The Hobbit: A Peter Jackson Trilogy

sandiegojones

New member
I can't wait for this! Del Toro was my first choice for this since Peter Jackson wasn't going to direct. I like the idea of mixing his designs (like those in Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy) with Weta Workshops. I bet Beorn, Smaug and the spiders will be awesome!

I'm also hoping that the "sequel" that bridges The Hobbit with LOTR will have some stuff from the Sillmarillion. It'd be nice to have a prologue like Fellowship had that gives backstory about Morgoth and how Sauron comes to power as well as the fall of Gondolin and the fall of Numenor. I'm guessing they'll have Beren and Luthien somewhere too.

Guess this won't be out until Christmas of 2011 though. That's 10 years after FOTR came out! I hope Ian McKellen and others won't be noticably older (both in appearance and physical performance). Viggo still looks good though (he's 50!).
 
Wow, I can't wait for these films to get made!! I truly hope to get more information soon!!
Some time ago Del Toro said that by december they would have probably started to reveal interesting details regarding the pre-production.

But I'm still pretty worried about the actors they will change (Ian Holm and, probably, Christopher Lee).
 

sandiegojones

New member
The Stranger said:
Wow, I can't wait for these films to get made!! I truly hope to get more information soon!!
Some time ago Del Toro said that by december they would have probably started to reveal interesting details regarding the pre-production.

But I'm still pretty worried about the actors they will change (Ian Holm and, probably, Christopher Lee).
I think it's certain that Ian Holm will be replaced, but I think they'll find a way to use Christopher Lee if he is indeed intended to be in either film. He just said he wouldn't go to New Zealand. With blue screen he could easily shoot a few scenes in London.
 

deckard24

New member
sandiegojones said:
I think it's certain that Ian Holm will be replaced, but I think they'll find a way to use Christopher Lee if he is indeed intended to be in either film. He just said he wouldn't go to New Zealand. With blue screen he could easily shoot a few scenes in London.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Holm will be replaced by a younger actor, which in my opinion is a good idea! He's one of the few characters that I feel that way about, mainly because his screentime was so minimal and they were already pushing the envelope by trying to make him appear younger. The rumor I read a while back was either James McAvoy or Martin Freeman as Bilbo, both being excellent choices with McAvoy being the best option to me! I agree Lee could return via blue screen, and I'd be willing to bet we'll see Hugo Weaving back as Elrond, Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Orlando Bloom as Legolas, John Rhys Davies in some sort of Drwarven fashion, and Cate Blanchett. Ian Mckellan and Andy Serkis are definites, and I'd bet Ron Perlman and Doug Jones will make appearances!

Here's Mortensen talking a bit about his possible role in the films: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39305
 

sandiegojones

New member
deckard24 said:
Yeah I'm pretty sure Holm will be replaced by a younger actor, which in my opinion is a good idea! He's one of the few characters that I feel that way about, mainly because his screentime was so minimal and they were already pushing the envelope by trying to make him appear younger. The rumor I read a while back was either James McAvoy or Martin Freeman as Bilbo, both being excellent choices with McAvoy being the best option to me! I agree Lee could return via blue screen, and I'd be willing to bet we'll see Hugo Weaving back as Elrond, Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, Orlando Bloom as Legolas, John Rhys Davies in some sort of Drwarven fashion, and Cate Blanchett. Ian Mckellan and Andy Serkis are definites, and I'd bet Ron Perlman and Doug Jones will make appearances!

Here's Mortensen talking a bit about his possible role in the films: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39305

Beorn:

180px-Nicholas_Bayrachny_-_Beorn.jpg


My guess is that Ron Perlman will be Beorn (who else would he play?) and that Doug Jones might be Smaug (motion capture) as well as the "Great Goblin" (in makeup) when the troupe are driven underground in the Misty Mountains and captured by Orcs. See below:

lee-hobbit_07.jpg


Even though they aren't mentioned by name, Aragorn and Legolas are in The Hobbit since the group goes to Mirkwood and Rivendell. The king of the Mirkwood elves is Legolas' father. Aragorn would be much younger though since I think there's a 60 year gap. Arwen will likely be I there too.
I would think that Rhys-Davies would play Gimli's father, Gloin (in different makeup). Gloin is actually in "Fellowship" in the council of Elrond scene, but not mentioned by name.

I'm curious who might play Bard the Bowman.

