The Hobbit Movie

[Werthead]

p.s. FYI, "fake" english accents were not the intent. The intent was to have hobbits, orcs, and humans with their own accents. As far as I can recall, nobody represented England in the movies. I swear, some of you people just go out of your way to find something to bitch and moan about.

Mortensen struggled with the accent at times, but it wasn't an ongoing problem. Bloom, Monaghan and Boyd all used their native accents. Wood did a pretty good job. Astin occasionally went into ham overload but by the time they got to the third movie he seemed to have calmed down a bit and his accent was serviceable. Davies's Scottish accent was adequate as well. Actually the actor who did the best accent was Liv Tyler, whose voice was totally different to her normal manner of speaking.

I know the folks on the Tolkien boards are by now batshit tired of this ongoing ordeal.

If there is such a thing as a momentum to make The Hobbit, it has passed.

That said, I'd just like for them to make it. With or without Jackson. Regardless of what Jackson did with the LoTR, which is not what this thread is supposed to be about, they should just go ahead and make the film. Reconcile with PJ. Or don't, and get someone else. As mentioned, New Line is not doing well and they need a really big tentpole release. They plan on that being The Hobbit and I believe also Terminator 4.

Just do it and stop pissing around. There's been no news on the Hobbit adaptation for three quarters of a year now, much too long.

Which isn't very long in terms of Hollywood rights wars. The fact that there has been relatively fast developments on the front (this month's news that New Line and Jackson are talking about it again) seems motivated by how much pre-production the film would need (would Jackson want the Shire set put up and left for a year to look 'lived in' again or just CGI it?) and by the ticking clock of the deadline when the rights revert to MGM. However, if Jackson is involved my guess is that New Line and MGM would come to a new agreement.

There's also issues about Ian McKellan playing Gandalf if this drags on for a few more years (he ain't getting any younger). I believe Ian Holm is already out of the picture for Bilbo (cue calls for a future LotR HD-DVD release featuring the 'new' Bilbo's scenes cut into the flashbacks in FotR and purists arguing against them).

As for the two-film thing, my understanding is that The Hobbit would just be one movie, although possibly with expanded content. Legolas perhaps appearing at Thranduil's halls, Gloin mentioning his son Gimli, maybe the audience seeing the meeting of the White Council (with Christopher Lee cameo to make up for him getting chopped from RotK's theatrical release?). Aragorn possibly wouldn't appear as he was only ten years old at the time.

There would then be a second film set in between The Hobbit and LotR. I would imagine that this would feature events such as Legolas and Aragorn hunting Gollum, more on Gollum's movements and him getting captured, Theoden being corrupted by Wormtongue, Denethor being corrupted by the palantir (which was supposed to be in RotK but they dropped it fearing the audience would get confused by there being two palantiri), more on Boromir retaking Osgiliath after Mordor's feint attack on it (to cover the Black Riders heading north) etc. However, I doubt it will happen, mainly as making a coherent narrative out of such disparate story elements would be very difficult. There's no central plot to build a narrative around, and it would be choppy and episodic.

[Happy Ent]

For me it looks as if The Hobbit is a much easier adaptation to the cinema than LotR. The plot is "move from A to B through different action sequences, end with a dragon and a huge battle". Extremely straightforward in terms of pacing and tension and dramatic arc. Goblins! Spiders! Weird bear-men! Elrond! Eagles! Sooo much to see in the travelogue. (I'd cut out the evil elves, or rather, completely change them because I want to see them in the Battle of Five Armies.)

And the ending! A dragon, for crying out loud! And he crashes into a city. CGI gold.

Only structural changes I'd suggest: have the Battle of Five Armies happen at the same time as Smaug attacks Dale, so you can cross-cut. And give Bard screen-time throughout the movie, possibly with a romantic storyline that can be cross-cut with Bilbo's. (Otherwise Bard comes out of nowhere.) Did I way romantic storyline? That's where I'd put the Elves, actually. Why not warm-up another of the Elven Princess loves Man themes from the Silmarillion for that. Beren almost sounds like Bard. Elrond and Thranduil could become a composite character for the movie... the screen play almost writes itself.

