The Hobbit

Many thanks for your reply, but I confess the 'real' reason seems just like the first one to me--the limitations are imposed arbitrarily for the sake of the story.

I'd love to see a good film made about 'The Hobbit', because it also seemed to me a better candidate for a movie than LOTR, because obviously, it's a shorter, tighter narrative. Probably I'm a heretic, but I hope they won't extend it with prologues and explanations--just stick mainly to the story. It is, after all, a children's book, not an academic exercise--I don't think it neeRAB too many complications.
If I can draw a parallel, T.H.White wrote 'The Sword in the Stone' and then 'The Once and Future King'. They were aimed at different audiences, and have a different atmosphere, which I think applies to 'The Hobbit' and 'LOTR' as well.
 
Well you may think that, but there are a variety of reasons why using the Eagles was a really terrible idea.

* Firstly you had to get the eagles to agree

* Then you had to persuade Frodo and Sam to allow themselves to be carried

* Eagles would not have been particularly subtle, they (and the ring that was carried) would have been seen instantly. It would have been an uncontrolled, desparate gamble and the odRAB, given the presence of winged nazgul as well as archers, would not have been good.

* And of course there was the issue of the intuiative foresight of Gandalf: Gandalf somehow foresaw that Gollum was somehow central and crucial to the success of the mission. As we saw, Frodo seemed unable to relinquish the ring of his own accord. Had he been successfully flown to the cracks of doom he could not have just cast the ring therein. And if Frodo could not do this, it's extremely doubtful any one else could. I suppose Gandalf or someone could have pushed Frodo over the edge, but otherwise it seems certain that an attempt to rush things with the eagles would have handed victory to Sauron on a platter.

Given the above, it isn't at all surprising that the Wise rejected such a plan, if indeed they even dared to consider it.
 
Im confused as I read this on the BBC website that Peter Jackson is producing the two films but the director has yet to be announced:

"Peter Jackson, Oscar-winning director of the Lord of the Rings movies, has signed a deal to produce two films based on JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit.
The filmmaker had been in dispute with New Line Cinema over income generated by the first film in the Rings trilogy.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us," said Jackson. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

A director for the films - prequels to the Rings movies - has yet to be named.

The two Hobbit films will be filmed simultaneously, with their release planned for 2010 and 2011.

'New chapter'

Sir Ian McKellen has already expressed an interest in reprising his role as the wizard Gandalf.

In a statement, Jackson said the agreement enabled his Wingnut Films company to "begin a new chapter with our old frienRAB at New Line".

The three films in the Rings trilogy generated $3bn (
 
A lot of the book feels like that. It helps to read Tolkien's other writing, where there is a lot of background and depth. That the eagles are spirits sent by Manwe to observe Middle Earth is explained in the Silmarilion.
 
I just can't wait for this. The prospect of finally seeing a dragon done properly... watching Smaug smoke Laketown.. it's going to be brilliant, I hope.

The only question in my mind is will Andy Serkis be used to motion capture Smaug? :D

After seeing him with the arm extensions doing KK, seeing him with wings would be very funny!
 
Alan Rickman is the first man I thought of when I read the news on BBC. They could of course go down the route of not voicing Smaug at all, the idea of a talking dragon may not work on screen.
 
It all ties into the mythology of middle earth. That the time of magic, of elves etc is fading, and that the time of men is now here.

As such, the Eagles and Gandalf both being spirits of magic being, effectively equivalent to angels, are bound by a certain detachment and rules.

Similar to God allowing bad things because of free will of men...
 
I agree that the warg attack was poor. I think PJ decided he needed an exciting action scene midway in the film otherwise you would have had nearly 2 hrs of film with nothing 'exciting' happening. You, and for that matter I, probably wouldn't agree, but to be blunt the film wasn't made for purist Tolkien fans but for the mass US audience who need their adrenaline rush and have the attention span of goldfish! However, the warg attack was laughable at best and Aragorn's apparent death was too much of a departure form the book for me.

On the matter of the collapsing stair in Moria, I have to disagree. I really like that scene. The score is excellent, giving us the full Fellowship theme in all it's glory. It's the Fellowship's finest hour, overcomming the danger and making it to apparent safety, giving the audience a high just before Gandalf falls, making that all the more tragic. I think it works really well.
 
According to the commentary, Aragorn's fall was needed because otherwise the warg attack would seem pointless. (Which it was, of course.) They felt they had to put characters in jeopardy else the film would lack tension. This is a problem of their own making - in the book, Sam and Frodo are in a lot of jeopardy, from Shelob and the orcs, but they cut that out. They also cut out the final confrontation between the two wizarRAB Gandalf and Saruman. With these big pieces gone, they had to make stuff up to fill in the time.

Yes, me too. On it's own it's a good piece; it just didn't seem to belong in the movie.
 
The warg attack especially annoyed me.

I can see the point of some changes. They're needed because it's a film rather than a book, or to make the story easier to follow for people who haven't read the book, or to increase the role of female characters.

But the warg attack was almost completely pointless and wasted time that could have been spent on something else.

In the first film, I was similarly annoyed by all the perils of falling and collpasing rock they had to get through just to get to the bridge in Moria. It seems that even there Jackson thought the story wasn't good enough on its own.

Also, what's with the almost fascist feel to the elvish troops, who aren't even supposed to be in the story at all?

BTW, I'm thinking that if Peter Jackson has anything to do with the Hobbit film, there'll be a HUGE battle scene for the Battle of Five Armies and everything else will be rushed.
 
I imagine this will get sorted out quite quickly. With the new films in the pipeline NL are not going to risk losing them. They'll agree an out of court settlement with the Tolkein Estate, no where near the original 7.5% but still worth a bob or two.
 
Good question. Partly I suspect they wanted to wait and see if PJ settled his litigation with NL. Also they may have hoped that NL would not have got The Hobbit in the works as soon as they have. The film rights were due to revert back to the original owners at the end of last year if no progress was made. They could then have re-sold them, most probably directly to PJ for a tidy sum. Now that the film is in the pipeline that option has gone.
 
If New Line have to make a payout it could prompt them to hurry up the release of LOTR on Blu Ray to help pay for it. Well, that's what I'm hoping.:D
 
Back
Top