Hobbit movie plot ideas

[The Gaffer]

I suppose so, if you can get audiences to believe that Frodo and Sam could take down Sauron, you can get them to believe in Bilbo versus the dragon.

Though if they show the UT scene from Bree, they might wonder what Barly was putting in his mead for them to come up with that scheme, even with the beer goggles on.

The morning after:

Gandalf: "Moan! Oh my head..."
Thorin (Dwarf constitution gives +4 versus hangovers): "Right, I'm off to act on our plan."
Gandalf: "Eurrrgh... whatever... just pass the water before you go. What plan? ... Oh he's gone. zzzzz"

[Rían]

True!

Or you could do the same thing as far as showing the dragon's rampages and the dwarves getting slaughtered, and do Gandy's voice in the background: "Dratted hobbits! Confound them all! Hey ..." and then cut to a shot of Bilbo ...

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, we all know that here - I said "tons of material IN the Sil" - like what Jon S said, you would pick out individual stories. I wasn't saying it was a good or bad idea, I was just noting that I'm sure it's being considered since LOTR did so well and movie people like money.

There's some stuff in there I would really love to see. The Fall of Gondolin and the Akallabeth? Oh yeah.

[Kennashi]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Mel Brooks did a pretty good job with it.

Actually, what people are thinking of - at least what I'm thinking of - is not a movie called "The Simarillion," any more than a movie called "The Bible."

I'm thinking of telling stories from the Simarillion on film. Think of the functional equivalent of The 10 Commandments, etc.

Which film did Mel do?

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Actually, what people are thinking of - at least what I'm thinking of - is not a movie called "The Simarillion," any more than a movie called "The Bible."

I'm thinking of telling stories from the Simarillion on film. Think of the functional equivalent of The 10 Commandments, etc.

No, see, the reason why people do movies based on the bible is because the director/writer already assumes the audience's familiarity with the damned book, I mean c'mon, who hasn't heard of THE BIBLE? Films based on, say, Thingol and Melian would just be fanservice for people who are already Tolkien aficionados, the same way films based on the bible are just recaps of what people already know!

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

There's some stuff in there I would really love to see. The Fall of Gondolin and the Akallabeth? Oh yeah.

You couldn't do either without giving the rest of the backstory.

If you did the Fall of Gondolin, you'd have to explain who Turgon is, why he's in ME in the first place...all the way back to Aman.

I'd slit my throat before I'd vote for any more of Tolkien's works to be butchered on the screen...

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Kennashi

Which film did Mel do?

History of the World: Part I. Not the Bible per se but all of history including biblical themes, sorry for any confusion.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/

Originally Posted by Kennashi

Which film did Mel do?

No, see, the reason why people do movies based on the bible is because the director/writer already assumes the audience's familiarity with the damned book, I mean c'mon, who hasn't heard of THE BIBLE? Films based on, say, Thingol and Melian would just be fanservice for people who are already Tolkien aficionados, the same way films based on the bible are just recaps of what people already know!

No, see, the reason people continue to attend sequels in huge numbers, like for 5 super quick examples, James Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Austin Powers, has zero to do with any audience familiarity with the damn stories (sorry for "damn" - I'm shooting for parallel paragraph structure in my response ).

This is why I stressed, earlier, the branding of "Middle Earth," its races, and characters (and no, not every character needs to literally repeat, rather, what repeats are the motifs).

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Actually, as long as the movies keep selling at the box office, there could be an almost inexhaustable array of them given the Simarillion. I'm not necessarily saying this would be a good thing, only commenting on the Hollywood fact that when there's a genre that can be branded and a track record of selling, e.g., James Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek, Austin Powers, etc., the nature of capitalism is that more are produced. In the case of LOTR, The Hobbit, the bridge films, and prequels (e.g., Simarillion-based), the genre/brand is "Middle Earth."

You're right, the array is indeed almost inexhaustible, but if it does happen, that movies are made not only about the Hobbit, but also other stories in the Middle Earth genre, I really hope it is made properly. I fear however that it won't be.

