One Hobbit Good, Two Hobbits Bad - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë · 02-02-2008, 11:21 AM

There's an interesting item on the Grauniad website here: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/200..._will_the.html

Now this brings up the real sticking point for me about the films of The Hobbit. That it's 'films', not 'film'.

Despite all the fun I have griping about the films of LotR, I did enjoy them as films. It was enjoyable if nerve wracking to finally see the books 'brought to life' as the cliche goes. Despite all this somewhere at the back of my mind and at the root of the films is the knowledge that they simply would not have existed without the books; they are not divisible from the original stories. The stories are the films.

It will be equally as enjoyable and nerve wracking to see a film of The Hobbit.

But as for this in-betweenie? No. It pushes the whole thing right over the brink from Hollywood into greedy Mammon. The word 'franchise' is used everywhere and rightly. The very concept of making this 'bridge' film is no more than another branch of Tesco, Starbucks or McDonalds in a long line of others. And that takes it right out of the magical world of Tolkien which was so special. Who feels the same?

Macalaure · 02-02-2008, 01:00 PM

The fifth film really does smell a bit like it's only going to be made for the sake of money-making, along the lines of "As long as there's some material left that could make a buck or two, we're going to use it." It's a bit sad.

There surely is a decent amount of interesting material for that second film, but how all that is going to form a continuous storyline, with climax and everything, is a mystery to me. Yet worse, almost the entire dialogue would have to be written new by the screenwriters, who didn't do the best job at capturing Tolkien's language when inventing something for the LotR.

If they know a way to manage themselves through these obstacles, then, sure, why not? But I can't imagine they'll be able to. The film might turn out to be passable, but you have to think about how it is going to measure up to the other four films. It seems like even in the best case, the 'franchise' is going to end with a disappointment, especially for those who haven't read the books and don't know that the film-makers are working with source material which is, in all probability, unsuitable for such a film.

In another thread, somebody suggested that the Appendices would make a good 'Animatrix'-type collection of short films. I would very much prefer that.

Sauron the White · 02-02-2008, 01:37 PM

Prudence dictates that it is best to judge the pie after it has been eaten.

davem · 02-02-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Prudence dictates that it is best to judge the pie after it has been eaten.

Even if you already know the ingredients?

Estelyn Telcontar · 02-02-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Prudence dictates that it is best to judge the pie after it has been eaten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

Even if you already know the ingredients?

Well, guys, if we use that simile, then consider these threads to be discussions of recipes!

A very valid topic, yet reading a recipe cannot substitute for the actual experience of tasting the finished product. Therefore this is a preliminary to the meal - enjoy it for what it is. When we've eaten, we'll come back to discuss how it tasted!

Oh, and check out this thread for further discussion of the second film idea...

Lalwendë · 02-02-2008, 03:00 PM

Note, this is not about what it may or may not contain, it's about the 'ethics' of making such a film, about if it's a good idea or not.

For me, it's not a film I'm looking forwards to seeing at all. Unlike The Hobbit (even if it does turn out to feature a Greek chorus of eructating Dwarves) which I will certainly go and see.

It's odd. I lapped up the merchandise produced for the LotR films, even the dodgy content of books like Weapons & Warfare was something I could skim over just for the sheer fun of it all. It was all based on characters I loved, in situations I'd read about, in places I quite fancied visiting. An adventure. But I'm quite the opposite about the 'bridge' film. It feels like treading on Tolkien's grave somehow.

There isn't that sense of seeing a much-loved story brought to life.

Do we want to see Tolkien's stories on screen or just see more of Legolas and Galadriel like they're soap characters?

I'd be interested to know if anything similar has worked?

Sauron the White · 02-02-2008, 03:09 PM

Many beloved and great films have been made from a great deal less than the material contained in the LOTR appendicies. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE was adapted from a holiday greeting card.

Nerwen · 02-10-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

In another thread, somebody suggested that the Appendices would make a good 'Animatrix'-type collection of short films. I would very much prefer that.

Seconded. Now that could be seriously cool. (Although I found the "Animatrix" to be uneven.)

Eönwë · 02-10-2008, 10:08 AM

The silmarillion (including chunks from BoLT, UT and HoME) would be amazing. Especially the ones that don't include the Ainur (As that would spoil it a bit), welll, maybe Beren and Luthien (But except that , no AInur)

Lalwendë · 02-10-2008, 04:03 PM

So, Boro, don't fancy sitting through three hours of Bilbo hiding from his neighbours with the tense point being the death of Frodo's parents? Nor me.

The Star Wars analogy is spot on.

What really troubles me is that the reader needs absolutely NO extra information than what Tolkien gave us in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - he was saying "Move along, nothing to see here" and it worked. What's more, Jackson pulled off something very, very difficult in getting the 'prologue' scenes in Lord of the Rings to work, to convey all the information even the most casual viewer might need.

