Could Tolkien Have Fixed The Hobbit Films?

I like you too.

And nothing for the person who drunkenly absconded with you? (I'm assuming it was drunkenly on the basis everything I do is done drunkenly ) Bloody typical is what this is!

Sigh, nothing quite so romantic as unrequited drunken crabbit.

Here are some things I would have specifically be interested in Tolkien expanding upon from the 1960 re write: (disclaimer: keeping the spirit of the original hobbit is not in mind, as I'm not as fascinated as to whether this version would work, but more of what actually happened instead of Bilbo's blurry account of what happened)

-The stay in Bree — Of the many days it takes the company to get to Bree, I'm curious as to what they're stay there was like. Obviously it wouldn't have that campfire feel to it, and it also wouldn't feel as urgent as in fellowship. Who knows what Gandalf and Thorin could have been planning in that nice sit-down setting?

-A longer account of Rivendell — No, I'm not talking about the cheesy, stilted and extremely far fetched White Council scene (it's like Galadriel and Saruman were standing there for days and days waiting for Gandalf to come just so that they could make that dramatic appearance, when of course they didn't know he was coming, which makes even LESS sense because White Council sessions were arranged ahead of time). All I'm talking about is a lengthier account of what went on during two weeks they stayed there. Two of the most important people in ME probably had some interesting things to say to each other.

-More Esgaroth — No, not adding any filler for this like in the movie, but just simply a lengthier description of what went on there. I believe Bilbo's birthday took place around that time, so I think something could done to exemplify the fact that he himself was changing as long with his age (a missed opportunity for the films). Also, getting a better sense of culture from Laketown would have been nice

-More Bard? — Some people feel his randomness in the story adds to his character, but with a more mature Hobbit with more time to develop the story and characters, I'm positive Bard wouldn't stay THIS out of nowhere. So basically anything explaining what happens to him or what he's like would have improved upon the 1960 re write (you can still add as much info on a character as you want and still make him mysterious and ambiguous)

-A more LOTRish perspective of the Goblin Town and Mirkwood Elves Capture Scene — I always enjoyed the feeling that TH book (unlike LOTR) had a level of surrealism that added much to it's unique flavor. Consequently, this caused many things that some do not think probable (at least compared to LOTR) to happen for entertainment value, which I think is a great thing. However, I'm still curious how Tolkien would LOTRify some of these moments in the book

-Gandalf's Dol Guldor Subplot — This doesn't even have to be included. I'm just curious as to what he actually did when he went off on his own (cause I'm pretty sure they didn't get that part right in the movie...) Maybe during Bilbo's return journey when they stay with Elrond he could tell him what happened (so basically an extension of this passage "It was in this way that he learned where Gandalf had been to; for he overheard the words of the wizard to Elrond. It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic; and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood. Ere long now, Gandalf was saying, The Forest will grow somewhat more wholesome. The North will be freed from that horror for many long years, I hope. Yet I wish he were banished from the world!It would be well indeed, said Elrond; but I fear that will not come about in this age of the world, or for many after."

-Legolas cameo, or perhaps even minor character? — In some way or another Tolkien would somehow include Legolas into the story, and how could we blame him? (though probably with personality and decent lines) I imagine it would be far less than Orlando, and had a better role to play than him, but that's to come with all the Legolas's we've seen at the moment. Would he be mentioned in BOFA (the battle not the movie)? Probably not. Might there be a father-son problem with Thrandy? Eh, maybe. That's as far as I can guess really, and I must admit TH films brought me to this question.

-A lengthier depiction of BOFA, Obviously — Not much explaining is needed. The battle in the book used so many general it was hard to decipher what was going on (much less though in the movie!). This deliberately done by the author, because the battle wasn't the biggest thing in the story he wanted to focus on. Though if it were to geographically coordinated with LOTR I'm sure we'd get a much better description of what happened between each faction fighting - after Bilbo was knocked unconscious too. Sadly though I fear this will always be left to interpretation.

-Thorin's funeral, Dain's coronation, the disrupting of gold throughout Dale, and Bilbo's return journey — Those are a good combination of things that might have worked better as a conclusion.