Now, I know there are alot of anti-LOTR movie people here in the forum (won't be naming names), and I can see their point; which seems to be that all the rich detail and interesting subplots of LOTR is washed away into a high-speed, action thriller, with lines spoken by Pippin in the book suddenly become Sam's in the movie. I get that.
But seeing the movies in such a light is hopeless because you can't compare any movie to the book, because the two are completely different ways of conveying a story.
I think what Peter Jackson and his team is so well-thought out and thoroughly made that one should not forget how incredibly well he actually captured elements of the book. The scenery for one. The Shire, Rivendell, Moria, Lothlorien, Minas Tirith, Helms Deep, Fangorn, Mordor. It's all there and I was simply amazed that images I had in my mind as a 11-year old reading the Two Towers was there, in physical manifestation, on the screen in the movie. As if PJ himself went into my brain, took pictures of my mental imaginations on Middle Earth, and just pasted it onto the screen

What I'm fearful of though is that too many movies are made, because in the end the quality will fall. Peter Jackson was good, but he was also lucky to have such a enormously large crew behind him in what is of course one of the most popular stories of all time, LOTR. The Hobbit is popular but not even close. The Silmarillion. Well we all know how popular it is. And the point I'm making is that the immense pressures on quality and the immense support, willingness, dedication, time spending and Cash involved in the LOTR movies just won't be there in such massive numbers (bar The Hobbit, which I think can get really good because it's riding on the tide of LOTR).

So I actually hope they stop after the Hobbit. If this spurs an array of movies, or even worse, a series (!! Please no!), then we're going downhill.

(P.S., For those anti-LOTR movie people in here: Nobody's gonna change your mind on you disliking the movies, but think about this: You don't need to substitute the movie for the book to like it. The book is THE BOOK, but the movie can be like an add-on, a spice, a visual of many of the things in LOTR which would be cool to see "live", and which through Peter Jackson's movies indeed have come to life! I guess there are a few die-harders who for some confused reason though seems to believe that a near-dogmatic dedication to the book at the price of slaughtering the movie, is somehow honouring Tolkien. Which I would say: Wrong, part of why Tolkien wrote was because he wanted to be able to fully convey his magical world to the real world. With these movies it has been done with a touch of quality)

[Jon S.]

To paraphrase Woody Allen, a movie based on Middle Earth is like sex without love: "an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."

Seriously!

[Curufin]

With these movies it has been done with a touch of quality

*feels ill with the intensity of her disagreement*

But I'll leave you philistines to your discussion.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

For those anti-LOTR movie people in here: Nobody's gonna change your mind on you disliking the movies, but think about this: You don't need to substitute the movie for the book to like it. The book is THE BOOK, but the movie can be like an add-on, a spice, a visual of many of the things in LOTR which would be cool to see "live", and which through Peter Jackson's movies indeed have come to life! I guess there are a few die-harders who for some confused reason though seems to believe that a near-dogmatic dedication to the book at the price of slaughtering the movie, is somehow honouring Tolkien. Which I would say: Wrong, part of why Tolkien wrote was because he wanted to be able to fully convey his magical world to the real world. With these movies it has been done with a touch of quality)

I'm with you 100%, Bro' - "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Curufin

*feels ill with the intensity of her disagreement*

But I'll leave you philistines to your discussion.

"Philistinism is a derogatory term used to describe a particular attitude or set of values. A person called a Philistine (in the relevant sense), is said to despise or undervalue art, beauty, intellectual content, and/or spiritual values. Philistines are also said to be materialistic, to favor conventional social values unthinkingly, and to favor forms of art that have a cheap and easy appeal (e.g. kitsch)." (Source: Wikipedia)

Ouch. But read my P.S. comment and you'll find my response to that

Originally Posted by Jon S.

I'm with you 100%, Bro' - "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Well put!

[Rían]

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about the LOTR movies, but I'm not militaristic about it. When I get to a part I don't like, I just kind of put my eyes on hold and substitute the real thing in my mind, and I enjoy all the parts that I think they DID get right, because it reminds me of the story that I love.

I doubt if any of the stories of the Sil will get put into a movie, but if they do, I don't think they would need to go all the way back to the beginning. I think they could do something like at the beginning of FOTR, which I ended up liking the concept of more and more as I saw it more (despite the goofy parts in it).

[Jon S.]

Once you get the teeming masses (Phillistine or otherwise ) hooked on Tolkien's world in general, they will run each other over to be first to attend the latest "based a book or story by Tolkien" movie. There are just so many excellent tales in the Simarillion to choose from, the issue is not whether material exists but how to make the choice!

BTW, I was rereading the Simarillion last night before bedtime and damned if I didn't come across a quote by Varda that I think nails "who or what was Huan" as per my earlier thread of that title in the Simarillion section. If I can't find the time, I'll post the specific quote there tonight.

[Insidious Rex]

Philistines unite...