(And yes, I'm completely serious. I'm sure there is a very tasteful and faithful movie adaptation to be made along these lines.)

Now if only we could get Ents worked into it...

[Ser Warpechowski]

They can show the bit where the orcs/goblins eat the ponies, for example.

They wouldnt need to go that far.

I´m thinking more about the whole deal with the elves and the trolls, that I considered very childish in the books. They will have to work on it to make it more darker.

[Ser Warpechowski]

I didn't dislike it because he changed it from the novels, I realize that it was an adaptation. I didn't like it because of miscasting (Liv Tyler? Bleh!!), turning Legolas into Spiderman, turning Gimli into a lame running-joke, the fake english accents were atrocious, the hobbits grated on my nerves, Sam and Frodo's homo-erotic love affair was nauseating, etc. Basically, I was wincing way too much for it to be a good movie. It had it's moments, but the repeated head slappings left my forehead red, and I don't want to watch it again.

You really cant complain about most of the stuff.

The battles in the books were barely described. Normal sized people battle many bigger and fantastic monsters yet the books never say how they happen. Turning Gimli into a comedy relief character wasnt that bad, nor turning Legolas into a super cool dude: in the books, again, they are barely mentioned.

And Sam´s and Frodo relationship seems homo for you. It didnt seem like that to me. Of course, in the books, Frodo is something like 20 years older than Sam (and that is why Sam talks about Mr all the time), so getting two guys that look about the same age and one of them is so submissive like that is prone to give people weird ideas.

And Happyy Ent, I dont see much of that stuff working: they would totaly rape the original content.

And relationships between males and females were suposed to be something so rare that it only happened 3 times in thousands of years.

[Maltaran]

Aragorn possibly wouldn't appear as he was only ten years old at the time.

I imagine they could put in a fanboy bonus with a kid named Estel turning up in Riverrun for a scene. Only needs 10 seconds or so.

[Brude]

I thought Tom Cruise had revived UA after Paramount showed him the door, no?

I think you're right, but I don't know if he did much more than buy the name. Maybe it came with some old properties, too and other assets. In a way, UA getting bought by a movie star is kind of like going back to the future for that company - it was originally founded by Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin, hence the name "United Artists."

[Blaine]

This is silly. Regardless of what anybody thinks of Jackson's version of LotR, it made shitloads of money. As in, back up the truck and keep the green pouring. It even fared well critically, gaining an Oscar nod. The only closest phenomenon, Star Wars, can't touch that.

There's no feasible reason to make the movie without Peter Jackson's involvement other than a pissing match. Even the amount of money in the lawsuit is a dribble compared to what the film raked in for New Line.

Any studio executive with any amount of brains isn't going to chop down a money tree. Whatever B.S. press war that New Line's been trying to wage with romancing Raimi or Weir and letting it get this close to going back to MGM has failed and now the deal is going to be settled.

There's simply too much money at stake not to work out a deal with Jackson. They used to say that the rights fiasco that was Spider-Man would never, ever be worked out. Once the right people realized how much money could be made - it got solved. With a quickness.

This whole year of "maybe someone else will be brought in to direct" was nothing more than a sad attempt at public negotiation. A few years from now, Peter Jackon's version of the Hobbit will hit the screens. Because ultimately, it's all about the money.

[Demonblade]

Every single thread on LOTR movies, or not even about it sometimes, on every board that I've been on and someone dared criticise the man and say they didn't like <gasp> the movie, someone falls on them like a ton of bricks. And just because you play offended doesn't mean I'm not right, or that I care enough to look for evidence that everyone should be well aware of - it's been years the things came out.

I think the man is an overhyped hack, I'm not alone in this thinking, and no amount of telling me how great he is will change my mind.