Frankly, I know most of this stuff would probably ruin the Hobbit, but I guess it's still fun speculating what would have been included. Sorry about the length of this post.

interesting list. but regarding Gandalf I would have preferred not knowing what he got up to when he left them before Mirkwood. I prefer him mysterious.

Yep, I like Gandalf to have a mysterious side to him also, sometimes less is more.

Who knows what Gandalf and Thorin could have been planning in that nice sit-down setting?- Davidj

Tolkien knows- it sin Unfinished Tales, more than one versionof event si fact (one takes place at Bree, one on the road just outside Bree) problem was whatever PJ put in his version it could not be anything like Tolkiens in purpose or in its dialogue, as PJ doesn't have the rights to UT.
So without the rights whatever you put in that scene has for legal reasons to be deliberately wrong, so in my view its therefore not worth including in the first place.

'I believe Bilbo's birthday took place around that time, so I think something could done to exemplify the fact that he himself was changing as long with his age (a missed opportunity for the films). '

In FotR (book) Bilbo mentions in his birthday speech that his was his birthday, but that with all that was going on he had completely forgotten the fact, but he did get to attend an excellent feast, but as he had caught a cold all he could say was 'Thag you very
Mubh'

'Some people feel his randomness in the story adds to his character, but with a more mature Hobbit with more time to develop the story and characters, I'm positive Bard wouldn't stay THIS out of nowhere. So basically anything explaining what happens to him or what he's like would have improved upon the 1960 re write'

This is a tricker one when talking film, its harder to get away with introducing someone out of the blue who then kills the big bad you'll whole film has been about your hero dealing with in some way (by expectation of the audience).
To pull it off you have to have confidence in the underling moral tale you are telling- which is basically greed is bad, and where you think you are greedy is just the obvious stuff, the dragon, but its deeper than that and you have to look hard at yourself to see it.
In book Bilbo doesn't take the arkenstone and keep it because he wants to save Thorin from himself, he takes it becuase he is a burglar now, fully embracing his role, a role he initially failed in with the trolls at first attempt- but at what cost?
The battle like the dragon is dealt with almost off page.
In the caseo the greed reresented by the dragon its removed by someone who just appeared and we now little about, becuase it was never the real issue of the greed, the second time is Bilbo stealing the arkenstone, the third time is Thorin's unwillingness to share fairly.
Each case of greed is overcome, but only personal greed is overcome by the main characters- Bilbo uses his theft to try to help everyone, Thorin realises and repents of his on his death bed.
But PJ's TH isn't about that- it glorifies in its wars and deaths, its wants the audience to be cheering whilst showing its main characters slaying gleefully hoards of orcs. Its doesn't have the narrative structure or the thematic set up to pull of bringing in Bard at the last minute.

'Legolas cameo, or perhaps even minor character?'

I will leave how I handle that in my edit for you to watch and you can see what you think of my choices then.

'A lengthier depiction of BOFA, Obviously'

See my above reply about greed, dragons and battles- if someone had the balls to do Tolkien right less would be more here, much less, and much more.

'Thorin's funeral, Dain's coronation, the disrupting of gold throughout Dale, and Bilbo's return journey'

Its possible all four of these may be in the EE - the first we know for sure and I htin the second, the third I think there will be some version of, Thranduil getting his jewels, Bard getting gold or whatever, the lat is set up for in AUJ in the prologue when Biblo mentions the chest still smells of troll, and the the subsequent burial of the chest- but they may leave it as  a 'presumed he stopped on the way back' thing.


'Sorry about the length of this post.'

Not a thing to concern yourself with on Forumshire, look at most of mine, several stiff buckies  required to get through the buggers (and then Figg will usually come along and sum the whole thing up better in about 6 words )

The Hobbit's brevity is for me part of its charm, it's a simple charming read that feels a little disconnected from Tolkien's wider mythology in tone and style, you can read in one sitting and not worry as much about the heavy thematic material or detail prevalent in LOTR or The Sil, I always look at it as LOTR being the sequel, not the Hobbit being the prelude.

