make the Dwarves "attractive". That's the sticking point for me. In the book they were all very well but it's going to be hard to avoid thinking they're going to burst into a chorus of "Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to work we go . . . ."

[River]

If my memory serves, in the movie version of LOTR, Gandalf himself did not fully understand what it was that Bilbo had at the beginning of the movie. He knew it was a magic ring and he had some very strong suspicions about it, but, as in the book, he didn't know. In the extended edition, we see him go to Gondor and throw himself in the archives. In the books, he also goes to Gondor and throws himself in the archives but I can't remember if that's before or after the Long Expected Party. He and Aragorn also go on a Gollum hunt in the book; I can't remember what happened with that bit of story in the movies. In both movie editions and the book, he comes back to the Shire, throws the ring in the fire, and the adventure begins. Therefore, it seems like the issue of the ring in the Hobbit is actually a non-issue. The audience is better informed than the characters, but dramatic irony is fun and unavoidable in a prequel. In fact, it'll give the story a nice sinister thrill and take out some of the twee-ness of "Oh look, how fortunate, Bilbo has a magical ring now!". All they've got to do is show Bilbo being a bit weird about this thing he found and Gandalf saying something along the lines of "I don't know what that is but I have a very bad feeling," and you're set. In fact, the source material pretty much maps it out for them because, in the story, Bilbo is not upfront with his comrades about having the ring in the first place and then, when Gandalf asks him about what it is and how he got it, he lies about it. This was out of character and alarming. They can show that on film.

As for Gollum, he was higher functioning in the Hobbit than he was in LOTR. It shouldn't be too hard to portray that. Could you imagine LOTR Gollum playing a riddle game and almost winning?

Honestly, my main concern is the side stories they're cooking up. This whole Itaril thing has me going . I am not a purist, but the need to introduce a romantic thread into this is a little annoying. It could work, but it could also be a total fiasco and PJ has shown he can go either way.

ETA: the sad thing about the Dwarves is they picked some beautiful men to play them but they're going to be covering them in heavy make-up because Dwarves aren't supposed to be comely.

[vison]

I think that's a mistake. I think it would make for a much better movie if they got over the idea that the Dwarves all look like Gimli in the LOTR movies.

If PJ could change important things in the movies, then I, for one, wouldn't care if these Dwarves weren't buried under huge beards and long hair. There are things worth being "purist" about and there are things worth chucking out.