I also read an article recently about where THe Hobbit might split and where the "sequel" will pick up. After Smaug is killed the first film will end and the "Battle of Five Armies" will be the second film and will then go into the time between LOTR. I'm curious to see how they pull this off and how closely it matches the trilogy, especially since some locations are the same.

I've heard rumors of Jack Black too. Although he's totally wrong for Bilbo, I could see him in a lot of makeup being a dwarf.
 
Last edited:

deckard24

New member
sandiegojones said:
My guess is that Ron Perlman will be Beorn (who else would he play?) and that Doug Jones might be Smaug (motion capture) as well as the "Great Goblin" (in makeup) when the troupe are driven underground in the Misty Mountains and captured by Orcs. See below:
Even though they aren't mentioned by name, Aragorn and Legolas are in The Hobbit since the group goes to Mirkwood and Rivendell. The king of the Mirkwood elves is Legolas' father. Aragorn would be much younger though since I think there's a 60 year gap. Arwen will likely be I there too.
I would think that Rhys-Davies would play Gimli's father, Gloin (in different makeup). Gloin is actually in "Fellowship" in the council of Elrond scene, but not mentioned by name.
I'm curious who might play Bard the Bowman.
I also read an article recently about where THe Hobbit might split and where the "sequel" will pick up. After Smaug is killed the first film will end and the "Battle of Five Armies" will be the second film and will then go into the time between LOTR. I'm curious to see how they pull this off and how closely it matches the trilogy, especially since some locations are the same.
I've heard rumors of Jack Black too. Although he's totally wrong for Bilbo, I could see him in a lot of makeup being a dwarf.

These are some ideas I threw out there from an earlier post, and I still think they sound decent! I could see Jones doing more then just Thranduil, maybe Smaug and the Great Goblin like you said, and I remember reading somewhere about him being a Mirkwood spider?! As for Bard, Jackman could be really good as could Christian Bale, but they are both so high profile right now they might go with someone else! Maybe Gerard Butler?
  • Bilbo Baggins-James McAvoy or Martin Freeman (Most likely McAvoy!)
  • Beorn-Ron Perlman
  • King Thranduil-Doug Jones
  • Bard the Bowman-Hugh Jackman, or in the best case scenario Daniel Day Lewis!
  • Dwarves-John Rhys Davies, Brendan Gleeson, James Cosmo, Brian Blessed, and Brian Cox. The others I'm unsure of.
  • Smaug-Once again possibly Ron Perlman for the voice, or even John Rhys Davies or John Hurt.
  • Gollum-Andy Serkis without a doubt!
  • Gandalf-Ian Mckellan obviously!
  • Elrond-Hugo Weaving
  • Galadriel-Cate Blanchett
  • Saruman-Christopher Lee(keeps fingers crossed!)
  • Aragorn-Viggo Mortensen obviously!
  • Arwen-Liv Tyler
  • Legolas-Orlando Bloom
 

fixer79

New member
Nice casting, Deckard! ;)

I'd prefer Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo.
I think McAvoy's too young...
Also, Freeman looks like he could be a younger Holm.
 

sandiegojones

New member
I agree, Freeman looks more "Hobbity". I still think there's someone out there that we don't know of though. I trust Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro to get it all right.

I am curious how different the films will look though. The LOTR trilogy has a bit of a hazy look, similar to Alan Lee's paintings. GDT's films are a little brighter (on the color). I hear that there are more scenes that were filmed during the trilogy that they could use for the prequel to LOTR (since it was 10 years ago everyone will be younger). In Viggo's AICN interview he discussed scenes where he's with Arwen and he has no beard so he looks a lot younger. If they do use them I wonder if it will be noticable. maybe they'll just use more digital grading. I dunno.

Also, since they don't have rights to the Silmarillion I guess there'll be a lot of stuff I was hoping to see that I never will, but they can use everything from the appendicies of LOTR. I have to check my copy as I don't remember what all was in them (other than Arwen and mention of Beren & Luthien). I still hope to see the fall of Gondolin, the fall of Numenor and Melkor.
 
Last edited:

sandiegojones

New member
I hope they show Melkor/Morgoth (the first dark lord) and how he corrupted Elves and the Maiar to create Orcs and the Balrogs. He also created dragons (which is important to The Hobbit). They could also show how Sauron was an agent of Melkor and later became the dark lord. Maybe The Hobbit film will have a prologue like FOTR had that isn't related to the book specifically, but of middle-earth history that's more important to the overall story of the saga.

