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

"TeaLady (Mari C.)" <spressobean.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94F9E0EB6E9AEspblt@130.133.1.4...
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> news:aD8uc.797$X13.8723609@news-text.cableinet.net:
>
> > Michelle J. Haines <mhaines.DeleteThis@io.nanc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John Rhys-Davies, in fact, and they ran the sound through
> >> multiple wooden baffle things to change it's quality.
> >> Plus, he adjusted the sound and cadence himself, and did
> >> things like speaking on the inhale, which humans don't do,
> >> to make it sound different.
> >
> > I just spent several seconds trying to speak 'on the
> > inhale'. It seems to be impossible.
>
> It isn't - but it is mighty uncomfortable, and makes me cough and
> sputter something fierce. And only a few words are possible, at
> least when I attempt it (or manage it, by accident, when overly
> excited about something).
>

I've discovered that I can do it, but it sounds very strange. Not at all
like my usual mellifluous voice ;o)
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

Sam's the Man <samdekat DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40ba5e1d@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Cemetery Mink, MD" <I don't like spam> wrote:
>
> >
> > Sam's the Man <samdekat DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:e8e2ac15.0405292016.72a231ef@posting.google.com...
> >> "Cemetery Mink, MD" <no email address available> wrote in message
> > news:<40ac5f5d$0$8987$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> >> > Wendy <wendypart DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:kIKdnfhHs66k1TbdRVn-vA@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >>
> >> > 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.)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ahem.
> >> A) How does movieFrodo throwing Gollum into the fire make him more
> >> "heroic" then bookFrodo? I didn't interpret it as an act of heroism at
> >> all.
> >>
> >
> > Saw the movie again on DVD, and you're right. Seeing this in the cinema,
I
> > remembered Frodo throwing himself and Gollum into the Fires of Doom
quite
> > deliberately. Sacrificing himself to destroy the ring (and,
unfortunately,
> > Gollum.)
> > But, on a second viewing, it was pretty clear to me that Frodo and
Gollum
> > were simply fighting for the ring (with Frodo probably still under it's
> > control.)
> >
>
> I agree that the scene needn't be interpreted as a deliberate act on
Frodos
> part - my point was that to push Gollum off into the chasm is not an act
of
> heroism.
>
>
> >> B) Just a side note - but Sam was the hero here anyway, if one had to
> >> choose.
> >>
> >> C) Tolkien makes it quite clear that Frodo played only a passive role
> >> in the Scouring, urging the others to avoid shedding blood wherever
> >> possible. Thus the source of Sam's ire - Merry and Pippin are feted as
> >> heroes by the Shirefolk because of their shiny armour, agressiveness
> >> and skill in battle, but Frodo, (who burnt his soul on the ring) is
> >> almost completely ignored.
> >>
> >
> > I haven't read the book,
>
> Ah. Can I suggest then, that you actually read it? It is a VERY good book
> (for myself, I'd forgotten just how good it is). We are currently reading
> it through together a chapter at a time - one per week. If you start now,
> you'll soon catch us.
>
> > but I seem to reading something which said that
> > Frodo reached the culmination of his personal journey, by choosing to
> > spare Saruman. In this case, Frodo has become a hero by choosing to do
> > "the right thing," not by any great skill in battle. But, the important
> > thing is, he does make the right choice (at least according to Tolkien)
> > there, but failed to do so previously in Mt Doom.
> >
>
> Perhaps if you read the book, you'll be in a better position to make such
> judgements for yourself - the movies aren't a reliable guide to the story,
> the characters or the themes of LOTR.
> As for Frodo, it could be said that Frodo failed at the crux of Sammauth
> Naur - indeed Tolkien himself said so at one point - with the caveat that
> he didn't ultimately fail because good choices he had made previously came
> back to bless him. He makes the same choice in the movie, BTW, except
there
> it is portrayed as a mistake that must be redeemed.
>

Excellent point. It's so obvious but I hadn't really thought of it.
Although, it does still kind of work in the movie (sparing Gollum still
results in a sequence of events which ultimately destroys the ring. It's
even debatable wether or not Frodo does actively undo his mistake. Does he
fight Gollum (in the movie) because he's regained his senses, or because
he's still under the control of the ring and want's it for his own
(unintentionally destroying it in the process? I suppose both
interpretations are possible, based on what we see on film, but I didn't
prefer the latter.)

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

"Cemetery Mink, MD" <I don't like spam> wrote in message
news:40babc56$0$31675$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Although, it does still kind of work in the movie (sparing Gollum still
> results in a sequence of events which ultimately destroys the ring. It's
> even debatable wether or not Frodo does actively undo his mistake. Does he
> fight Gollum (in the movie) because he's regained his senses, or because
> he's still under the control of the ring and want's it for his own
> (unintentionally destroying it in the process?

