posted
I've been laid up with a bad back, and with nothing to do but lie on the floor in front of the TV, decided I'd actually watch the whole Lord of the Rings, Special Extended Editions. Over several days anyway, my painkillers weren't strong enough to get me through 10+ hours of cinematic swords'n'sorcery in one sitting (or rather, lying and writhing in pain-ing).
Good fun. And I think we'd all agree that really we couldn't have hoped for a much better adaptation. But I decided to do a Search here and see what we all thought at the time. . .
First off, there were threads on casting, and they reveal that we all pretty-much expected the worst. The title of the first such thread (created by myself in my former alter ego The First One) in July 1999 says it all - OH, NO!!!. When that thread went downhill, a second thread continued to document the casting decisions as they were made/announced, albeit in a more positive light. I'm quite impressed that I first broached the notion of Christopher Lee as Saruman. . .
As we moved into 2000, the positive threads continued, to be expected when they're posted by the terminally-optimistic AndrewR! And by 2001, the excitement was almost palpable.
I've found two significant threads about The Fellowship of the Ring, one rather gloomy courtesy of Colin "Trinculo/TargetEmployee/Newark" Lindsly (who else?), the other far more upbeat and the official TFotR thread!
Colin was back in 2002 with the first proper Two Towers thread, and he was uncharacteristically happy this time out. However, it's an earlier thread discussing the trailer which makes the most interesting reading, as it features now-departed poster EdipisReks who maintained despite fierce opposition that the films should never have been made at all.
After all that excitement, the thread discussing The Return of the King seems almost anticlimactic. . .
Anyway. Sorry to bore you, it's just become an idle hobby of mine, researching old threads, digging up memories (*sings*) of the way we were. . .
But it also got me thinking about the proposed film version of The Hobbit. Again, I think the consensus would be that we'd all like to see a filmed version of the book, especially if done as well as TLotR and by Peter Jackson.
Now, though, I have my doubts. It's generally agreed that one of the main strengths of TLotR was that, being filmed back-to-back, it made the overall experience more seamless and eliminated a lot of potential minor continuity gaffes that could crop up over the course of a film series. And we'd all like a Hobbit that'll fit in just as well - but I'm not sure it's possible, or something to wish for.
First off, there are practical considerations. At this moment, Ian McKellen is 67 years old, and Ian Holm is 74. Gandalf isn't that much of a presence, so McKellen could participate easily - if they could have the octogenarian Lee playing Saruman, well, McKellen seems hale and hearty enough! The younger Bilbo isn't meant to be an action hero, but all the same, would they be prepared to hang such an important and physical part on Holm's shoulders? Would they have the character in his fifties (I think he was that age in the book) or make him younger like they did Frodo - either way, I'd say re-casting is inevitable, and maybe not a problem given you only see one brief flashback of him finding the ring in TFotR, and they could do a Lucas and change that - TFotR Special Special Edition DVD ahoy!
And what would be changed from the book? Too many dwarves, for one thing! There are at least a dozen, and how many of them do anything important? The list reads: Thorin Oakenshield, �in, Gloin, Dwalin, Balin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, F�li and K�li, Dori, Nori, and Ori. I can remember Thorin, Balin, Fili, Kili and Bombur being important, but that's it!
Plus, it's a children's book, and that'll require a different tone. The Orcs are called Goblins, and are much more humourous than the misshapen creatures in TLotR. Trolls and Wargs have personalities and aren't just monsters. Elves are bigoted assholes in TH. . . You get the idea. All this just leaves me wondering if a bit of separation, of different between TH and TLotR might be a good thing. Perhaps a different director, for a start. Jackson may not want to do it; they may not want him to do it, after all, does making six billion dollars on three movies (a 1400% profit) make him set for life to do whatever he likes?
quote:Originally posted by Lee: As we moved into 2000, the positive threads continued, to be expected when they're posted by the terminally-optimistic AndrewR! And by 2001, the excitement was almost palpable.
Tee Hee!
I think I can remember where I was when I posted that (In the biol library at uni - probably) cause I know there was where I downloaded that first teaser trailer and then the longer trailer that had at the end of it 2002: The Two Towers and then 2003: The Return of the King I remember thinking to myself - OH MY!! 2003 is SO far away.
Now it's 2006 the same difference in time from 2000 to 2003 as it is from 2006.
Next year marks my 10th anniversary on the net - and I've done nothing since I first plugged in!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
They mentioned "goblins" in the trilogy movies. Legolas pulls and arrow out of a dwarf corpse and says, "Goblins." Then Aragorn, after exiting, refers tot he same creatures as Orcs. I don't see a problem there.
As far as having too many dwarves, I wouldn't have a problem with all of them showing up. You could focus on the main guys and leave the rest as background characters.
I would really want to see Ian Holm as Bilbo. He brought such a warmth to the character in the trilogy, and made his friendship with Gandalf seem so deep... I'd want to see him do the part, even if they had to make the character a little older.
