Hobbit movie plot ideas

[Jon S.]

I just read an interesting set of plot suggestions by some English guy. Many of them were quite good and well thought through. How about ours?

I think the movie would start out well with a brief scene of Gandalf, within the Necromancer's lair, retrieving Thrain's golden key. Then it could cut immediately to the Shire, providing a vivid contrast laden with possibilities.

I also think Beorn must go the way of Bombadil in PJ's LOTR. He's just not the right shape-shifter for the film version.

[Earniel]

I'd hate to see Beorn go the way of Bombadil. While it can be argued that Bombadil didn't fit the style of the further chapters in LoTR, Beorn fits in much better in the Hobbit. His home with horses and dogs serving food and the bee hives outside might be a very interesting visual in the movie. Although one not easy to pull off, I fear.

Another possible opening is Gandalf's meeting with Thorin that is described in UT, I believe.

[Jon S.]

I just don't see how cutting away from ongoing plot for a minimum of 10 minutes (and likely more) to showcase horse and dog waiters and waitresses can work for the film unless it's more Disney than not and that's not an outcome I'd prefer. That being said, if it's included, that's fine, too.

As a brief aside, I dig how Tolkien made his shape-shifter one of the good guys. I think he was creative and outside-of-the-box in doing that. Most of the time, e.g., Brooks, the shape-shifters are cast as evil demon spawn!

Personally, I'd handle Gandalf's meeting with Thorin as a flashback, perhaps while the company has just escaped the trolls and is approaching Rivendell.

BTW, the guy I cited in my opening post proposes opening the film, if I remember correctly, with a brief sequence of Bilbo leaving home for a stroll about the Shire, saying a brief hello to the Gaffer and several other friends in the process, culminating with him climbing a hill to gaze wistfully at the mountains (perhaps whispering something like, "Some day, I'll visit those mountains") so as to emphasize his repressed Tookishness proclivity for adventure, before returning home at dusk for the safety and comfort of his wonderful Hobbit hole. That could work, too!

[Curubethion]

Beorn is a much better fit for TH. He actually has something to do with the plot exposition, and he's an awesome fighter in his later scene...so yeah, he does come back. As opposed to Tom, who popped in for one chapter and then vanished, essentially.

The horse and dog waiters and waitresses are really a minor part of Beorn, his part can be modified.

[Jon S.]

Good points. P.S. I got tix for the Yanks-Red Sox in the Bronx on the 4th of July. Not that I have a dog in that fight (I can't get too excited about a pair of teams in an new upstart league that didn't even begin playing ball until the 20th century ) but I've got to visit Yankee Stadium before it's too late.

[Earniel]

I just like the image of the horses and dogs in Beorn's house, but I don't think it has to be necessarily all Disney for that. It has a strong fairy tale element, that's all. The visit to Beorn could be a welcome break story-wise from getting attacked by trolls, getting attacked by orcs, getting attacked by wargs ect... Depending on how it's handled, of course.

Besides, Beorn not only provided the company with horses until they get to Mirkwood (although arguably this can be cut, they worked around the hobbits without their barrow swords too) but as Curubethion said, he also shows up for the final battle, and that could be an interesting visual asset to the battle: a giant bear, battling orcs and saving Thorin from battle. If I was working at the Weta Workshop, I'd love to do that.

[Jon S.]

Earniel, you're winning me over on Beorn - "bring on the bear!"

[Earniel]

Glad to hear.

What do you think they'll do with Gandalf's absense in the quest? We later learn he went to help driving away of Sauron from Dol Guldur. Would they use it in the movie?

[Jon S.]

Personally, given the two-movie plan, the "bridging" built into the concepts, and the number of people who have already seen or read the LOTR movies or book, I can't imagine them not using it (but that's just me).

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

I just read an interesting set of plot suggestions by some English guy. Many of them were quite good and well thought through.

Here's the URL - check it out!

http://www.storyscape.net/hobbit_screenplay.html

[tolkienfan]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Here's the URL - check it out!

http://www.storyscape.net/hobbit_screenplay.html

It's clear that the guy did think things through when he made his suggestions. I think a lot of them were quite good. I'm not convinced about the 2nd Bridge movie. I just don't think there's enough material to warrent it's own movie. I don't see why it is needed either... Gandalf explains most everything in the beginning of the Fellowship.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by tolkienfan

I don't see why it is needed either... Gandalf explains most everything in the beginning of the Fellowship.

[shocked] What?! You've never heard of $$$?! [/unshocked]

[Kennashi]

Though it should be interesting since I'll have 5 instead of four movies to watch back-to-back when I'm craving for a quick recap movie session (The Hobbit, prequel movie, then LOTR). It'll be great! For me, at least.

[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."

[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!

[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]

Hmm, interesting idea ...

How about an opening similar to FOTR, with a flashback and a voiceover narrative? Maybe the Thorin/Gandy meeting, like Earniel suggested. This would kind of keep a similar "theme".
Eh, I don't know, maybe not...

Anyway, I think you could do the pony servant thing as an interesting background during an exposition-type scene where things have to be explained.

I don't know why they think they need 2 movies, though.

And yes, there's tons of material in the Sil, if the Hobbit goes over well.

Anyway, I'm hopeful for at least a semi-enjoyable film. When is it supposed to come out? Probably no date set yet.

[Kennashi]

The Sil?? No no no no...I hope to God that will never EVER come to pass...NO. Would people keep in mind that the Sil is a book of entire histories and mythologies?? Trying to cover all of Middle-earth's history in a series of films would be a mess! It's like trying to put the entire bible on film, it's just not done!
Besides, you guys know that Christopher will never let anyone touch the film rights to that as long as he's alive...and I would like it kept that way. Some things are just not meant to see the silver screen.