I also would like to see (or have it mentioned in detail) that the White Tree of Gondor came from a tree in Numenor, which came from a seedling of the Two Trees of Valinor. Isildur risked his life (before the ring corrupted him) to save a fruit from that tree which became the White Tree seen in Minas Tirith in Return of the King.

It may seem like a small thing, but if they mention that the tree was cut as a sacrifice to Melkor/Morgoth and how there were two groups of men from Numenor (those who still faithful to elves and others that were jealous of their immortality and who were loyal to Sauron) they could set up the fall of Numenor and have it lead into the prologue in Fellowship.

TN-The_White_Tree-Web.jpg


Sauron tricked the king of Numenor (similar to Grima in the Two Towers) and said they too could have immortality if they worshipped Melkor/Morgoth. The King made a temple and began to sacrifice humans (they sacrifieced men that were loyal to the elves) to Melkor. Sauron then told the men of Numenor to sail to Valar and take the "undying lands" by force. The Valar called on Eru (God) to help defend their land since they were not permitted to fight men and Eri made the flat world into a globe and this caused the undying lands to be removed from this world and Numenor to be overtaken by the sea. This also caused Sauron to lose his body an therefore became the "dark shadow" we see in the LOTR trology.

numenorburning_tns.jpg


I believe all this is in the appendices and could be an exciting prologue.
 
Last edited:

deckard24

New member
Sandiegojones

That would be awesome if they showed all of what you outlined!! That would be one amazing epilogue, not to mention seriously epic in scope! It's definitely gonna be interesting to see which way GTD takes these films. I'm sure Jackson though will keep a relative close grip on maintaining the continuity of these films with his.

I can tell you're quite the LOTR fan, so have you ever read The Silmarillion?

After thinking a little more about who could play Bard, I'm gonna have to go with Gerard Butler. The guy is great in these fantasy/period piece films and is completely convincing as a hardcore warrior!

Attila


300


Beowulf and Grendel

 
Last edited:

sandiegojones

New member
deckard24 said:
Sandiegojones
Man, I hope they show all of what you outlined!! That would be one awesome flick, not to mention seriously epic! I can tell you're quite the LOTR fan, so have you ever read The Silmarillion?
Yes. I've read The Hobbit about 4 times (and reading it again now to my son), LOTR twice and Sillmarillion twice. I have really nice illustrated editions of them all.

I've never really read the appendices in LOTR though. I kind of glance through them (since most of the info is in Silmarillion) so I should maybe check it out to see what they can use for the new films.

Most of what I outlined (the Melkor and fall of Numenor stuff) could be told in a 10-12 minute prologue. Even though it's not in The Hobbit per se, it does pertain the the overall tale and creates a solid narrative through 5 films.

During the film we'll see the dragon Smaug, Orcs, Spiders and the "dark shadow" in the forrest of Mirkwood. All of this relates to Melkor and Sauron's rise to power. They won't have to mention the ring other than showing Gollum and "riddles in the dark" since it's covered more in depth during the prologue to FOTR. In fact if you were watching all the films (once they completed) for the first time you might be curious why Gollum is so anxious to get the ring back. They say in the second film we may see Aragorn searching for Gollum. It could be good foreshadowing to know that the ring is being hunted, but you don't know why (again, if you've never seen the trilogy).

Ian McKellen was originally supposed to narrate the prologue in FOTR, and then they decided to have Cate Blanchett do it. Maybe Gandalf could narrate this tale? It would make sense since he is a Maiar and would have known those like him that were corrupted by Melkor and later became Balrogs. Having Gandalf narrating the prologue about the beginning of Middle-Earth and then dissolve to him knocking on Bilbo's door would be a cool way to start the film.
 
Last edited:

deckard24

New member
sandiegojones said:
Yes. I've read The Hobbit about 4 times (and reading it again now to my son), LOTR twice and Sillmarillion twice. I have really nice illustrated editions of them all.

I've never really read the appendices in LOTR though. I kind of glance through them (since most of the info is in Silmarillion) so I should maybe check it out to see what they can use for the new films.