Oh... and Peter Jackson as director is also a must for me. In my own little world where I make the rules anyway.
posted
I've heard it suggested before (by Gandalf himself I believe) that the best depiction of the Hobbit would be in the form of a high budget mini-series. Principally because in that form it can include just about every single chapter. Now I'm not pretending it'd be word for word (unless it's narrated, that's not much of an option) but the plot could easily be split up into a relatively small number of 1 or 2 hour episodes. I'm sure the "Riddles in the Dark" episode would be the most anticipated. I've actually waited in vain for them to release a Hobbit audio book narrated by Andy Serkis, Gollum aside, I dare say he's quite the talented voice actor.
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
I think that it would be hard to make "The Hobbit" after the trilogy simply because of the difference in the styles of the two stories. There is a naivity to The Hobbit that is quickly dissipated in the LOTR. How do you recapture that? If they are going to do it, they need to treat it as a completely separate entity and not tie it into LOTR.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
There is a naivety to The Hobbit that is quickly dissipated after Gandalf vanquishes Tom, Bert and Bill. And the whole spider-debacle.
Also, it will be quite irresistable for the director (especially if it's PJ himself) to show at least a glimpse of what exactly Gandalf and his council went off to do while Bilbo and the dwarves had to pass through Mirkwood alone. A short scene of the Necromancer or just his Shadow leaving the forest in a beeline for Mordor, with a few choice words of Saruman, Gandalf or Glorfindel standing on a mound and gazing, saying that "this is just the beginning" or something to that effect, would be foreboding and perfect in a tie-in to LOTR. Just like the Star Wars prequels wallowed in scenes and pictures that hinted at that future (like filming the profile of Palpatine at Qui-Gon Jinn's funeral pyre, after Yoda's and Windu's "master/apprentice" talk. NUDGE-NUDGE.).
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow. You mean even with all the out-of-the-loop-ness I've been enduring this last year or so, I still am better informed about the Hobbit than anyone elses here? Daaaaamn...
There was a long-negotiated rights issue that is now resolved. Peter Jackson and his cohorts at Wingnut Films now have the rights to make a movie of the Hobbit, and have had for some months now. Ian Holm said years ago (sometime during or just after the trilogy) that he definitely wouldn't play Bilbo in the Hobbit. And I've heard noises that PJ has been itching to show Fanduil and the Wood-Elf caverns, Smaug, and the thirteen dwarves of Thorin's party.And Hobbiton is still there. Just needs to be spiffed up a bit.
Me, I'd love to see the Necromancer bit slipped in, as well as maybe a brief flash of the Goblin Wars for which Glamdring, Orcrist, and Sting were forged when they're discovered...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh god yes. Orcrist. But really, Glamdring and Orcrist where forged long before Beleriand was sunk. To show when they where forged or used would be to show the founding or fall of Gondolin. I'm not saying a flashback of that wouldn't be good, it's just that it would need one hell of an establishing flashback. But Orlando already put us in there by mentioning Morgoth in TFOTR. I say go for it.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Anyone see X-Men 3... the first 10 minutes with a younger Charles and Eric visiting a freaky Jean Grey??
Well did they look younger to you? Yes? Well they were digitally given a facelift... They were both made to look about 20 years younger... I was reading an interview with Sir Ian. He said that this technology could be bad in Hollywood - all the young starlets wanting to be digitally made younger. He said the he and Patrick would happily do a 'prequal' to the X-men when they can be made to look younger like that. He said that he was made to look about the time when he was mostly on the stage doing Shakespeare and Patrick was just starting out on The Next Generation.
(I really don't think Patrick Stewart looks like he's aged much from Season 1 TNG anyway).
ANYWAY, they could apply the same technology to Ian Holm for Bilbo - I though he was fantastic as the younger Bilbo in the caves under the Misty Mountains when they flashed back to him finding the One Ring.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
OK Thinking about it - from season 3 onwards he didn't change very much. I think the unflattering uniforms and the film grain (or whatever it was) of season 1 and 2 made PS look different. I mean compare his age change to Riker - Riker got fat and red and shiny-faced and his hair became bedgraggled and his eyes more squinty. That attempt at turning back time in the hideous final episode of Enterprise was just wrong.
I would say Patrick, LeVar, Michael and Gates have grown old gracefully.
Marina has but not when they dress her up like they did in that episode I just mentioned
Brent has obviously gained weight etc.
Johnathon... well I mentioned that.
All though having said all that they are all still pretty good for their ages.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: ANYWAY, they could apply the same technology to Ian Holm for Bilbo - I though he was fantastic as the younger Bilbo in the caves under the Misty Mountains when they flashed back to him finding the One Ring.
That sounds horrendously expensive to do for the entire length of a movie. Not to disparage Ian Holm's performance but there are other actors who could play the part sucessfully. Especially if you consider that Bilbo as he is in LotR is a very different character than the Bilbo of The Hobbit.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