But I'm probably a little weird like that.

Personally I'm inclined to think that had he gone much further with the 1960 rewrite he would have still faced similar issues as he did when he abandoned it, The Hobbit was a much simpler book told almost entirely through the prism of a child friendly protagonist disconnected from the wider world built up in LOTR, I just don't think the tones of the two works mesh too well, and I think in some ways writing The Hobbit too much into the wider history of Middle Earth would lessen the impact of the story a little.

That said, I think expanding on background detail and dropping in more direct references to LOTR would have been a decent comprise as long as it was still told through Bilbo's eyes-I believe in the 1960 version the company passes through Bree, and there are references to the History of Arnor and the Rangers of the North for instance (I may be wrong, I don't have the H.O.T.H to hand at the moment), I'd just have concerns about how Tolkien would work around the tonal differences and the viewpoint of the protagonist.

Given the more detailed motives and backstory conceived for Thorin in The Quest For Erebor (which I believe was originally written for the LOTR Appendices but dropped due to lack of space) it's also interesting to think if he might have worked that material into a hypothetical 1960 Hobbit rewrite (flashbacks maybe?), though he still left it out of LOTR when revising the book for the 1966 3rd edition.

Hmm...

I still cant find that John Howe documentary in English, and now I watched another documentary in French about Tolkien. what is it about the French and not dubbing in English?

The French dont like us Figgy, they havent forgiven us for the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Mrs Figg wrote: yep

malickfan wrote:The Hobbit's brevity is for me part of its charm, it's a simple charming read that feels a little disconnected from Tolkien's wider mythology in tone and style, you can read in one sitting and not worry as much about the heavy thematic material or detail prevalent in LOTR or The Sil, I always look at it as LOTR being the sequel, not the Hobbit being the prelude.

But I'm probably a little weird like that.

Personally I'm inclined to think that had he gone much further with the 1960 rewrite he would have still faced similar issues as he did when he abandoned it, The Hobbit was a much simpler book told almost entirely through the prism of a child friendly protagonist disconnected from the wider world built up in LOTR, I just don't think the tones of the two works mesh too well, and I think in some ways writing The Hobbit too much into the wider history of Middle Earth would lessen the impact of the story a little.

That said, I think expanding on background detail and dropping in more direct references to LOTR would have been a decent comprise as long as it was still told through Bilbo's eyes-I believe in the 1960 version the company passes through Bree, and there are references to the History of Arnor and the Rangers of the North for instance (I may be wrong, I don't have the H.O.T.H to hand at the moment), I'd just have concerns about how Tolkien would work around the tonal differences and the viewpoint of the protagonist.

Given the more detailed motives and backstory conceived for Thorin in The Quest For Erebor (which I believe was originally written for the LOTR Appendices but dropped due to lack of space) it's also interesting to think if he might have worked that material into a hypothetical 1960 Hobbit rewrite (flashbacks maybe?), though he still left it out of LOTR when revising the book for the 1966 3rd edition.

Hmm...

I agree about the tone being too different. one is a fairy tale the other is an epic tale, and if certain parts were extended, such as Bree or Rivendell it would mean all of the sections would have to be extended which may have spread everything out much too thin, like butter on bread. it may have altered the charm of the work itself.

One day I hope to find Bree and when I do I will leave a message for you all saying which road I will travel on, east north or west. unless Barliman forgets of course.

Sounds good And Ive just witness something horrible ...........
DavidjonesHowards avatar !!!!!!!!!! I thank all the stars in Christendom that HE never got the part of Aragorn !

Oh, god... oh god... too fucking funny!

I've always loved Viggo's take on Aragorn, but now I appreciate his performance even more!

That is SO awful its got to be someone taking the pee, surely ?

oh boy! makes you love Viggo even more. if that's possible.

Poor Nic Cage

"Staahnd, Men of the Weeeest!"

Whoever made this didn't have the range for it, but I would have loved to hear him get a little Nic-Crazy towards the end of the video.

Now we need one of John Travolta as Boromir.

.... so face/off....