Personally, I suspect that the extra bit of fighting was tacked on (up to
the point where Gollum dances around, the book is followed closely), simply
so that Jackson could do the 'North by Northwest' cliff-hanging scene. I'm
not sure if it worked.
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

Sam's the Man <samdekat.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40ba5e1d@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Ah. Can I suggest then, that you actually read it? It is a VERY good book
> (for myself, I'd forgotten just how good it is). We are currently reading
> it through together a chapter at a time - one per week. If you start now,
> you'll soon catch us.

I am, actually. (Well, I'm going to try awfully hard to finish 200 remaining
pages of "The Hobbit" today (it's already quite overdue at the library,)
then it's on to Fellowship Of The Ring. I did read some of "The Two Towers"
("The Voice of Saruman" and "The Palantir") because I was under the
impression those were major scenes which were cut from the Return Of The
King (see my other post; "How did you think the story would end?") and
definitely enjoyed it. (I'm actually rather glad that I read those two
chapters before seeing the movie. It wasn't too hard to follow what was
happening, and in the case of "The Palantir" it gave me the somewhat novel
experience of being able to watch a scene *after* reading the relevant part
of the book.

TTFN
~ Cemetery Mink

Post-Scriptum - Just as a point of curiousity. I'm currently also reading
"Ripley Under Ground" (sequel to "The Talented Mr Ripley") and "Dangerous
Liaisons" (which I was going to mention at some point in what became the
"Dracula" thread (and started as "Thoughts on the how The Hobbit should be
filmed,") as it uses the same technique of telling the story through
letters, etc. (but, in my opinion, to different effect. While "Dracula" had
a sort of "historical realism" in the way it was told, in the case of
Dangerous Liaisons, it's great strength is in shifting every page or so to a
different point of view (preventing the novel from ever becoming boring, as
each of the characters (in these small doses) is pretty colorful and
engaging to listen to.)
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

> Excellent point. It's so obvious but I hadn't really thought of it.
> Although, it does still kind of work in the movie (sparing Gollum still
> results in a sequence of events which ultimately destroys the ring. It's
> even debatable wether or not Frodo does actively undo his mistake. Does he
> fight Gollum (in the movie) because he's regained his senses, or because
> he's still under the control of the ring and want's it for his own
> (unintentionally destroying it in the process? I suppose both
> interpretations are possible, based on what we see on film, but I didn't
> prefer the latter.)
>
> TTFN,
> ~ Cemetery Mink

(That should be "...based on what we see on film, but I *did* prefer the
latter...")
 >> Stay informed about: A thought on how "The Hobbit" should be filmed.... 

"Rob Bartlett \(MN\)" <sales.DeleteThis@xtralite.com> wrote in message news:<10b6vna3qjstcda.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com>...

 > 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!

Yeah, just start right off with Ian Holm standing outside Bag End and
Ian McKellan coming up to the door. Fans of the Lord of the Rings
movies will recognize Bilbo and Gandalf immediately. There's no need
to go to lengths explaining that this is a prequel. That'll come out
naturally in the course of their dialog.

Fortunately, and oddly, the only three characters you'd have in common
between LotR and The Hobbit are three who don't age physically during
the sixty-odd year gap between the two stories. Bilbo stays the same
apparent age because he has the One Ring, Gandalf does because he's a
wizard, and Elrond because he's half-elven. So you can use the same
actors without conflicting with the books.

I hope Jackson & Co have it in them to do The Hobbit while they still
have all their Tolkien moviemaking infrastructure. I wouldn't be
surprised to hear they are so sick of hobbits they never want to see a
bare hairy foot again in their lives. But I'd love to see a competent
film version of The Hobbit, and it'd be great to have Holm, McKellan
and Weaving reprise their roles.

I'm still waiting to see a really good movie dragon. The one in
Dragonheart was ok visually, and the one in Dragonslayer is realistic
(hmm, a "realistic" dragon...) even with the dated special effects.
But Smaug is the definitive fantasy dragon, and a Smaug put on film is
a golden opportunity for someone to outdo themselves. I think the
battle between Smaug and the Men of Laketown could be among the
all-time great action sequences.

Orlando Bloom could do a cameo in the palace of the Wood Elves.
Legolas wouldn't have aged in the interim, either.

Oh, and Andy Serkis was doing a great job as Gollum. Bring him and
his animators right on back, too.

If someone is developing the software to synthesize voices of
imaginary creatures, they could make a great debut with Smaug. The
dragon speaks a lot, and a dragon shouldn't sound like a human (that
was a problem with Dragonheart; listening to Sean Connory pretending
to be a dragon didn't do it for me). I was hoping they'd have really
unusual synthesized voices for the Ents, but they just used human
actors.

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

"Cemetery Mink, MD" <I don't like spam> skrev i meddelandet
news:40b97542$0$13783$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

[snip]

> (although my absolute, allt-time favourite vampire
> movie is still "Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht")

Agreed.

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