A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed....

 > Except that in PJ's version, the Hobbits came back to an unsullied
 > Shire. Adding a scouring scene wouldn't make sense.

Actually, in PJ's version we don't see them returning to the Shire at all.
We do see the hobbits in an unsullied Shire after some indeterminate time
has passed, leaving a nice convenient gap for the (unshown) Scouring.

--
John Goulden<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news.TakeThisOut@goulden.org> wrote in message
news:c8ako112f7c@news1.newsguy.com...
  > > Except that in PJ's version, the Hobbits came back to an unsullied
  > > Shire. Adding a scouring scene wouldn't make sense.
 >
 > Actually, in PJ's version we don't see them returning to the Shire at all.
 > We do see the hobbits in an unsullied Shire after some indeterminate time
 > has passed, leaving a nice convenient gap for the (unshown) Scouring.
 >
 > --
 > John Goulden
 >
 >
The problem I see with this approach is a lack of any common characters.
None of the characters in the Hobbit are present during the scouring of the
shire.

W<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

Wendy <wendypart DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kIKdnfhHs66k1TbdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
 >
 > "John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news DeleteThis @goulden.org> wrote in message
 > news:c8ako112f7c@news1.newsguy.com...
   > > > Except that in PJ's version, the Hobbits came back to an unsullied
   > > > Shire. Adding a scouring scene wouldn't make sense.
  > >
  > > Actually, in PJ's version we don't see them returning to the Shire at
all.
  > > We do see the hobbits in an unsullied Shire after some indeterminate
time
  > > has passed, leaving a nice convenient gap for the (unshown) Scouring.
  > >
  > > --
  > > John Goulden
  > >
  > >
 > The problem I see with this approach is a lack of any common characters.
 > None of the characters in the Hobbit are present during the scouring of
the
 > shire.
 >
 > W
 >
 >

I suppose PJ would have to rewrite the scouring somewhat, certainly. Have
it occur maybe a year after the War of the Ring, or something like that.
I understand PJ had done a pretty good job with other changes. Having
Aragorn give the barrow-blades to the Hobbits, instead of whatever it is
that happened in the books, etc.
I think he could create a scouring story for the movie, which would be
consistent with the movie's plot, while serving the same sort of purpose
that Tolkien's scouring did in the novel. (In some small regard he has done
that already. Since, without the scouring, Frodo was not given the
opportunity to emerge as a hero, PJ had him throw Gollum into the fires of
Mt Doom (thus giving Frodo his "hero" moment there.)

As to common characters... If it's just two parallel stories, I don't see
that being much of a problem. More important would be some sort of
complementary themes (perhaps emphasise The Hobbit as being about a journey
outside of home, while emphasising the Scouring as being about protecting
ones home [shrugs]) Also, in terms of connections, the Hobbits as a whole
can be seen as a character, with the stories being relevant to each other in
how show pre and post innocence lost.

Also, as PJ would have to rewrite the story anyway, I'm sure it would be
possible to work Bilbo and possibly even Gandalf into PJ's version of the
scouring.


TTFN
~ Cemetery Mink<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

Not sure which version of ROTK you happened to see ; -) ...but in the one I
saw there clearly is a scene with the hobbits returning to the shire in full
armor and on horseback - and the shire seems just "peachy" and unchanged
since their departure. The scene then cuts straight to the hobbits sitting
at the pub - when Samwise gets up to approach Rosie.

As for what to do for a movie version of The Hobbit (I hope this happens) -
I don't think any unusual narration or film devices need to be used... just
introduce the story straight away. Or at most maybe show an aged Samwise
reading from the great Red book to his children - no need to complicate the
storyline or invent anything to distract from the story itself!

--
R.Bartlett

"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden_news DeleteThis @goulden.org> wrote in message
news:c8ako112f7c@news1.newsguy.com...
  > > Except that in PJ's version, the Hobbits came back to an unsullied
  > > Shire. Adding a scouring scene wouldn't make sense.
 >
 > Actually, in PJ's version we don't see them returning to the Shire at all.
 > We do see the hobbits in an unsullied Shire after some indeterminate time
 > has passed, leaving a nice convenient gap for the (unshown) Scouring.
 >
 > --
 > John Goulden
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:41:47 +1000, in a fit of madness "Cemetery Mink,
MD" <no email address available> declared:

 > I suppose PJ would have to rewrite the scouring somewhat, certainly. Have
 >it occur maybe a year after the War of the Ring, or something like that.
 >I understand PJ had done a pretty good job with other changes.

Oh, that is funny.

But PJ's monstrosity is still more respectful than _Bride of
Frankenstein_ -- it has an intro to the main story where Byron and the
Shelleys are talking and *directly attribute to Mary* a long list of
episodes that exist in the _Frankenstein_ film, but not in the book. Can
you imagine a version of _The Two Towers_ film that began with actors
playing the Inklings and C.S. Lewis telling Tolkien how much he enjoyed
the dwarf-tossing jokes?

