Blackie's Hobbit Hole Pub

[Black Breathalizer]

We specialize in exotic drinks. Would you like a Goblin Blaster on the rocks? Or how about a Howling Uruk hai? Have a seat at the bar and rest awhile.

Since the activity in Entmoot's Hobbit forum village is slow right now, I have created this blog thread to post my random thoughts in one place rather than cluttering up the board with a lot of one post threads. Once activity here picks up (and I know it will eventually), this blog thread will go away naturally.

In the meantime, I will share some of my thoughts about Peter Jackson's new films right here in Blackie's Hobbit Hole Pub. Please feel free to order a drink or post your reactions to my comments. You are also welcome to leave and start your own thread to discuss any of the topics I raise.

So how 'bout a Thror Thunder?

[Black Breathalizer]

What will the Necromancer look like?

By now, most internet followers of the upcoming Hobbit films are aware that Peter Jackson's story will include the untold tale of Gandalf’s adventures after leaving Bilbo and the dwarves on the border of Mirkwood. Just like the Ent attack on Orthanc which was featured in The Two Towers film even though it wasn’t described in Tolkien’s novels, movie goers will see Gandalf join the White Council in an effort to drive the evil Necromancer out of his dark tower in Dol Guldur. It would also not be surprising to also see a flashback of Gandalf finding Thrain during one of his covert visits to the dungeons of Dol Guldur.

With this storyline in place, Tolkien fans should expect to see the Necromancer make an appearance on film. So the question today is how will the Necromancer be shown? Since the Necromancer is revealed to be Sauron, does this mean we will see the return of the flaming eye?

I think not. Piecing together clues that can be found from Jackson’s three LOTR films as well as The Hobbit, the ROTK Appendixes, and Unfinished Tales, here is my guess on what Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens have come up with for us:

The physical presence of the mysterious Necromancer will be shown as the powerful Nagul, Khamul the Easterling, “the Shadow of the East.”

Khamul is second only to the Witch King of Angmar as the most powerful of The Nine. Similar to Jackson’s depiction of the Witch King in ROTK, I suspect Khamul’s appearance will be much different from his depiction as a Black Rider in the FOTR film. Instead of a rider in Black, we’ll see a dark helmeted creation of Alan Lee and John Howe that will no doubt look sinister, creepy, and visually dramatic.

As far as Sauron himself, it will be made clear before the end of the second Hobbit film that he is the true Necromancer, the real power pulling Khamul’s strings. It might be revealed to the audience the same way we learned in the second Star Wars film that the Emperor was behind Darth Vader's evil actions. Or it might be similar to the way Saruman communicated with Sauron using a palantir.

However it is done, when we do see Sauron again on film, it will not be the same visual presentation we saw in TTT and ROTK films. People may recall that in FOTR, Sauron had a cat-like eye. Jackson explained at the time of TTT that The Eye was beginning to look more and more like a humanoid eye as Sauron's old power continued to return to him. So when Sauron is revealed in the Hobbit films, expect to see nothing more visually evolved than a small firey orb.

[Valandil]

Interesting thoughts, BB. I haven't avidly kept up on whatever hints get dropped or tossed around. Partly because I'm not up to that much research, maybe also because the thing has gone on hold so often and changed course so much. It'll be interesting (that word again) to see how it does actually get put together.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally Posted by Valandil;

Interesting thoughts, BB.

Omigosh. A visit by The Mayor. Gee, thanks for stopping by. Would you be interested in a Gondorian Brandy? Um...or perhaps a Diet Coke?

I'm not sure how I should take the word, "interesting" coming from you.

Originally Posted by Valandil;

I haven't avidly kept up on whatever hints get dropped or tossed around. I'm not up to that much research...

What looks like research to you was just me goin' GEEK.

Originally Posted by Valandil;

Maybe also because the thing has gone on hold so often and changed course so much.

Yeah, but I view that as a sign of good things to come.

Jackson's LOTR production took a lot of crazy twists and turns back in the late 1990s and even came within a eyelash of dying if PJ hadn't been able to convince New Line to take over from Miramax when that studio decided it only wanted to make one film unless PJ could find another studio who would adopt the project.

Also, in one of the extended DVD documentaries for the LOTR films, one of the graphic artists commented that the filmmakers had originally planned to do a number of things that were quite different from Tolkien. But as the production went along, for one reason or another, the story being told on film kept coming back to Tolkien. He said it was if it were meant to be.

I like Del Toro but I had a bad feeling at the time he was brought into the project. My gut told me that it wasn't the way this was supposed to play out. Maybe all the delays was destiny's way of telling PJ it needed to be him behind the camera all along. Now with filming underway and with Peter Jackson back in the Director's chair along with Fran and Phillipa and most of the old gang with him behind the scenes, I have a very good feeling about these films. PJ's first behind-the-scenes video certainly reinforced that notion.

I'm excited and looking forward to a fun three years!!!

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Black Breathalizer

Jackson's LOTR production took a lot of crazy twists and turns back in the late 1990s and even came within a eyelash of dying if PJ hadn't been able to convince New Line to take over from Miramax when that studio decided it only wanted to make one film unless PJ could find another studio who would adopt the project.

