Harry Potter and The Hobbit

[Alatar]

Having watched the final Harry Potter movie, I find myself comparing the two franchises, as books, as movies and as adaptations. I think the two franchises are similar in many ways, and these similarities are what I want to discuss from an adaptation point of view.

Firstly, to look at the novels as series. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are set in the same world. Just about. Its a very uneasy marriage. The Middle Earth of The Hobbit is very different to that of Lord of the Rings. Much can be partially explained by the "Bilbo as Narrator" device, and the escalating danger as the War of the Ring approaches, but much simply has to be ignored. In The Hobbit we have a talking purse, Cockney Trolls who turn to stone in daylight, a talking thrush, a talking raven, a magic ring (of which there are many apparently), singing orcs, magic doors that only open at a certain time of the year under a certain moon (in other words practically useless except as a plot device), a magic arrow that never misses its mark, a were bear served by animal servants, including some who have been trained to walk on their hind legs and carry trays. In The Lord of the Rings, all of these are ignored, not mentioned or brushed under the carpet to serve the darker, more serious world. Early in Fellowship we get the sentient fox, but this feels almost like a mistake, an anachronism in the LotR. Bombadil also straddles the two worlds, having been brought in from another source and shoehorned into the story. As such Tolkien has to make an effort to explain him and his odd nature, fairly unsatisfactorily. We also have the disappearing Wargs in Hollin. However, by The Two Towers, we're in the "real" Middle Earth. The gritty one, where magic is subtle, where dangers are real and can't simply vanish with the dawn. Every reader of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings has had to make this mental bridge. Some still find the gap too far. Some go to extraordinary lengths to justify it. Most of us simply choose to ignore the seams.

The Harry Potter series was not written in the same fashion. J.K. Rowling states that she always intended it as a 7 book series, one for each of the years of school. But again, the Hogwarts of Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets is a very different world to that of the later novels. Students of Hogwarts sing the school anthem at the top of their voices to whatever tune they prefer, "Hoggy, Hoggy, Hogwarts" indeed. Harry has a magic cloak, but its just "really rare/expensive" and gets confiscated like a spud gun, not a unique item of all powerful wizardry. Most of the drama is around playing Quidditch and winning the House Cup rather than fighting evil incarnate. In this sense, the first two novels are more like Enid Blyton novels, simply kids outsmarting the adults and having a jolly good time, like a Famous Five for the new generation. With Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire we move into a more serious phase, much as Fellowship sort of bridges the gap between The Hobbit and LotR "proper". Now we have death and torture, and the politics of Evil. By the end of the series we're in a very different world. "You know who" isn't just a childish inability by adults to speak their fears aloud, one that the plucky kids ignore, its a real fear caused by a summoning curse that attracts Deatheaters when Voldemort's name is mentioned. The Invisibility Cloak is one of the Deathly Hallows, and part of a triumvirate of items that will grant immortality to Voldemort. Dumbledore is not just a kindly old man, he has raised Harry like a lamb for slaughter. Its a much darker world.

Aside from the superficial similarities, probably the most obvious comparison is the Invisibility Cloak. Like Bilbo's ring, its an innocent item, one of many. Rare, yes, but nothing really special. However, in Deathly Hallows it becomes a unique item of great power, that the dark lord must possess if he is to live forever. As in LotR we have to wonder what the hell Gandalf/Dumbledore were playing at. We, the readers, knew nothing of this, but Gandalf and Dumbledore both knew that their charges had in their possession items of immense power, yet allowed them to treat them as playthings. Again, we must willingly suspend disbelief to accept the storyline proposed.

So how did the Harry Potter movies get away with this? In essence, they made the first couple of movies just a little bit more serious, to match the tone of the later movies more closely. Also, they simply didn't mention anything that they might have to explain away later. PJ and co obviously have the more difficult task. They need to move from the darker world back to the simpler, more light-hearted one. Because for The Hobbit, PJ can't simply pretend its the first movie. We've seen Middle Earth. We know the rules. We've seen Trolls in daylight. The Ring is all powerful and dangerous. Will PJ simply show the gap and let the audience ignore the seams? In some ways that's what happened in Harry Potter. No attempt was made to imbue the Invisibility Cloak with portentous symbolism. It remained a kids plaything until suddenly, it wasn't. Can PJ do that with the Ring?

