The Hobbit (upcoming movie version)

I just finished reading the hobit, very good book indeed and I'm about to dive into the next three LOTR books, ive seen all the movies multiple times.

anyway you may not know but the Hobbit is going to be split into two movies instead of one. Now I haven't read LOTR but the hobbit seems alot thinner then the three LOTR books. I don't see how they could split this book into two movies. I think they would do a fine job of just having one longer Hobbit.

But anyway for the people who have read it how do you think they can split this book into two parts.

*Spoilers bellow.
*

It would seem that they could make an entier movie based on the last part of the book. Them going to lonely mountain, bilbo interacting with the dragon, and everything, else but who knows if that will be enough.

I'll be interested to see how they will split this.

Your thoughts?

[quote="catholictiger, post:1, topic:244370"]
I just finished reading the hobit, very good book indeed and I'm about to dive into the next three LOTR books, ive seen all the movies multiple times.

anyway you may not know but the Hobbit is going to be split into two movies instead of one. Now I haven't read LOTR but the hobbit seems alot thinner then the three LOTR books. I don't see how they could split this book into two movies. I think they would do a fine job of just having one longer Hobbit.

But anyway for the people who have read it how do you think they can split this book into two parts.

*Spoilers bellow.
*

It would seem that they could make an entier movie based on the last part of the book. Them going to lonely mountain, bilbo interacting with the dragon, and everything, else but who knows if that will be enough.

I'll be interested to see how they will split this.

Your thoughts?

[/quote]

I do hope the same people who made the LOTR series will make the Hobbit series. I have read the LOTR series many times. There is SO much in the books that did not make it to the movie screens. I was disappointed in this regard, yet the special effects were dazzling and breathtaking. If the Hobbit movie comes out anything less than the series, I will be doubly disappointed.

Perhaps they will split it into two parts from where Bilbo goes and does everything and then learns about him having to kill the dragon, and then the second part dealing with the dragon on Smoky Mountain. I saw the animated version of it. I did not care for it.

So when is this movie going to come out?

God bless.

I hope some one else makes it. It upset me that the most powerful thing that Gandalf did throughout the movies was make light come out of a stick…

After having to deal with an extraordinary amount of problems in getting this rolling (and after Benicio del Toro dropped out), Peter Jackson will indeed be directing the two Hobbit films, which are absolutely intended as direct prequels to the "Lord of the Rings" franchise. The two films will be known as "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", to be released on December 14, 2012, and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again", to be released on December 13, 2013. Principal photography began on March 21 of this year. The cast includes:

Bilbo Baggins: Martin Freeman
Old Bilbo Baggins: Ian Holm (reprising his role)
Gandalf the Grey: Sir Ian McKellen (reprising his role)
Thorin Oakenshield: Richard Armitage
Dwalin: Graham McTavish
Balin: Ken Stott
Kilin: Aidan Turner
Fili: Dean O'Gorman
Dori: Mark Hadlow
Nori: Jed Brophy
Ori: Adam Brown
Oin: John Callen
Golin: Peter Hambleton
Bifur: William Kircher
Bofir: James Nesbitt
Bombur: Steven Hunter
Gollum: Andy Serkis (reprising his role)
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Beorn: Mikael Persbrandt
Thranduil: Lee Pace
Master of Lake-Town: Stephen Fry
Bard the Bowman: Luke Evans
Galadriel: Cate Blanchett (reprising her role)
Saruman the White: Christopher Lee (reprising his role)
Radagast the Brown: Sylvester McCoy
Frodo Baggins: Elijah Wood (reprising his role)
Legolas: Orlando Bloom (reprising his role)
Thror: Jeffrey Thomas
Thrain II: Mike Mizrahi
Alfrid: Ryan Gage
Lindir: Bret McKenzie
Azog: Conan Stevens

Benedict Cumberbatch as a character yet to be announced.

As far as the structure of the film and where it will be broken in half, Wikipedia says this:

The project has been envisaged as two parts since 2006, but the proposed contents of the parts has changed during development. MGM expressed interest in a second film in 2006, set between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Jackson concurred, stating "one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is [that] it's relatively lightweight compared to Lord of the Rings... There [are] a lot of sections in which a character like Gandalf disappears for a while. From memory – I mean, I haven't read it for a while now – but I think he references going off to meet with the White Council, who are actually characters like Galadriel and Saruman and people who we see in Lord of the Rings. He mysteriously vanishes for a while and then comes back, but we don't really know what goes on." Jackson was also interested in showing Gollum's journey to Mordor, and Aragorn setting a watch on the Shire.

After his hiring in 2008, Del Toro confirmed the sequel would be about "trying to reconcile the facts of the first movie with a slightly different point of view. You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first." He also noted the story must be drawn from only what is mentioned in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, as they do not have the rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Del Toro also added (before writing began) that if they could not find a coherent story for the second film, they would just film The Hobbit, stating "The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point'." By November 2008, he acknowledged that the book was more detailed and eventful than people may remember. He decided to abandon the "bridge film" concept, feeling that it would be better for the two parts to contain only material from The Hobbit:

When you lay out ...] the story beats contained within the book (before even considering any apendix [sic] material) the work is enormous and encompasses more than one film. That's why we are thinking of the TWO INSTALLMENTS as parts of a single NARRATIVE. That's why I keep putting down the use of a "bridge" film (posited initially). I think the concept as such is not relevant anymore. I believe that the narrative and characters are rich enough to fit in TWO films.

Del Toro said that he was faced with two possible places to split the story, including Smaug's defeat. He noted the second film would need to end by leading directly into The Fellowship of the Ring. In June 2009, Del Toro revealed he had decided where to divide the story based on comments from fans about signifying a change in Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves. The second film's story would also have depended on how many actors could have reprised their roles.

I will never see any movies based on The Hobbit or The Lord of the Ring trilogy. I read these books ritually every year from 8th grade through high school and I have my own movie in my head - someone else’s pictures would never agree with my own. I feel sad that my sons have already seen someone else’s vision of the books and now when and if they read the books, THOSE are the pictures they will see, not their own.

:frowning:

Yes, I am a purist when it comes to Tolkien.

That was one of Jacksons lesser faults. All three films mangled the books. One sickening example: Frodo offers the Ring to one of the Ringwraiths! As theyre totally enslaved to Sauron, he wouldve become aware of Frodos act.

In the books, Aragorn knows exactly what his mission is; and why (to gain his bride).
The films portray him as a ditherer.

Faramir drags Frodo, Sam and Gollum off to Osgiliath!

Ad nauseum!

The films seem to have been made for children: Action! Action! Action! No suspense, such as Frodo and the Wraith King, outside Minas Morgul; or Gandalfs confronting the Wraith King, after the throwing down of the gates of Minas Tirith. All Cowboys and Indians! Crash! Bang! Wallop! Childish! Computer generated "enhancements" gone mad (im not talking about Gollum.).
Nice NZ scenry, though. We Australians don`t have mountains like that!

No film can be totally faithful to “The Book”; but the demolition job carried out by P Jackson and Co is a disgrace!

Do today`s adults have short attention spans, as a result of an overdose of television?

Being thinner, The Hobbit doesn`t have as much story to be mutilated!

No wonder “they” don`t have the film rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales!
A few years ago, Christopher Tolkien copped a heap of undeserved abuse…

Same here!
All three films raised my blood pressure. (As youd have deduced already!) Youre wise to stay away from the film perversions; and im sorry about your sons. Theyd probably downface you regarding certain events.

[quote="SunnaB16, post:7, topic:244370"]

Being thinner, The Hobbit doesn`t have as much story to be mutilated!

[/quote]

No, but according to that Wikipedia article, it looks like it's going to have much more that's purely invented to provide background detail.

[quote="SunnaB16, post:7, topic:244370"]
That was one of Jacksons lesser faults.
All three films mangled the books.
One sickening example: Frodo offers the Ring to one of the Ringwraiths! As they
re totally enslaved to Sauron, he wouldve become aware of Frodos act.

In the books, Aragorn knows exactly what his mission is; and why (to gain his bride).
The films portray him as a ditherer.

Faramir drags Frodo, Sam and Gollum off to Osgiliath!