Most of what I outlined (the Melkor and fall of Numenor stuff) could be told in a 10-12 minute prologue. Even though it's not in The Hobbit per se, it does pertain the the overall tale and creates a solid narrative through 5 films.

During the film we'll see the dragon Smaug, Orcs, Spiders and the "dark shadow" in the forrest of Mirkwood. All of this relates to Melkor and Sauron's rise to power. They won't have to mention the ring other than showing Gollum and "riddles in the dark" since it's covered more in depth during the prologue to FOTR. In fact if you were watching all the films (once they completed) for the first time you might be curious why Gollum is so anxious to get the ring back. They say in the second film we may see Aragorn searching for Gollum. It could be good foreshadowing to know that the ring is being hunted, but you don't know why (again, if you've never seen the trilogy).

Ian McKellen was originally supposed to narrate the prologue in FOTR, and then they decided to have Cate Blanchett do it. Maybe Gandalf could narrate this tale? It would make sense since he is a Maiar and would have known those like him that were corrupted by Melkor and later became Balrogs. Having Gandalf narrating the prologue about the beginning of Middle-Earth and then dissolve to him knocking on Bilbo's door would be a cool way to start the film.
That would be a great idea to have Mckellan, or even say Hugo Weaving narrate the prologue showing Melkor and the fall of Numenor! This would be an excellent way to segue into the beginning of The Hobbit, and provide the continuity as they move from the bridge film to FOTR! For the most part with a 10-15 minute prologue they could show the entire creation of Middle Earth or at least hint at it(considering they don't have the rights to The Silmarillion), and then take from the appendices what they need to create enough of a backstory. I love your idea of a dissolve into Gandalf knocking at the door of Bag End!

That's great you're reading it to your son!:hat:

I'm quite the fan myself and have read The Silmarillion once from start to finish, I've skimmed through it a second time, I've read The Hobbit 3 times, and The Lord of the Rings 3 times! I have really old copies of both The Hobbit and LOTR given to me by my sister, I'd say from the late 60's-early 70's.
 

Dr. Wolfwood

New member
Another fan here - I've read The Hobbit about 3 or so times and LOTR for four or five. The Silmarillion I've read only twice. I tried reading it for the third time aloud to my wife (then girlfriend), but she kept falling asleep as I read it, so we never got to finish it.

In any case, it will be very interesting to see how they can create a whole film from next to nothing. The Silmarillion holds many stories that would deserve to be filmed, but naturally they don't have the rights to do it, so...
 

sandiegojones

New member
deckard24 said:
That would be a great idea to have Mckellan, or even say Hugo Weaving narrate the prologue showing Melkor and the fall of Numenor! This would be an excellent way to segue into the beginning of The Hobbit, and provide the continuity as they move from the bridge film to FOTR! For the most part with a 10-15 minute prologue they could show the entire creation of Middle Earth or at least hint at it(considering they don't have the rights to The Silmarillion), and then take from the appendices what they need to create enough of a backstory. I love your idea of a dissolve into Gandalf knocking at the door of Bag End!

That's great you're reading it to your son!:hat:

I'm quite the fan myself and have read The Silmarillion once from start to finish, I've skimmed through it a second time, I've read The Hobbit 3 times, and The Lord of the Rings 3 times! I have really old copies of both The Hobbit and LOTR given to me by my sister, I'd say from the late 60's-early 70's.

I'm not an uber LOTR geek. I read The Hobbit in seventh grade and then when Fellowship came out I got hooked and read the whole saga after The Two Towers came out and again after Return of the King. I enjoy Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Greek myth and enjoy how grand this saga is.

My son is 4 and I want him to start getting involved in longer tales, not just Disney books. I thought it could be a good place to start and the illustrated edition has a lot of pictures so it'll help his imagination (I was tempted to show him the Hobbit cartoon movie, but it's crap - I can't stand the songs).

As far as the film is concerned I think they could follow a similar pattern as the trilogy. The first shot of FOTR is the molten gold being forged into the ring and then an explanation of how things came to pass.

Perhaps the first shot of the Hobbit prologue could be the sun rising above water with music (alluding to the creation of the world by Eru through music) and then Gandalf could begin telling the story of the "creation" and how Men and Elves came to the lands of Middle-Earth from Numenor and Valar.