There's just nothing to add in there and that's what rankles.

Sauron the White · 02-10-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

So, Boro, don't fancy sitting through three hours of Bilbo hiding from his neighbours with the tense point being the death of Frodo's parents? Nor me. The Star Wars analogy is spot on.

I do not think that focus has a snowballs chance of being the second movie.
Sauron, Dol Goldur, and the Council throwing him out of Mirkwood is what I would put my money on. That is far more interesting than Bilbo doing just about anything you can think of.

02-02-2008, 11:21 AM	#1
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	One Hobbit Good, Two Hobbits Bad There's an interesting item on the Grauniad website here: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/200..._will_the.html Now this brings up the real sticking point for me about the films of The Hobbit. That it's 'films', not 'film'. Despite all the fun I have griping about the films of LotR, I did enjoy them as films. It was enjoyable if nerve wracking to finally see the books 'brought to life' as the cliche goes. Despite all this somewhere at the back of my mind and at the root of the films is the knowledge that they simply would not have existed without the books; they are not divisible from the original stories. The stories are the films. It will be equally as enjoyable and nerve wracking to see a film of The Hobbit. But as for this in-betweenie? No. It pushes the whole thing right over the brink from Hollywood into greedy Mammon. The word 'franchise' is used everywhere and rightly. The very concept of making this 'bridge' film is no more than another branch of Tesco, Starbucks or McDonalds in a long line of others. And that takes it right out of the magical world of Tolkien which was so special. Who feels the same? __________________ Gordon's alive!

02-02-2008, 01:00 PM	#2
Macalaure Fading Fëanorion Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: into the flood again Posts: 2,911	The fifth film really does smell a bit like it's only going to be made for the sake of money-making, along the lines of "As long as there's some material left that could make a buck or two, we're going to use it." It's a bit sad. There surely is a decent amount of interesting material for that second film, but how all that is going to form a continuous storyline, with climax and everything, is a mystery to me. Yet worse, almost the entire dialogue would have to be written new by the screenwriters, who didn't do the best job at capturing Tolkien's language when inventing something for the LotR. If they know a way to manage themselves through these obstacles, then, sure, why not? But I can't imagine they'll be able to. The film might turn out to be passable, but you have to think about how it is going to measure up to the other four films. It seems like even in the best case, the 'franchise' is going to end with a disappointment, especially for those who haven't read the books and don't know that the film-makers are working with source material which is, in all probability, unsuitable for such a film. In another thread, somebody suggested that the Appendices would make a good 'Animatrix'-type collection of short films. I would very much prefer that. Last edited by Macalaure; 02-02-2008 at 01:04 PM.

02-02-2008, 03:00 PM	#6
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Note, this is not about what it may or may not contain, it's about the 'ethics' of making such a film, about if it's a good idea or not. For me, it's not a film I'm looking forwards to seeing at all. Unlike The Hobbit (even if it does turn out to feature a Greek chorus of eructating Dwarves) which I will certainly go and see. It's odd. I lapped up the merchandise produced for the LotR films, even the dodgy content of books like Weapons & Warfare was something I could skim over just for the sheer fun of it all. It was all based on characters I loved, in situations I'd read about, in places I quite fancied visiting. An adventure. But I'm quite the opposite about the 'bridge' film. It feels like treading on Tolkien's grave somehow. There isn't that sense of seeing a much-loved story brought to life. Do we want to see Tolkien's stories on screen or just see more of Legolas and Galadriel like they're soap characters? I'd be interested to know if anything similar has worked? __________________ Gordon's alive!

02-10-2008, 10:08 AM	#9
Eönwë Flame Imperishable Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Right here Posts: 3,928	The silmarillion (including chunks from BoLT, UT and HoME) would be amazing. Especially the ones that don't include the Ainur (As that would spoil it a bit), welll, maybe Beren and Luthien (But except that , no AInur) __________________ Welcome to the Barrow Do-owns Forum / Such a lovely place

02-10-2008, 04:03 PM	#10
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	So, Boro, don't fancy sitting through three hours of Bilbo hiding from his neighbours with the tense point being the death of Frodo's parents? Nor me. The Star Wars analogy is spot on. What really troubles me is that the reader needs absolutely NO extra information than what Tolkien gave us in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - he was saying "Move along, nothing to see here" and it worked. What's more, Jackson pulled off something very, very difficult in getting the 'prologue' scenes in Lord of the Rings to work, to convey all the information even the most casual viewer might need. There's just nothing to add in there and that's what rankles. __________________ Gordon's alive!

02-02-2008, 01:37 PM	#3
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Prudence dictates that it is best to judge the pie after it has been eaten.

02-02-2008, 03:09 PM	#7
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	Many beloved and great films have been made from a great deal less than the material contained in the LOTR appendicies. ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE was adapted from a holiday greeting card.