I shudder to think of what (kind of film) we may have received if LOTR was condensed to one 3-hour film.

I am sure that the scenery, costumes, and music will be well done. Hopefully they will do a good job with the story of the Hobbit. (I thought LOTR was ok, 2½ of 4 stars, but could have been so much better.)

I think the Hobbit should be easier to adapt to film than LOTR.

[Black Breathalizer]

Questions about the White Council

It's intriguing to think about the White Council. It's already been announced that the Council will make its debut in the first Hobbit film. Will it be pictured like a Middle-Earth version of the Star Wars' Jedi Council? Or will it look similar to the Council of Elrond from the Fellowship of the Ring movie? Or will we see something in between the two?

Personally, I don't think we'll see anything as pretentious as George Lucas' Jedi Council. The White Council was reformed specifically to address the issue of the Necromancer. So while it might have a little more formality than the Council of Elrond, I don't expect to see anything dramatically different from the "meeting of the minds" we saw in the first LOTR film.

Another question: Where will the White Council meet? I have found no specific references to the location of the White Council's meetings. I've always assumed they met in Lothlorien but it could just as well be Rivendell or Orthanc. My bet (at least for the moment) is that we'll return to Lorien and the home of Galadriel.

Lastly, who will we see in the Council? I've heard it said that it will include all of the other wizards of Middle-Earth: Saruman the White, Gandalf the Grey, the two unnamed Blue Wizards and Radagast the Brown. Saruman will definitely be included since he is elected the leader of the White Council. Same with Gandalf. But Tolkien indicated that the other wizards were never a part of it. Since the role of Radagast the Brown will be featured in the films, it's possible that he may become a White Council member in the films.

Right now, it's a safe bet that the Council will include: Saruman the White, Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf the Grey. In addition to Radagast, it's possible that it may also include Celeborn but I haven't heard if the the actor Marlon Csokas is reprising his role. It's also possible that, like the Council of Elrond, we'll see a group of actors featured who are part of the Council but who have no speaking roles. This would allow for the inclusion of other Council members that Tolkien mentions: Cirdan the Shipwright, Arahad of the Dunedain, as well as other high elves like Glorfindel.

[Black Breathalizer]

Peter Jackson is fulfilling JRR Tolkien's Wishes.

Most Hobbit fans are aware that there were two published versions of The Hobbit. The first one, published in 1938, presented readers with a less menacing Gollum who engaged Bilbo in a riddle game for "a present." Then came a second version, published in 1947, that aligned itself more with Tolkien's upcoming Lord of the Rings book. This is the most widely read version and gave modern day readers the 'Riddles in the Dark' exchanges between Bilbo and Gollum that we've all come to know and love.

However, I did not realize until recently that JRR Tolkien had worked on a THIRD VERSION of The Hobbit in the 1960s. Sadly, Tolkien gave up on the project after he got Bilbo and the dwarves as far as Rivendell. But the motivation behind the project was to rewrite The Hobbit in a more 'adult fantasy' style. In this way, he thought the novel would serve as a better flowing, and more natural, prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

I mention this because I've heard some Peter Jackson critics who claim that he is dramatically changing Tolkien's children's fairy tale and turning it into a prequel for his LOTR films (ala the Star Wars prequels.) But the truth is that this approach is EXACTLY what Professor Tolkien, himself, wanted.

While probably not written as he would have done himself, the notion of an adult fantasy "LOTR-like" epic fantasy version of The Hobbit would have had the Professor's seal of approval.

[Earniel]

Frankly, I'm not sure about that. Especially, if we don't know the reason why he abandoned the project. Perhaps he reconsidered and thought rewriting it just didn't work with the story? Perhaps the same way he abandoned the LoTR's sequel, if memory serves me right, because it would have become a thriller which was not worth doing.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Frankly, I'm not sure about that. Especially, if we don't know the reason why he abandoned the project. Perhaps he reconsidered and thought rewriting it just didn't work with the story? Perhaps the same way he abandoned the LoTR's sequel, if memory serves me right, because it would have become a thriller which was not worth doing.

Tolkien's letters indicate he wanted to rewrite the Hobbit in a tone more like the LOTR. And like many of his written works, he got a healthy start but never finished it.

I have never found anything in any of the books on Tolkien that indicates that he stopped working on it in the mid-1960s because he'd changed his mind about writing a more adult version of the Hobbit. He was in the later years of his life just didn't have the energy or commitment to finish it. Being the ultimate perfectionist, he found the number of discrepancies that he needed to address to complete the work to his satisfaction daunting.

[Black Breathalizer]

Did Tolkien write a new scene for Jackson's The Hobbit?

In the two volume, The History of the Hobbit, the author, John Rateliff, shares Tolkien's 1960s rewrite of the novel that he ultimately abandoned.

In Tolkien's rewrite, after travels that include a stop in Crickhollow and a night in Bree, Thorin's party is waylayed by a broken bridge on their road East. With the help of Gandalf, the party is able to cross the river with their ponies but end up spending the night in the woods in the area. It turns out the bridge was deliberately damaged by the three Stone Trolls who were looking to catch tasty travelers stuck in the area.

It will be interesting to see if screenwriters, Walsh, Boyens, and Jackson use it to set up the party's encounter with the trolls.