Then suddenly the music becomes dark and Gandalf's voice more vociferous (like the part of the FOTR prologue when Galadriel says "...IN THE LAND OF MORDOR...") and he speaks about how Melkor created his own harmony, defied Eru, came to the Earth and became a dark lord by destroying all that Eru had created. Eventually Melkor (also known as Morgoth) is captured and imprisioned in Valinor. There he is freed and he takes the Silmarils and destroys the light from the Trees of Valinor. He then returns to Middle-Earth and from his temple in Angband, Melkor corrupts Men and Elves to create Orcs (and later creates Dragons and Balrogs). This would also introduce Sauron and then lead into the Attack on Valinor and fall of Numenor (could be a great action piece). With Melkor thrown into the great void and Sauron cast from his body, this will set up the FOTR prologue in which the Last Alliance defeats Sauron.

By setting up the origin of Dragons as well as the dark shadow of Sauron (the "Necromancer" in The Hobbit) it will set up the following adventure nicely. Then for the sequel (which is rumored to have the battle of five armies from The Hobbit in the beginning and then fast forwards to just before LOTR) they can ruminate a bit on other tales from the appendices. Rather than making stuff up, there can be a "prologue" in the middle of film two that tells other stories.

Maybe throw in a Beren and Luthien flashback where they steal the Silmaril from Morgoth (it would link to Arwen and Aragorn nicely and explain the "Star of Earendil" that Galdriel gives Frodo!). It would give some romance to a story that has none (which is why Arwen was added to the LOTR trilogy).

By setting up the Silmaril and Morgoth it allows for other tales to be referenced and understood by those who haven't read the books. It would explain Sauron's origins too and the Balrog (that's one thing in FOTR that isn't explained - The balrog - Gandalf fears the mines, but we don't know why or how unless you've read the books - which I had not upon first viewing). Perhaps showing the attack on Moria (which could work since Balin is one of the Dwarves in The Hobbit) is something they will do too?
 

agentsands77

New member
sandiegojones said:
Perhaps the first shot of the Hobbit prologue could be the sun rising above water with music (alluding to the creation of the world by Eru through music) and then Gandalf could begin telling the story of the "creation" and how Men and Elves came to the lands of Middle-Earth from Numenor and Valar.

Then suddenly the music becomes dark and Gandalf's voice more vociferous (like the part of the FOTR prologue when Galadriel says "...IN THE LAND OF MORDOR...") and he speaks about how Melkor created his own harmony, defied Eru, came to the Earth and became a dark lord by destroying all that Eru had created. Eventually Melkor (also known as Morgoth) is captured and imprisioned in Valinor. There he is freed and he takes the Silmarils and destroys the light from the Trees of Valinor. He then returns to Middle-Earth and from his temple in Angband, Melkor corrupts Men and Elves to create Orcs (and later creates Dragons and Balrogs). This would also introduce Sauron and then lead into the Attack on Valinor and fall of Numenor (could be a great action piece). With Melkor thrown into the great void and Sauron cast from his body, this will set up the FOTR prologue in which the Last Alliance defeats Sauron.

By setting up the origin of Dragons as well as the dark shadow of Sauron (the "Necromancer" in The Hobbit) it will set up the following adventure nicely. Then for the sequel (which is rumored to have the battle of five armies from The Hobbit in the beginning and then fast forwards to just before LOTR) they can ruminate a bit on other tales from the appendices. Rather than making stuff up, there can be a "prologue" in the middle of film two that tells other stories.

Maybe throw in a Beren and Luthien flashback where they steal the Silmaril from Morgoth (it would link to Arwen and Aragorn nicely and explain the "Star of Earendil" that Galdriel gives Frodo!). It would give some romance to a story that has none (which is why Arwen was added to the LOTR trilogy).

By setting up the Silmaril and Morgoth it allows for other tales to be referenced and understood by those who haven't read the books. It would explain Sauron's origins too and the Balrog (that's one thing in FOTR that isn't explained - The balrog - Gandalf fears the mines, but we don't know why or how unless you've read the books - which I had not upon first viewing). Perhaps showing the attack on Moria (which could work since Balin is one of the Dwarves in The Hobbit) is something they will do too?
As a LORD OF THE RINGS fan, I'd appreciate seeing this stuff, but really, I think it would feel pretty extraneous to anyone who is coming to these films for the first time (especially given how much information you've thrown in). At the very most, I could see a very brief glimpse of what you described, but really, I don't feel like this background is needed or at all likely to be shown. It doesn't deal with central narrative concerns, and answers more peripheral questions, and therefore is perhaps best left out of the films.