--
R. Dan Henry
danhenry.DeleteThis@inreach.com<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

R Dan Henry <danhenry.TakeThisOut@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:kiq7b09e4mqnhrf7svseiglspnhjjlbuej@4ax.com...
 > On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:41:47 +1000, in a fit of madness "Cemetery Mink,
 > MD" <no email address available> declared:
 >
  > > I suppose PJ would have to rewrite the scouring somewhat, certainly.
Have
  > >it occur maybe a year after the War of the Ring, or something like that.
  > >I understand PJ had done a pretty good job with other changes.
 >
 > Oh, that is funny.
 >
 > But PJ's monstrosity is still more respectful than _Bride of
 > Frankenstein_ -- it has an intro to the main story where Byron and the
 > Shelleys are talking and *directly attribute to Mary* a long list of
 > episodes that exist in the _Frankenstein_ film, but not in the book. Can
 > you imagine a version of _The Two Towers_ film that began with actors
 > playing the Inklings and C.S. Lewis telling Tolkien how much he enjoyed
 > the dwarf-tossing jokes?
 >
 > --
 > R. Dan Henry
 > danhenry.TakeThisOut@inreach.com

Interesting coincidence, I was watching that movie just last night. You're
right, that was slightly laughable (although, the film wasn't entirely
serious anyway,) and the fellow that blayed Lord Byron was downright
irritating. Still, there is a lot that did impress me about that film.
Interesting comparison, too. It's ironic that with all this commercialism
and such, I think studios are becoming increasingly more respective (or, at
least, less disrespectful, ) of their sources. (For example; the habbit
studios developed in the 90s of releasing films with names like "Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein" or "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (although, ironically,
there were often major departures from the story.)

TTFN
~ Cemetery Mink<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

Cemetery Mink, MD wrote:

> For example; the habbit studios developed in the 90s of
> releasing films with names like "Mary Shelley's
> Frankenstein" or "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (although,
> ironically, there were often major departures from the
> story.)

Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better than the
book.

T.
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Taemon <Taemon.DeleteThis@zonnet.nl> wrote:
: Cemetery Mink, MD wrote:

:> For example; the habbit studios developed in the 90s of
:> releasing films with names like "Mary Shelley's
:> Frankenstein" or "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (although,
:> ironically, there were often major departures from the
:> story.)

: Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better than the
: book.

: T.

Tastes differ. I found the book quite interesting. The style
is unusual and compelling. The movie on the other hand was
just so over the top and at times downright silly. It also
made the common mistake of romanticizing Dracula and vampirism
in general, which when you think about it is rather sick.

Stephen
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:04:45 +0200, "Taemon" <Taemon DeleteThis @zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better than the
>book.
>
Well, then. that's one Toad's opinion.
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

Taemon <Taemon DeleteThis @zonnet.nl> wrote:

> Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better than the
> book.

I preferred the book.
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

"Taemon" <Taemon DeleteThis @zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:2hkfeaFe0v32U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> > Taemon <Taemon DeleteThis @zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > > Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better
> > > than the book.
> > I preferred the book.
>
> Admittedly, I made the mistake of reading a fully annotated
> version. And when it said "fully", it meant "fully". It even
> contains recipes. Maybe it would read more as a story than as a
> collection of sentences without the annotation. I'm not going to
> try.

"Dracula" was another book I read in High School by mooching it off someone
else's desk and then getting hooked on it. I guess the people sitting by me
in class were either not so avid readers, or they felt sorry for me--I must
have been pretty annoying now I come to think of it. ("Hey, I started
your book--can I take it home with me?")
Barbara

>
> T.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:

> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Taemon <Taemon RemoveThis @zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better
> > than the book.
> Tastes differ. I found the book quite interesting.

Tastes differ

> The style is unusual and compelling. The movie on the other
> hand was just so over the top and at times downright
> silly.

I thought the book silly and boring.

> It also made the common mistake of romanticizing
> Dracula and vampirism in general, which when you think
> about it is rather sick.

What do you mean, mistake? The movie gave Count Dracula a reason.
In the book, he's just some monster. Monsters are boring.
Tortured humans are much more interesting. At the end of the
movie you feel sorry for Mina, who now has to spend her life with
a loser instead of full-of-life's-fire Dracula.

T.
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

In rec.arts.books.tolkien Taemon <Taemon DeleteThis @zonnet.nl> wrote:
: stephen DeleteThis @nomail.com wrote:

:> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Taemon <Taemon DeleteThis @zonnet.nl> wrote:
:> > Then again, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was much better
:> > than the book.
:> Tastes differ. I found the book quite interesting.

: Tastes differ

:> The style is unusual and compelling. The movie on the other
:> hand was just so over the top and at times downright
:> silly.

: I thought the book silly and boring.

:> It also made the common mistake of romanticizing
:> Dracula and vampirism in general, which when you think
:> about it is rather sick.

: What do you mean, mistake? The movie gave Count Dracula a reason.
: In the book, he's just some monster. Monsters are boring.
: Tortured humans are much more interesting. At the end of the
: movie you feel sorry for Mina, who now has to spend her life with
: a loser instead of full-of-life's-fire Dracula.

So you think Mina would be better off living off the blood of innocent
children just so she can be with her "true love"? That is what is
sick, the idea that her "love" is worth the sacrifice of innocents.

It is true Dracula is a monster in the book, but the book does not
spend much time on Dracula. The vast majority of the book is about
the people opposing him. Kind of like another book that gets talked
about here where the villain is just an off screen monster with no
apparent reason for being a monster.

Stephen
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed....