The Hobbit: Can someone point me at some REAL info?

[Alcareru]

Mmm. Even better. Gandalf begins the tale, soft fade to a map of middle earth that spins from Gondor to the Shire, then a dissolve to a heli shot over lush green landscape to Bilbo on his stoop, Gandalf walking up ...

Edit: Just went back and reread "Quest of Erebor" from Unfinished Tales. There's a lot that could add to both the Hobbit and the LotR tie-in. Certainly the dwarves' initial attitudes toward Bilbo could be fleshed out a bit, making Bilbo's gain of their trust that much more dramatic. Gandalf's knowledge of Sauron, and Saruman's attempts to impede Gandalf, are also telling. I'm not sure, though, if we want Gandalf to answer the question "Why Bilbo" -- the reasoning sounds a bit too contrived. Touchy stuff, that.

If the whole thing were a story within a story, as it were, the movie could end with pulling back to the Fellowship at Minas Tirith, and could close with the last passage from "Quest of Erebor" -- the bit about all the good not happenning except for a chance meeting with Thorin at Bree. Don't know how the whole approach would play with a theater audience, but since the movie is coming after LotR, it might help to keep things in perspective.

I always thought Tolkiens explanation in the Quest of Erebor was a bit contrived, but then again Tolkien didnt write the hobbit knowing he was going to do LOTR later. But it could work I think.

 

[Orius]

Beorn can help them, but cut out his trip to the mountains to check on their story. EDIT: If you have to cut a scene, this is the one to lose. Just have the dwarfs manage to hang onto their packs so you don't have to explain how they get re-supplied before entering Mirkwood.

I'd certainly like to see Beorn in, because he's one of my favorite characters in the Hobbit.

Gotta have Bard and the Black Arrow!

Definitely

The tricky part is the Battle of Five Armies. Do you include the Arkenstone & Bilbo's betrayal? What about Beorn showing up? You have to have some buildup to the fight, but too much will drag. EDIT:I also think it would be hysterical to give Orlando Bloom & John Rhys-Davies cameos in the film: Legolas at his father's court when the dwarfs are imprisoned and a younger Gimli fighting in the Battle of Five Armies.

Yeah, leave the Arkenstone in. Beorn too. It'd be great to see him smacking down orcs in giant bear form. I suppose a legolas cameo would be interesting, but a Gimli cameo wouldn't work -- Gimli lived with the other dwarves in the Blue Mountains, but didn't go on the quest because he was considered too young at the time.

 

[Orius]

I'm not sure either, he seems to be very possessive of his father's work. I can understand not wanting to completely "sell out", but the estate does seem a bit rigid in its thinking sometimes.

Well, Tolkien's children have a fairly strong emotional attachment to their father's work. The Hobbit was a children's story he made up for them, and later Tolkien sent Christopher some of the chapters he has writing for LotR while Christopher was serving in WWII. I can understand that this stuff is very important to them and that they don't want it handled by people who simply wold be using it to make money off it and would be insensitive to Tolkien's reasons for writing the material.

 

[Orius]

I agree it would be tempting to cut back on the size of Thorin & Co. 13 dwarfs -most of whom never say a word of dialog in the book- is pretty excessive. It would rankle a lot of fans of the book to change it, though. "Lucky Number", and so on. Maybe cut it back to 6 dwarves so Bilbo is the 7th member of the group instead of 14th? Thorin, Balin, Oin, Gloin, Bombur, and maybe Dwalin (since he's Balin's brother).

Hmmm, cutting the dwarves would mess things up, after all, they added Bilbo so as not to travel with 13 people. However, I'd probably say Dori instaed of Oin, since Dori had to pick up Bilbo in the goblin tunnels and run with him on his back, where Ori seens a little less important. Thorin and Balin are definitely the two most importan,t and Gloin has to be left in because he's Gimli's father.

 

[kengar]

To follow up on what Kengar touched upon, I would love to see The Hobbit 'framed' as not just a prequel but almost like LOTR part 3.5. (Also, i do hope if someone gets the movie rights its PJ and WETA for continuity).

My understanding is that New Line currently owns the movie rights to the Hobbit. They bought the rights so as to keep someone else from riding LOTR's coattails. If New Line does greenlight the film (and I think they'd be idiots not to, after the billions LOTR is making them), they should definitely do their best to rope PJ into it. If Pete flat-out refuses, then that can't be helped. I'm afraid at that point they would probably churn something out & who knows what they'd get.

 

[kengar]

Hmmm, cutting the dwarves would mess things up, after all, they added Bilbo so as not to travel with 13 people. However, I'd probably say Dori instaed of Oin, since Dori had to pick up Bilbo in the goblin tunnels and run with him on his back, where Ori seens a little less important. Thorin and Balin are definitely the two most importan,t and Gloin has to be left in because he's Gimli's father.

Many of the dwarfs do certain things in the story (i.e. Dori picking up Bilbo, etc.), but nothing in the story makes it important that it's that particular dwarf saying or doing something. For instance, how would the story have suffered if it had been Balin who was carrying Bilbo in the tunnels?

Personally, I'd like to see the whole troop of 'em, but I also recognize that 15 central characters (dwarfs + Gandalf + Bilbo) is a large group to write a screenplay around.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

13 dwarves gives you lots of redshirts though. You could always up the tension by slaughtering one here or there. Trolls? Squish -- 12. Goblins? Thwack -- 11. Spiders? Eep -- 10. Smaug? Crunch -- 9. For PJ, master of gore, it would be a great opportunity!

On second thought ...

 

[Gallo22]

overall i give the movies a C- .

You've got to be kidding me?

I'm so tired of hearing this from the "professional" readers of the "books". Like your some special expert and nothing will or can disgrace the "holy books of Tolkien". Get over yourself and stop trying to put the movies down just so you can show-off that I'm a "true" Tolkien fan. Yes the books are "wonderful" but the movies in their own right are pretty dam good too.

The only people I could see not liking the move are people who actively want to hate or dislike the movie.

There is no arguing against ignorance! No one in their right mind could say these were bad movies! I just logicly don't see how?

I'm speaking to all the naysayers out there!

Personally , I think the book are too long and heavy winded!

 

[Hand of Evil]

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-film.html?2003-12/01/11.30.film

Jackson Mulls Hobbit Film
Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson told the Australian news.com.au Web site that he is now interested in helming a movie version of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit. Jackson said that Rings studio New Line Cinema had yet to speak to him about The Hobbit and added there were some difficulties related to the rights for the book.
But, Jackson said, "certainly if they want to talk to me about it, I'd be keen. It would be wonderful to complete the set of films." The Hobbit, which Tolkien published in 1937 before starting on The Lord of the Rings, is a children's story about Bilbo Baggins' first encounter with Gandalf, Gollum and the One Ring.
Lord of the Rings executive producer Mark Ordesky confirmed to the site that "there could be a movie about The Hobbit. Enough said." Before that, however, Jackson will have to complete work on his upcoming remake of the classic SF movie King Kong.

 

[diaglo]

Personally , I think the book are too long and heavy winded!

personally i think you are blowing smoke up your own ass.

i read for enjoyment.

i go to the movies for the same reason.

for me. the books and the movies were different.