I think THE HOBBIT should pick up as THE HOBBIT opened and let it all unfold from there. That quiet beginning is a perfect place to start. There shouldn't be some fanfare heralding "epic" from the very beginning.
 
Last edited:

sandiegojones

New member
agentsands77 said:
As a LORD OF THE RINGS fan, I'd appreciate seeing this stuff, but really, I think it would feel pretty extraneous to anyone who is coming to these films for the first time (especially given how much information you've thrown in). At the very most, I could see a very brief glimpse of what you described, but really, I don't feel like this background is needed or at all likely to be shown. It doesn't deal with central narrative concerns, and answers more peripheral questions, and therefore is perhaps best left out of the films.

I think THE HOBBIT should pick up as THE HOBBIT opened and let it all unfold from there. That quiet beginning is a perfect place to start. There shouldn't be some fanfare heralding "epic" from the very beginning.
It may seem like a lot of info, but really it'd only be a few minutes of screen time, much like the prologue in FOTR. Still, it doesn't have to open the first film, but should be told if not shown somewhere. I can't imagine two 3 hour films (and like 4 hour extended DVD's) devoted to The Hobbit tale only.

I know it doesn't all relate to The Hobbit, but they're attempting to make a seamless narrative so it's 1 story over 5 films, not just a stand alone prequel, so a lot of this pertains to LOTR.

Most of the info can be told to the audience through narration (much like the creation of the rings of power, the last alliance, the death of Isildur, and the finding of the ring in FOTR). We can be told about Melkor and how he came to Middle-earth and became a dark lord (Morgoth). We really only need to see Morgoth corrupting men and elves to create Orcs and then a large battle with Morgoth being cast into the void. Then show the attack on Valinor and the fall of Numenor, with Sauron losing his body.

PJ and GDT have stated an intent to use what they can from the appendices so I suspect the second film at least will have some sort of historical prologue. I think telling the audience about certain events and showing Morgoth, the fall of Numenor and maybe Beren and Luthien should be told. Not all at once, but in parts. Perhaps the second film will lend itself to the disjointed nature of the stories?
 

agentsands77

New member
sandiegojones said:
I can't imagine two 3 hour films (and like 4 hour extended DVD's) devoted to The Hobbit tale only.
Well, maybe these films won't be as long as the LORD OF THE RINGS films. Just sayin'. And I'm sure they won't be devoted just to THE HOBBIT (I expect, as do most folks, that they'll deal with Sauron taking up in Mirkwood), but bringing THE SIMARILLION into it isn't really necessary.

sandiegojones said:
I know it doesn't all relate to The Hobbit, but they're attempting to make a seamless narrative so it's 1 story over 5 films, not just a stand alone prequel, so a lot of this pertains to LOTR.
But even so, it only relates to LORD OF THE RINGS peripherally. A lot of it isn't essential, or even important material (there's no need to bring the Silmarils or Beren/Luthien into the story). At most, they might want to sketch out a bit more of Sauron's backstory, since they'll be dealing with his appearance in Mordor, maybe, but nothing more than what's essential. You start throwing stuff in there and just gets muddy, especially when you start trying to present the broader mythology behind the LORD OF THE RINGS... it's just so involved. They need to keep things simple.
 

sandiegojones

New member
agentsands77 said:
They need to keep things simple.
Nothing about the LOTR trilogy was simple. I hadn't read the books before Fellowship came out and there was a lot of stuff referenced in the films that could be seen as "unnecessary", but they did it for love of the story. Once I read LOTR and the other books I loved that the detail was there.

Also, PJ and GDT have stated a desire to show other stories and that they wished they had the rights to The Silmarillion, but have to use the appendices due to copyright. To me, if they wanted to show what happens between the Hobbit and LOTR only, then they wouldn't have a desire to use The Silmarillion. I'm not making up some fanboy dream movie, I think these are things they are considering. I'm just posting it here for those unaware.