Actually it's much the same thing as when people criticise historical epics, for example. Whenever you have a movie where there are characters based on people who actually existed, you'll inevitably have some people whinging about how poor the movie is because the Scottish accents aren't real, or that something in the film didn't happen in real life, or some other bullshit, just to show how much they know about the period and in some pathetic attempt to look informed. You know what? Braveheart and Gladiator were movies and didn't claim to be anything else. Bitching and moaning on some of the things that happened in the films which didn't transpire in real life is ridiculous and is nothing more than intellectual masturbation, not unlike what Tolkien geeks cry about in the trilogy.

And please tell me where I said that Peter Jackson was 'great'. I'll let you in on something, you won't find anywhere because I've never said it. My favorite director just happens to be Peter Weir, one of PJ's rumoured replacements, and I wouldn't mind seeing a different adaptation by Weir. But of course you thinking in such absolutes that since you're the Tolkien geek (who, I imagine wouldn't be happy with any adaptation because it would be such a great excuse to show how much of the story you know), who doesn't like PJ, then as somebody who liked the films then therefore I must be the polar opposite and think the man's a god. Well life and people's opinions aren't as simple as you appear to believe. Sorry to break that to you.

[Happy Ent]

And Happyy Ent, I dont see much of that stuff working: they would totaly rape the original content.

I don't see the connection. Modifying the original content is often what makes it work.

Are we at least on the same page with respect to the narrative impossibility of having Smaug shot by a random archer who is introduced 10 minutes before the end credits? You just can't do that: build up the menace that is Smaug for 90% of the time and them have him killed by somebody who has so far received even less attention than Kili.

So either you need to shoot Smaug by somebody else than Bard. For example, you could have Elrond do it: he might arrive with his host from Rivendell–Mirkwood (I assume we can have only one enounter with Elves in the movie, so Elrond=Thranduil, or the Mirkwood Elves simply don't exist (they are silly anyway)) for the Battle of Five Armies, which then takes place outside Dale-Which-Is-Also-Laketown. Smaug can join the Bad Guys, and Elrond gets to shoot him just when the odds against the Dwarves and Men become overwhelming.

Or have Thorin kill the dragon and then die.

But that solution leaves the Humans with very little screen time. I think it would be more satisfying therefore to increase the Human screen time by focussing more on Bard from the beginning. (He could give the Thrain's key to Thorin. Or whatever. Thousands of possibilities—I'd prefer to take a theme that Tolkien has used in the Silmarillion, which is why a Human–Elf romance springs to mind.) Then the canonically correct person can shoot the Dragon, and the audience gets to empathise with somebody of their own species.

Apart from this single problem (dragon shot by random archer who is minor character number 1+13+Gollum+Gandalf+Elrond+Beorn = 17) I think the adaptation is straightforward.

[Mentat]

Are we at least on the same page with respect to the narrative impossibility of having Smaug shot by a random archer who is introduced 10 minutes before the end credits? You just can't do that: build up the menace that is Smaug for 90% of the time and them have him killed by somebody who has so far received even less attention than Kili.

That doesn't solve what is the real main problem of "The Hobbit", which is that you can't kill a dragon with a friggin arrow. Period. It's like trying to kill an Alsatian with a needle.

Tolkien actually did this twice, and words can't begin to describe how aggravating it is. Earendil also kills Ancalagon the Black with an arrow. He was supposed to be the biggest dragon ever. So big that when he fell the whole map of middle-earth had to be changed. We're talking a friggin humongous dragon. How on earth do you kill something like that with an arrow? It's impossible!

You can hit it, and if you hit it in its weak underbelly maybe slightly wound it, but that's that. Even if the arrow penetrated its full length surely it would do little more than tear skin and pierce fat and muscle?

In order to kill a dragon one would need something considerably more mighty than an arrow. A blow from a two handed sword, a mounted charge with a lance, ramming it with Vingilot... but not an arrow. An arrow should be little more than a nuisance to a dragon, however good the bowman is.

[Eurytus]

But what if it was a dirty arrow?

Tetanus is a killer you know.