Ad nauseum!

The films seem to have been made for children: Action! Action! Action! No suspense, such as Frodo and the Wraith King, outside Minas Morgul; or Gandalfs confronting the Wraith King, after the throwing down of the gates of Minas Tirith.
All Cowboys and Indians! Crash! Bang! Wallop! Childish!
Computer generated "enhancements" gone mad (i
m not talking about Gollum.).
Nice NZ scenry, though. We Australians don`t have mountains like that!

No film can be totally faithful to "The Book"; but the demolition job carried out by P Jackson and Co is a disgrace!

Do today`s adults have short attention spans, as a result of an overdose of television?

Being thinner, The Hobbit doesn`t have as much story to be mutilated!

No wonder "they" don`t have the film rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales!
A few years ago, Christopher Tolkien copped a heap of undeserved abuse......

Same here!
All three films raised my blood pressure. (As youd have deduced already!)
You
re wise to stay away from the film perversions; and im sorry about your sons. Theyd probably downface you regarding certain events.

[/quote]

It's a minority opinion but one I agree with. The movies are in many respects style over substance. For everything they get right and every moment where they come close in spirit to the source material there's ten more where they make a complete hash of it.

I agree with those of you whose excellent comments tell of Jackson's shortcomings in interpreting Tolkien.

May I make two observations?

Jackson is a first-rate movie maker, I am sure, and his take on Tolkien is better than I would have expected from the movie industry. (I am using the word "movie" here, and not "film", on purpose. "Movie" is more of a popcorny, mass-entertainment term, I guess.)

But I am definitely the "if I liked the book I will never like the movie version" type, and my big problem with Jackson's trilogy is his lack of getting to the Catholic heart of the books. He comes close in certain scenes and story lines, but never "gets it". The whole production seems to have treated Tolkien with a certain spiritual awe and respect, but they left it vague. I don't know whether this was done on purpose or out of ignorance, but I had the chance to watch the extras from the third movie's extended dvd version: there must have been 8 hours of interviews, behind the scenes documentaries, etc. and not one -- NOT ONE -- mention was there of Tolkien's strong Catholicism, and how he stated that the books would not have been what they were, if it hadn't been for his Catholicism. They discuss his background, and never mention that he felt that his mother had suffered a martyr's death, having converted and subsequently been ostracized by her relatives, a widow with a terminal illness and no help or comfort from her family. Or after her death, the fact that Tolkien showed promise for a possible academic career, but not having the means, he may not have been able to pursue his studies: have any of you heard this story? Well, the priest who was caring for him and his brother paid for Tolkien's schooling out of his own pocket! What, a Catholic priest doing that? Why am I surprised that no one mentioned anything about it?

And, on a lesser scale, when I think that "The Hobbit" will include the role of Frodo, I really wonder how much it is going to be mangled.

C

No matter what you think of P.J.'s treatment of LOTR, just be grateful that it wasn't Disney that got hold of it. Can you imagine what a Disney version would have looked like? (Singing and dancing elves and dwarves, the insertion of a hip talking dragon mascot, Sam turned into a comical, bumbling fool, etc., etc.)

Tenebrae, you are so wise!! Thanks for the reminder to look on the bright side!!!

C

[quote="Tenebrae, post:11, topic:244370"]
No matter what you think of P.J.'s treatment of LOTR, just be grateful that it wasn't Disney that got hold of it. Can you imagine what a Disney version would have looked like? (Singing and dancing elves and dwarves, the insertion of a hip talking dragon mascot, Sam turned into a comical, bumbling fool, etc., etc.)

[/quote]

that would suck.

I haven't read the LOTR series but I loved the movie version. I be interested to see how they match up. I've already heard of some differences.

I didn't have any problems with the movies's faithfulness to their source material, except I thought the first one was a bit too scary. It has been a long time since I've read those books, however. It did seem to me that Peter Jackson fleshed out or in some cases virtually invented out of whole cloth a few strong female characters for the purpose of putting something in the movie version that was virtually absent from the original trilogy (I have no memory whatsoever of the rogue elf character played by Cate Blanchette appearing in the books -- was she an innovation?) but I understand his reasoning and don't begrudge him that.