If The Hobbit is two films and intended to tie with the other trilogy as one story then they need to show Sauron's rise at least. By explaining that he was a servant to Morgoth (all that needs to be explained of Morgoth is that he defied Eru, and after the creation he came to Middle-earth and corrupted Men and Elves, creating an army of Orcs and created beasts like Dragons and Balrogs, then he was later captured and sent into the void) and of how Sauron tricked men into attacking Valinor and then lost his body in the fall of Numenor, it will shed some light on past events without having to recite the whole Silmarillion. I think it all can be done with an action packed prologue in one of the films. I think that showing some of his other evil deeds other than just what is in the LOTR is important.

I would like to see Beren and Luthien too, but I agree it's a stretch to fit it in somewhere.

The films will almost certainly be 3 hours long because filmmakers always want to show as much as possible and the prior trilogy has shown that the length doesn't effect the box office when the film is good. Most films are trimmed for money, not preference. I'd rather sit in a theater for 12 minutes longer and be told as much as possible rather than having it watered down.
 
Last edited:

agentsands77

New member
sandiegojones said:
Nothing about the LOTR trilogy was simple.
To an extent, no, because they were producing the sense of a world, but a lot of stuff was streamlined and simplified. And for good reason.

sandiegojones said:
To me, if they wanted to show what happens between the Hobbit and LOTR only, then they wouldn't have a desire to use The Silmarillion.
But, if I remember correctly, the SILMARILLION helps sketch out what happens immediately before/during/after THE HOBBIT, so naturally they'd want to draw upon that. There's no reason to suspect that they wish to draw upon any more SILMARILLION material than what's contained in "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age."

sandiegojones said:
If The Hobbit is two films and intended to tie with the other trilogy as one story then they need to show Sauron's rise at least.
Sure.

sandiegojones said:
By explaining that he was a servant to Morgoth (all that needs to be explained of Morgoth is that he defied Eru, and after the creation he came to Middle-earth and corrupted Men and Elves, creating an army of Orcs and created beasts like Dragons and Balrogs, then he was later captured and sent into the void) and of how Sauron tricked men into attacking Valinor and then lost his body in the fall of Numenor, it will shed some light on past events without having to recite the whole Silmarillion. I think it all can be done with an action packed prologue in one of the films. I think that showing some of his other evil deeds other than just what is in the LOTR is important.
I think that would be fine, and glimpse at some greater Sauron history is probably important. What I objected to was your more involved original summary, which had a considerably more detailed account of what Morgoth did, with the Silmarils and things like that.

sandiegojones said:
Most films are trimmed for money, not preference. I'd rather sit in a theater for 12 minutes longer and be told as much as possible rather than having it watered down.
I'd just rather have a film with the running time it merits, with excellent pacing. I think that the original trilogy frequently suffered from over-indulgence on Jackson's part, when judicious editing (either in the script development or in the finished film), would have ultimately produced a stronger final work.
 

sandiegojones

New member
agentsands77 said:
I think that would be fine, and glimpse at some greater Sauron history is probably important. What I objected to was your more involved original summary, which had a considerably more detailed account of what Morgoth did, with the Silmarils and things like that.


I'd just rather have a film with the running time it merits, with excellent pacing. I think that the original trilogy frequently suffered from over-indulgence on Jackson's part, when judicious editing (either in the script development or in the finished film), would have ultimately produced a stronger final work.
I disagree and even prefer the extended cuts over the theatrical versions. I never felt they were long just to be "epic", but because there was love for the story and because many fans wanted to see it. It's long yes, but not laborious like some films.

As far as Melkor and Sauron, the first paragraph on the last chapter in The Silmarillion ("OF THE RINGS OF POWER AND THE THIRD AGE") briefly mentions of Sauron that "in the beginning Arda, Melkor (Morgoth) seduced him into his allegiance and he became the greatest and most trusted of the servants to the Enemy". It also mentions that Sauron could assume many forms so as to deceive all but the most wary. Later it tells of Sauron putting on his "fair hue" and repenting for his evil deeds when Morgoth was defeated and cast into the great void.

Being ashamed an humiliated, he was unwilling to receive sentence from Valar and hid in Middle-earth. When men came from Numenor to the shores of Middle-earth he began to sway them towards evil as he found men the easiest to ensnare. This is why Sauron goes to Numenor, which leads to the Attack on Valar and the fall of Numenor, which then causes Sauron to lose his body and ability to appear fair.

All of this is also in the appendices and can be told in a short prologue with a voice over. The creation of the ring was already covered so showing the rise of Sauron is the logical background to be told. All of this is important and also gives more history of men and elves.
 
Top