I cant imagine that they would make any Silmarillion movies. I don’t see how they could really make it work. Lets not be blind just because we are wonks. No ones ever heard of the Silmarillion outside of Tolkien circles so I seriously doubt any big studio would back a pure Silmarillion movie without reserving the right to completely hollywoodize it to death. Its very much like trying to make a movie out of Le Morte d'Arthur. You cant really do it directly because of the epic nature of it (nevermind the staggering complexity of the back story and the interrelatedness of all the characters that you have in the Sil). You have to pick and choose what you include and how you show it and you end up getting stuff like King Arthur, a completely western/Hollywood vehicle which was fine I guess but it was NOT Le Morte d'Arthur. And for those purists who think Jackson butchered Tolkiens work wait till Hollywood gets a hold of the Silmarillion! Youll barely recognize it. Brad Pitt as Turin anyone?

And I don’t know if the general public that enjoyed Jackson’s movies would be able to stomach on screen what is essentially a complex dark tragic Shakespearian soap opera, arcane and heavy (aspects that make it appealing in book form in my opinion). I don’t see it appealing to any one single demographic and that’s death in the movie industry. They would lose their shirts.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lets not be blind just because we are wonks.

No ones ever heard of the Silmarillion outside of Tolkien circles so I seriously doubt any big studio would back a pure Silmarillion movie without reserving the right to completely hollywoodize it to death.

Hey, Lucas got away with Star Wars prequels! This would be a LOTR prequel ...

Its very much like trying to make a movie out of Le Morte d'Arthur. You cant really do it directly because of the epic nature of it (nevermind the staggering complexity of the back story and the interrelatedness of all the characters that you have in the Sil).

I think you could do the story of Gondolin pretty well as a movie. Start with a flashback sequence (what was it called that they did at the beginning of FOTR? Can't remember what it's called) of straggling elves coming into ME, then building a city, and then rolling up the welcome mat and hiding away. Then the main story is about Tuor and how he finally made it to Gondolin, and then of course the love story with Idril and the menacing Meglin, and the birth of Earendil, then *ominous music* the betrayal of Meglin, then a massive war and finally the few escapees and Glorfindel's fight with the Balrog, and ending with a shot of Earendil grown up and married and holding his newborn ... Mr. Smith/Elrond!!!! Then Idril taking one look at the baby version of Hugo Weaving and turning into a bird and flying away while Tuor flees Middle Earth (JRRT got those last details a little wrong in his version, I think - these were the real ones ).

OK, well, maybe not that last bit ... but ending with a straggling group of refugees with Earendil in their midst and some voiceover blurb about "this line being preserved through the ages and pops up again in our movie FOTR - be sure to buy the extended version DVD!" or something like that.

(oh, and we really should add in a quick scene with Tuor's mum, RIAN! - obviously played by a gorgeous actress ... *modest look* )

Youll barely recognize it. Brad Pitt as Turin anyone?

We had a thread on that once ...

[Jon S.]

You folks who are saying it can't be done, my apologies, but you're either not seeing it because you don't want to (you fear the results) or you're just not opening your creative selves.

Narrator opens with brief, though longer than typical, "voice-over visuals" of the Valar shaping Arda and Yavanna creating the Two Trees, Feanor crafting the Simarils, and Melkor and Ungoliant destroying the trees, assasinating Finwe, and stealing the Simarils.

Then the movie - or movies - resume and tell the story.

Obviously, either you have many movies or fewer but with a ton of theatric "compression" but either way, it is absolutely doable. Assuming one highly compressed movie, it is also possible to drop hints throughout the movie of subplots to be fleshed out more fully in subsequent movies.

Many will not relish the thought of the above occuring but that is a separate issue of whether it can be done.

Final thought for this post: The Simarillion is a darn cool word and it'll make a darn cool movie name.

[Earniel]

we're getting a little off-topic here. May I redirect the discussion of a silmarillion movie to the Silmarillion forum? This thread for example, would do nicely.

[Kennashi]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

No, see, the reason people continue to attend sequels in huge numbers, like for 5 super quick examples, James Bond, Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Austin Powers, has zero to do with any audience familiarity with the damn stories

What I'm saying is that taking a random story from the Sil and putting it on the silver screen would confuse a casual movie-goer with the same amount of confusion that would be present if a person who has never read the bible went to go see the Ten Commandments. What's the appeal?
P.S. I wonder who they're gonna cast as Luthien?

Originally Posted by Jon S.

(sorry for "damn" - I'm shooting for parallel paragraph structure in my response ).

[Kennashi]

Oh, sorry, Earniel, I just had to wrap up that issue there...
In any case, has anyone seen this?

Sorry I didn't post this earlier...

[GrayMouser]

Just wondering about the second "Hobbit" movie:

Gandalf and Aragorn do whatever outside the Shire: Frodo takes a walk.

Gandalf, Aragorn, White Council, do whatever- Frodo dodges Lobelia.

Great events in Middle-Earth: Nine Riders reappear etc.

Frodo has small party for Bilbo's Birthday.
And so on...