My main criticism is that the cgi effects often don't look quite real. Golum had a wispy, insubstantial quality, for example. And the orcs were too repulsive.

I'm looking forward to his take on "The Hobbit" (s).

Galadriel is a central character in the books. She appears in a number of other works by Tolkein also. She is in exile along with her people the Noldorin Elves due to the crimes of the leador Feanor who is responsible for the ‘kin-slaying’ when elves slew other elves many thousands of years ago. Galadriel actually was originally offered a chance to not go into exile as she took no part in the killings herself and warned against Feanor’s pride and anger possibly leading to such disasters. However she had helped lead the Noldor in the revolt against the Valar (the ‘gods’ of Midle-Earth) and thus she had to either accept exile or renounce her people.She choses to stay in exile out of fellow feeling with her people. She and Elrond and a handful of other elves are many, many thousands of years old and Galadriel is probably one of the most powerful beings in Middle-Earth. Her weakness like her kinsman Feanoir is pride in her own abilities, unlike him she is far more aware of it and she passes a test of humility when Frodo offers her the One Ring in the books on the grounds that she might know better what to do with it. In rejecting it she shows her inner moral strength and at the end of the along with Gandalf who is course a servant of the ‘gods’ and ‘angelic’ she is seen returning to the West.

How other characters relate to her is also central. She is a relative of both Arwen and Aragorn (the grandmother of the former) and both trust to her counsel and she at times confirms Aragorn in his role as king. She also is seen as something of a myth by men at large as witness Eomer’s talk of a golden sorceress in the woods when he meets Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli in the book. The Rohirrim are not as ‘civilised’ in some respects at the Gondorians and Eomer is prey to superstititons that present Galadriel as been something other than she is. Gimli also starts off with a very low opinion of her which turns around absolutely over the course of certain events.

Later in the books Sam and Frodo are both seen to think her on many occassions and use gifts she gave to them to escape in Mordor. She is a reflection of the Elves role in Middle-Earth. Although her actions have effect she is not a direct participant in major battles as the Elves power has all but faded away except in small areas like Lothlorien and Rivendell. You can see that to some extent with Legolast as well, if you look at his actions in the books of all the nine he in some senses achieves the ‘least’.

Some Galadriel quotes from the LOTR and elsewhere:-

“And you, Ring’bearer’ she said, turning to Frodo. ‘I come to you last who are not last in my thoughts. For you I have prepared this.’ She held up a small crystal phial: it glittered as she moved it and rays of white light sprang from her hand. ‘In this phial,’ she said,’ is caught the light of Earendil’s star, set amid the waters of my fountain. It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out. Frodo took the phial, and for a moment as it shone between them, he saw her again standing like a queen, great and beautiful.”

“A sister they had, Galadriel, most beautiful of all the house of Finwë; her hair was lit with gold as though it had caught in a mesh the radiance of Laurelin.”
— J.R.R. Tolkien (The Silmarillion

“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”

(said just before she rejects the ring altogether)

“On two chairs beneath the bole of the tree and canopied by a living bough there sat, side by side, Celeborn and Galadriel. Very tall they were, and the Lady no less tall than the Lord; and they were grave and beautiful. They were clad wholly in white; and the hair of the Lady was of deep gold, and the hair of the Lord Celeborn was of silver long and bright; but no sign of age was upon them, unless it were in the depths of their eyes; for these were keen as lances in the starlight, and yet profound, the wells of deep memory.”

Wow, thanks for your awesomely detailed and thorough response. You certainly know your Tolkien. I wasn’t even aware that Aragorn was part elf (or is it Elf?).

By the way, while reading your post I was reminded that you also observed recently that it was shameful how the character of Gimmli was diminished and made an object of humor in the movie to which I would agree 100%.

P.S. - Also, I’m glad to know that Galadriel was an integral part of the book since I enjoyed Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of her in the film. I did read these books when I was eleven but have obviously forgotten many of the finer points.