[niamh]

Sorry to break that to you.

Never say sorry when you don't mean it

If PJ himself hadn't been broadcasting to whomever is or isn't willing to listen that he was so faithful to "Tolkien's spirit", whatever he meant by that, and other untruths, there wouldn't be such bitching in any case.

In LOTR they shortened considerably (understatement) the timetable between Bilbo's party and Frodo leaving, and I reckon they'll do the same for the Hobbit (otherwise try to explain how Bilbo kept a ring 60 years that in LOTR seems to burn everyone's pockets on sight). Therefore, they will introduce Aragorn as the Dragon slayer, possibly with some fearsome grandfather of all elven bows relics, or something. That way, they can still use Mortenssen (housewife staple), they can introduce an Aragorn meets Legolas scene, complete with Orlando Bloom whom they really need to cash in on the young girls, and also some retroactive scenes with Arwen (first encounter too?)

If I were a director and I needed to draw in crowds off LOTR, that's what I would do anyway.

In that case, they'll probably switch Gloin directly for Gimli, though with Rhys Davies being allergic to the rubber, it's doubtful they'll get him again for the role.

[Mentat]

Dragons fly, though.

Some do (Smaug, Ancalagon) and some don't (Glaurung, Fafner).

When dragon's fly it can sure be a tricky business. Their propensity to live in caves can usually be taken advantage of, though. Standing on battlements or on the top of some lofty structure can help. Sturm Brightblade fighting Skye on the top of the High Clerist's tower comes to mind (admittedly he lost, but he did get to wound the beast with a swing of his greatsword making use of the higher ground).

While dragons can fly, often they're depicted as being clumsy, unmaneuvareble fliers. A knight charging a dragon on the ground will often find that the dragon prefers to stand still and breathe fire at him than to take flight (think Sir Orin charging Bryaugh in Flight of Dragons or the classic depiction of St George).

Vingilot was a flying ship, so that could have been used to ram a dragon effectively, making for a much more believable end to Ancalagon.

Regardless, the difficulty of hacking at a flying dragon with a greatsword doesn't alter the fact that an arrow should do little more than annoy it.

[Brude]

That doesn't solve what is the real main problem of "The Hobbit", which is that you can't kill a dragon with a friggin arrow. Period. It's like trying to kill an Alsatian with a needle.

Um, it's a fantasy story - why not a 'magic arrow,' it was after all 'The Black Arrow' that Bard used to slay the creature, an arrow that always came back to him. I'm sure this wasn't just any arrow. Where I doing the film I'd really play it up, making it huge, like the uruk-hai arrows that kill Boromir from FotR, then I'd cover the thing in Tengwar runes and really play up the fact that it's a very special, magic arrow. Guy's probably as good an archer, or better, than Legolas (hell, he probably knew Legolas).

Want to get really geeky about it, in D&D terms the thing was probably something like a +5 Arrow of Slaying, which causes the creature hit to make a Fortitude Save or die - with just one hit.

As for Earendil slaying Ancalagon The Black, again, whe're talking about Earendil who became a demi-God, essentially, after that battle. Before that he sailed his ship to fucking heaven and convinced the Gods to put it all on the line finally and fight the battle of Armageddon. When characters that epic do things like slay the biggest, baddest dragon ever, it doesn't bother me too much.

[Gerold Hightower]

Heard a podcast from the BBC last week where they claimed that an arrow from a 16th century longbow (reign of Henry VIII) could go through several men. I doubt that a sword thrust or a javelin would do more.

[Galactus]

You can hit it, and if you hit it in its weak underbelly maybe slightly wound it, but that's that. Even if the arrow penetrated its full length surely it would do little more than tear skin and pierce fat and muscle?

It is specifically mentioned that the Black Arrow went into the unarmed portion of the dragon's belly and straight into the heart.

Even a needle can kill you if you get it in the heart.

