March 31, 2004

The Hobbit
Elendur

To David: If your definition of Tolkien purists means people who think the movies should be filmed word for word from the books, or have no changes, than I can start this post by saying I am not one(even if some of my posts might imply I am). No one who really enjoys and understands the books would object to all changes.

Here are my thoughts on your suggestions.

The Battle of Five Armies should obviously be shown from start to finish.

The Ring should not have any noticable effect on Bilbo. That did not begin to happen until Sauron arose in Mordor.

Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree, and showing the larger effects of Smaugs death, and Gandalf's strategies, would be cool. The movie should be made more to stand on its own than as a prequel to LotR though. Remember that LotR was meant to be simply a sequel to The Hobbit.

There is no reason Balin shouldn't mention his thoughts on Moria. A little connection to LotR doesn't hurt.

BILBO MEETING ARAGORN IN RIVENDELL?? I hope you were kidding. It's a not a good idea to try to hard to connect The Hobbit to the trilogy and cheapen the story.

How do you no that Arwen's sword(Hadhafang, Hadhatong, or Gwemigil) was Idril's?

As for the general tone of the movie, lighthearted or dark, you have to remember that you are filming The Hobbit, and it won't be The Hobbit if you consciously add in a bunch of doom and gloom that is unnecassary to the story.

So that's my stand. I'd appreciate it if some others posted. This is a better topic for debate and more likely to be productive than some of the others we've had(He is a hero! He isn't! He IS! He ISN'T).

-Elendur