Yes Aragorn is part elvish, Elrond and his daughter Arwen are distant relatives to him as Elrond’s brother Elros chose to remain mortal when offered a choice between this or becoming an Elf. His father and mother were Earendil and Elwing and Earendil is the son of Tuor and Idril. One of the three times an elf and a human wed in Middle-Earth, something their ancestors Beren and Luthien and descendants Aragorn and Arwen are the other two examples of. Elros chose to become human as I say and he became the first king of the Numenoreans and ruled for 410 years and passed from Middle-Earth when he reached his 500th year. Aragorn is desecended from this line and all the Numenoreans have greater length of life than normal men although this gift has diminshed by the time of LOTR and Numenor has sunk into the sea due to it’s people passing into evil, partly due to their own faults and partly because of Sauron’s manipulations.

Aragorn is also partly (although distantly so like his elvish heritage) part Maia (the same order Gandalf belongs to) as Luthien’s mother was one of the spirits who serve the Valar. This explains passages in the book where Aragorn puts forth his power to cure Faramir and comments that he wishes Elrond was there as he is the oldest of his house and has the greater power. If you read the books again read the appendices and the ‘Tale of Aragorn and Arwen’ tells you how Aragorn eventually departs Middle Earth in his 210th year and how Arwen having chosen mortality also does shortly after.

The Hobbit is noticeable as you get a first glimpse (albeit undeveloped in some ways) of the larger world of the LOTR. Sauron pops up for a moment or two under the title of the ‘Necromancer’ and Smaug is of course one of the last great dragons and his death means one major weapon of terror is not part of Sauron’s armoury years later in LOTR. Rivendell is of course also in there and Elrond pops up for the first time.

Gimli been used as comic relief irked me greatly indeed. He is not above a bit of humour in the books but he is a fairly serious character and treating him like slastick comic relief stuck in my throat.

I urge you to pick them up again. At 11 you would have missed so much of the depth and range of the writing, the creation of many worlds including linguistics, music, geography, etc. Tolkien was a genius. I read the trilogy before I read The Hobbit and was glad I did - if I’d read The Hobbit before, I probably would not have gone on to read the LOTR trilogy. My senior in high school son has to read them over the summer so I will get to re-read them along with him. I look forward to seeing my dear old friends again.

[quote="CeciliaS, post:10, topic:244370"]
I agree with those of you whose excellent comments tell of Jackson's shortcomings in interpreting Tolkien.

May I make two observations?

Jackson is a first-rate movie maker, I am sure, and his take on Tolkien is better than I would have expected from the movie industry. (I am using the word "movie" here, and not "film", on purpose. "Movie" is more of a popcorny, mass-entertainment term, I guess.)

But I am definitely the "if I liked the book I will never like the movie version" type, and my big problem with Jackson's trilogy is his lack of getting to the Catholic heart of the books. He comes close in certain scenes and story lines, but never "gets it". The whole production seems to have treated Tolkien with a certain spiritual awe and respect, but they left it vague. I don't know whether this was done on purpose or out of ignorance, but I had the chance to watch the extras from the third movie's extended dvd version: there must have been 8 hours of interviews, behind the scenes documentaries, etc. and not one -- NOT ONE -- mention was there of Tolkien's strong Catholicism, and how he stated that the books would not have been what they were, if it hadn't been for his Catholicism. They discuss his background, and never mention that he felt that his mother had suffered a martyr's death, having converted and subsequently been ostracized by her relatives, a widow with a terminal illness and no help or comfort from her family. Or after her death, the fact that Tolkien showed promise for a possible academic career, but not having the means, he may not have been able to pursue his studies: have any of you heard this story? Well, the priest who was caring for him and his brother paid for Tolkien's schooling out of his own pocket! What, a Catholic priest doing that? Why am I surprised that no one mentioned anything about it?

*And, on a lesser scale, when I think that "The Hobbit" will include the role of Frodo, I really wonder how much it is going to be mangled.
*

C

[/quote]

:eek::mad: Frodo was NOT in The Hobbit! It was Bilbo's role in events. OMG. Well that tears it, I will never see any of this junk. I knew no one could ever turn those books into a movie, it would be impossibly expensive and every bit that is cut would be critical to the story in some way. You just CANNOT cut anything out! And to put Frodo into Bilbo's story! :mad:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.