[Mentat]

Um, it's a fantasy story - why not a 'magic arrow,' it was after all 'The Black Arrow' that Bard used to slay the creature, an arrow that always came back to him. I'm sure this wasn't just any arrow. Where I doing the film I'd really play it up, making it huge, like the uruk-hai arrows that kill Boromir from FotR, then I'd cover the thing in Tengwar runes and really play up the fact that it's a very special, magic arrow. Guy's probably as good an archer, or better, than Legolas (hell, he probably knew Legolas).

Well, yes. The magic über arrow of instant death could probably slay almost anything. It's a rather flimsy plot device, though.

Want to get really geeky about it, in D&D terms the thing was probably something like a +5 Arrow of Slaying, which causes the creature hit to make a Fortitude Save or die - with just one hit.

Yeah, a Fortitude Save with a DC of 20. If we take Smaug to be a mature adult (or older) Red Dragon he'd have to role a natural 1 on his saving throw to be affected.

As for Earendil slaying Ancalagon The Black, again, whe're talking about Earendil who became a demi-God, essentially, after that battle. Before that he sailed his ship to fucking heaven and convinced the Gods to put it all on the line finally and fight the battle of Armageddon. When characters that epic do things like slay the biggest, baddest dragon ever, it doesn't bother me too much.

The biggest, baddest dragon ever is probably pretty epic himself. When something that powerful , and specially that awesomely huge, goes down because of a single arrow, I find it aggravating.

While Earendil was indeed powerful, he could have been made to slay Ancalagon in a less casual way. Look at how many arrows it took to fell Boromir, and he was just a man.

Heard a podcast from the BBC last week where they claimed that an arrow from a 16th century longbow (reign of Henry VIII) could go through several men. I doubt that a sword thrust or a javelin would do more.

I must say my experience with actual, real bows and arrows is extremely limited. But in films and novels, normally when you shoot an arrow at someone it sticks in him. It doesn't pierce him and exit through the other side like a bullet might. I would also imagine that shooting upwards rather than forwards would considerably reduce the punch.

[Galactus]

Yeah, a Fortitude Save with a DC of 20. If we take Smaug to be a mature adult (or older) Red Dragon he'd have to role a natural 1 on his saving throw to be affected.

There are Arrows of Greater Slaying with higher DC's though.

And in 2nd. ed. you didn't get a save.

[Myrddin]

Heard a podcast from the BBC last week where they claimed that an arrow from a 16th century longbow (reign of Henry VIII) could go through several men. I doubt that a sword thrust or a javelin would do more.

The Welsh longbow was powerful, no doubt. Ask the French after Agincourt. With a Bodkin point, arrows from long bows could pierce plate armor.

I believe the whole point here is that Smaug was invulnerable except for the on spot where his scales flaked off. The target area is only two meters wide, a small port below the main exhaust point. I believe Bard confided later that he used to bullseye womprats with his T16 longbow back home. They're only about two meters.

Bilbo was the hero here, since he was the only one who got close enough to he dragon to find out.

I'm not a purist. I didn't mind Arwen's expanded role, Gimili being tossed, twice, etc. But making the smaug attack at the same time as the battle of five armies removes all kinds of character development and moivations.

Bard is king because he killed the dragon.

As king, he asks for a portion of the gold to help rebuild his city.

THe elves show up all brave with the dragon gone and want in on the cut.

Dwarves by this time are greedy adn the goblins have high tailed it from the Misty Mountains to take it all.

Biblo tried to act as negotiator (giving Bard the Arken Stone) to prevent needess bloodshed.

None of this can happen until after the dragon is dead. The Battle of the Penenor Fields can't happen at the same time as Helms Deep.

[Brude]

Well, yes. The magic über arrow of instant death could probably slay almost anything. It's a rather flimsy plot device, though.

It's the way these stories have always worked, though. The special weapon, for the special deed. Magical swords, arrows, spears, whatever go back to the oldest myths: Greek, Norse, what have you. Usually they are given by the Gods, or whatever, but they've always been a part of fantasy and mythological fare. It's a big part of what the genre is all about.