Do you want a hobbit movie?

[Prince of Cats]

Hey friends,

With all the talk of a hobbit movie and my re-viewing of the lord of the rings movie, I'm worried about a hobbit movie.

In Lord of the rings movie, Tom Bombadill is entirely omitted. To me the barrow-wights and Tom Bombadill are the epitome of the mysterious nature of Middle Earth. It was also the part I awaited most when Fellowship of the Ring came out, and had a hard time enjoying the movie in theater because of it. I waited for the rest of the films to come out on DVD, even, before watching them again.

But now as I reread the books (actually now I listen to the unabridged audiobooks) I find that I'm glad Tom and some other favorite parts were omitted, because my image of those parts is still purely my imagination's creation. Watching the movies, I often felt like Peter Jackson's interpretations weren't as good as my own, and now I wish I wouldn't see elijah wood when hearing about Frodo :p . Agent-smith as Elrond though and Liv Tyler as Arwen make it impossible to be immersed in the scenes like the books

As such, I'm wondering if we should have another hobbit movie. I think some things should be left sacred :D

What do you think?

Also is there a way for the script to have to be approved by C. Tolkien?

[Gothmog]

I would like to see a new Hobbit movie and without PJ.

Personaly I think it best to see someone else's view on Middle-earth this time. I have seen PJ's version, and much like the curate's egg it was Good in Parts. However, I found it wanting in some very important areas.

At least if we have a fresh view on Tolkien's works in the new movies there will be a good comparison to work with.

As for Christopher having approval of the script, this could only happen if the makers allow it. There is no way that he could demand this.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I doubt Christopher would approve of anything along these lines, not even under torture unto death...

Barley

[Starbrow]

Yes, there were many faults with PJ's interpretation of LOTR; some major ones in fact. On the whole, I enjoyed the movies. They could have been much, much worse. I'm thinking about some book adaptations I've watched where about the only similiarity between the book and the movies was the names of the characters. I think they could do a good movie without too many cringe-inducing moments.

[Eledhwen]

I've watched where about the only similiarity between the book and the movies was the names of the characters.Christopher Lee says as much in his autobiography - ad-libbing to INCLUDE bits from the original texts of Dracula etc. in his early films.

[I] had a hard time enjoying the movie in theater because of [the omissions.]The original Hobbit animated feature omitted Beorn, and even the Arkenstone! And the hobbits lived in little thatched mushroom-shaped cottages. I doubt it will get that bad; but the super-sentient animals (Beorn's and the Wolves) are almost certain to be axed (though the concept is straight from Celtic legend). Also, don't expect to see any elves singing ditties as Bilbo and the Dwarves approach Rivendell. I would be delighted to be wrong.

[Mike]

And the hobbits lived in little thatched mushroom-shaped cottages.

What? I remember they were in hobbit-holes in the hobbit cartoon. It even starts with Gandalf's voiceover saying "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." Bakshi's LOTR also featured hobbit-holes. I believe only Boorman's script had hobbits living in cottages. Did we watch the same cartoon?

omitted Beorn, and even the Arkenstone

It was also only 70 minutes long, and contained a surprising amount of material from the book despite its short length. You can't really hold it against them for ommitting those from an hour and ten minute feature, when whole gaping chunks were missing from Jackson's Adaptation, with each movie 3 hours or more in length.

[Eledhwen]

What? I remember they were in hobbit-holes in the hobbit cartoon. My bad! I was remembering The (animated) Lord of the Rings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5nwy7J4dg)! At about 2:32 in this YouTube clip.



It was also only 70 minutes long, and contained a surprising amount of material from the book despite its short length. You can't really hold it against them for ommitting those from an hour and ten minute feature, when whole gaping chunks were missing from Jackson's Adaptation, with each movie 3 hours or more in length.I see the Arkenstone as part of a theme running through Tolkien's work - The Silmarils, the Nauglamir, The Ring, The Arkenstone - the coveting of which always brought grief.

I fully agree with you about the Jackson adaptation - not only gaping chunks missing, but fanciful added bits that Tolkien would never have written; especially in the extended editions, which were an opportunity to fill in the missing parts of the real story.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...the super-sentient animals (Beorn's and the Wolves) are almost certain to be axed (though the concept is straight from Celtic legend). Also, don't expect to see any elves singing ditties as Bilbo and the Dwarves approach Rivendell. I would be delighted to be wrong.

What makes you deliver yourself of such dire predictions, m'dear? Do you have some inside info? Such things as the animals bearing torches and trays just beg for Weta Workshop computer animation, as well as a new Howard Shore score for elven ditties!

Barley

[e.Blackstar]

There's a 97% chance it will completely and utterly ruin a perfectly good, perfectly warm, childhood tale. DO NOT WANT.

[Eledhwen]

Such things as the animals bearing torches and trays just beg for Weta Workshop computer animation, as well as a new Howard Shore score for elven ditties!

BarleyYes, if they want the end result to look like Shrek or Doctor Dolittle. It would take a genius to make that scene look anywhere near believable.Beorn clapped his hands, and in trotted four beautiful white ponies and several large long-bodied grey dogs. Beorn said something to them in a queer language like animal noises turned into talk. They went out again and soon came back carrying torches in their mouths, which they lit at the fire and stuck in low brackets on pillars of the hall about the central hearth. The dogs could stand on their hind-legs when they wished, and carry things with their fore-feet. Quickly they got out boards and trestles from the side walls and set them up near the fire.Oh, how I'd love to see it!

There's a 97% chance it will completely and utterly ruin a perfectly good, perfectly warm, childhood tale.87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Barliman Butterbur]

"87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot."

Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Barley

[Mali]

I have found that the only way I can watch a movie based on a book that I have read is if I keep them completely separate in my mind. the lord of the rings trilogy and the harry potter movies were all very disappointing to me at first. But if you take away all prior knowledge of the books, the movies are quite good. I heard Peter Jackson is not doing the hobbit, and I was sad at first, since I think he was a great director (though not a purist in the least bit), but now I am content to give another director the chance. I do hope that whoever is responsible for the hobbit movie does a good job, if not following the book, at least by choosing good actors, appropriate scenes, special effects, costumes, and other such elements of the film.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I have found that the only way I can watch a movie based on a book that I have read is if I keep them completely separate in my mind.

Exactly so! Failure (inability) to do that was what caused all the upheaval between those "purists" who called the movies heresy and those who liked them.

Tolkien and PJ are apples and oranges, and it's just silly to say that one's better or worse than the other, especially when it's possible to like each for what they are.

Barley

[Gothmog]

Exactly so! Failure (inability) to do that was what caused all the upheaval between those "purists" who called the movies heresy and those who liked them.It was not quite as simple as that. There were also extreamists on the film side who claimed that unless you worked in the film industry you had no right to criticise.

Tolkien and PJ are apples and oranges, and it's just silly to say that one's better or worse than the other, especially when it's possible to like each for what they are.

BarleyThis true, so far as the films are concerned, what I like I enjoy, what I don't like I detest. I am hoping that the Hobbit will end up as two films I can enjoy.