I think its safe to say that, as with the first two Harry Potter movies, the really childish aspects will be excised. The talking purse will go the way of the Hogwarts Anthem. Where elements can be altered and retained, they will. Examples here would be the Trolls, the talking animals etc. These I could see being handled in a more realistic fashion, rather than a comical one. Use of telepathy/subtitles will show Bard understanding the thrush, and Balin understanding Roäc, rather than actual spoken English in the case of Roäc. However, its impossible to completely ignore the Ring. If the Ring had been introduced in the Hobbit movies first as it should have been, it could have been treated like the Invisibility cloak, and let its significance become clear over time. But we've seen the Wraith world. Putting on the Ring is a scary transportation to a world of dead kings and giant eyes of flame. Yes, I know Bilbo seemed to use it that first time in Fellowship with no worry, but for the Cinema goer this needs to be explained. Perhaps PJ and Co will start with a subtle effect that grows more pronounced as the movies progress, tying the wraith world effect of the Ring to the rise of Dol Guldor in some fashion. However, he still needs to make it innocuous enough that Gandalf does not seem foolish in leaving Bilbo to play with "One of the Great Rings, for clearly it was" for 60 years. Its a thorny problem, and I think, the most difficult one they will have to face.

Anyway, I've meandered a bit from topic to topic, but I hope there's enough here to merit discussion!

[Pearly Di]

Great analysis of both franchises, Al.

Personally, I think PJ should go for the darker, grittier vision of Middle-earth ... without losing the fun. Sounds like there will be great Dwarf camaraderie.

The nature of the One Ring, as we first encounter it in TH, and Gandalf's attitude to it, is certainly a knotty problem for PJ.

[I've never felt inclined to reread the first two Potter books since they are so obviously children's books and while I think children's fiction is actually a difficult art form to achieve, I just don't read children's books. I gravitate far more to the much darker novels later on in the series.

For the same reason, I never reread The Hobbit. Not because I don't have a great affection for it, but because it belongs so very much to my childhood ... which I rarely re-visit. Whereas I have reread LotR and Silmarillion many times.]

[Elentári]

A great topic, Al, and one that will take some time to consider, but here are my initial thoughts on one particular point, at least...

Aside from the superficial similarities, probably the most obvious comparison is the Invisibility Cloak. Like Bilbo's ring, its an innocent item, one of many. Rare, yes, but nothing really special. However, in Deathly Hallows it becomes a unique item of great power, that the dark lord must possess if he is to live forever. As in LotR we have to wonder what the hell Gandalf/Dumbledore were playing at. We, the readers, knew nothing of this, but Gandalf and Dumbledore both knew that their charges had in their possession items of immense power, yet allowed them to treat them as playthings. Again, we must willingly suspend disbelief to accept the storyline proposed.

I would argue there is an important difference between Dumbledore and Gandalf in that Dumbledore was not sent to earth by higher beings, with all the inner knowledge that must have entailed. Dumbledore is not “omnipotent", one presumes that realization of the true situation only became clear to him over the years - he could not have raised Harry like a sacrificial lamb to the slaughter if he did not know about Voldemort's Horcruxes until many years later....nor did he plan to die chasing the Horcruxes.

His knowledge of the Hallows and motivation towards them is not so clear, however. We know he actively sought the elder wand, from Grindelwald. He recognized the resurrection stone in the Gaunt family ring once he had obtained it, even though Voldemort had apparent not, or at least, not cared about the powers of the stone. Did Dumbledore already know the truth about Harry's cloak, at that point? He had already passed it to Harry, but could have take it back on some pretext if he had so desired. However, he did not, so maybe he himself dd not want to own all three Hallows…

I don't think there is as much of a problem with the invisability cloak as there is with Bilbo's ring. Do we know for certain that such cloaks are in fact unique in the wizarding world? Perhaps there are indeed cheaper imitations, but only Harry's is the true Hallow. In any case, the role of the Hallows was rather glossed over in the film, apart from the wand.

Although she planned 7 books, one wonders how much of the story Rowling had actually worked out in advance - she famously stated that she knew exactly what Harry's ultimate fate would be - and how much simply evolved as she went along. I also wonder if there are things which she might wish to go back and change, given the opportunity.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But the Gandalf of The Hobbit was clearly not sent to Middle-earth by higher beings either, though obviously at this point it is difficult to separate that character from the angelic being who was known as Olórin in the West.

Great topic, Al, and very well expressed. That having been said, I'm not convinced that that is the approach that PJ is going to take. I think they Hobbit films are going to be more distinct from the LOTR films than many people are expecting. I am looking for the talking purse and birds to be present, for instance. But the Ring will be a tricky aspect, particularly with the added White Council/Dol Guldur/Necromancer scenes. I think that PJ will try to make the Ring mean two different things at the same time, the innocent magic ring to Bilbo and the Dwarves, but with hints at its dark power coming from the other storyline. Whether that can be successfully done remains to be seen.