Let's write a Hobbit script of our own!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I strongly feel there should be no mention of "the One" in the Hobbit.

I strongly agree!

[Elentári]

What strikes me at this point is that those of us interested in writing a script of our own need to decide first and foremost if we want to produce a screenplay for a standalone HOBBIT or NOT.

By this I mean are we going to pretend the Jackson Trilogy doesn't exist? Is our HOBBIT going to be a prequel that should have been made first, or a sequel that happens to take place before the Trilogy???

We cannot go any further until we settle on one or the other.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The trouble is, it's a bit like Chekhov's gun. Once Sauron and Saruman start muttering about a ring and hey presto Bilbo finds one the audience is primed for something.
The problem is not insoluble though.
The re-occupation of Moria needs at least alluding to.
Some back story for Frodo needs to be given, ready for LOTR.

I know this is best treated for our purposes as a serial but if you can consider it to fall into two parts then the first part can concentrate on the Shire and Bilbo and the commencement of his adventure beyond the discovery of the Ring up to some debatable point. The second part can concentrate on the decisions and concerns of the Wise up to another debatable point and then the stories can meld again for a climax. In other words, how Tolkien tackled the multi narrative in LOTR. However the story wanders, Bilbo has to be central to it.
Were this approach to be taken, Gandalf is the obvious link between the two worlds

ETA I missed the last posts. I don't think this enterprise should shadow Jackson's version of the Tolkien universe. I think we should make something that would please us and an audience new to the story.

[Elentári]

I lkie your thinking, Tosh. I was just about to add that if we are to include the White Council, then the One Ring must be mentioned.

And I most definitely agree about Balin and the re-occupation of Moria. I always thought it would be nice to end with Balin and Gandalf's 2949 visit to Bag End, and Balin could talk about his plans for Moria as the three sit on the bench smoking pipeweed!

I am all in favour of keeping the innocence of The Hobbit but gradually letting the audience realize that it is all part of bigger events taking place in the wider world of M-e. Following on from what you suggest, maybe the first part could be seen through Bilbo's eyes, and the second through Gandalf's...

[Alatar]

Yes, but he knows Bilbo got it in the Misty Mountains, very near the Anduin and Gladden Fields. That does make him look like a fool since all the wise knew that this was where Isildur lost the ring.

IMHO

ETA: Missed a bunch of posts in between

[QuackingTroll]

There's a good moment in the radio show where Gandalf explains he didn't think that Bilbo's ring was significant because it looks so plain. One would expect the weapon of the enemy to be adorned with fine details and gems.

However I agree that the ring should be downplayed as much as possible and almost entirely unmentioned, even among the council. I think a mention of Saruman's plans to search for the ring in Mirkwood needs to be mentioned but we don't necessarily need to state that it's a ring at all... just that they're searching for an object.

They mention they're looking for a ring and Bilbo finds a secret ring, it''ll be far too obvious to the audience that they're the same item. We should remain unaware of ring's importance until the Fellowship of the Ring.

As for the prologue, I'm all for explaining the history of dwarves at the begining, but Thorin should be introduced lying on the doorstep under a pile of dwarves.

[Elentári]

Sorry, can't resist linking to this!

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthre ... #post64624

[Ethelwynn]

Thanks for the link. Granted, it's an interesting question. All I can think of is this: How many times have I searched for something that is in plain sight but not where I left it? At least 6 or 7 times per week since I was about 8 years old. If I'm not unique in this, then I will say that humans expect to find things where we left them or where we believe they are, and we don't look beyond that place easily.

As for the story, IMO the suspense does not come from not knowing that the Ring exists but from the audience guessing that it does and waiting for Gandalf to pick up on what is only obvious after we know the truth. The Ring doesn't act up while it's with Bilbo; it does not change his personality much, it doesn't attract nasties so far as we know, it's pretty quiet. I can't remember that Bilbo ever showed it to Gandalf, either. The Dwarves know about his "magic ring" after the barrel episode, but if Gandalf never sees it up close I can give him some slack in not recognizing it.

[Primula Baggins]

Why would the possibility of the ring being the One even occur to Gandalf if Bilbo was carrying and using it with no evident harmful effects? Wouldn't it be natural to assume without even thinking about it much that this was a "magic" ring at the carnival-prize level, evidently a fairly common thing and nothing to be concerned about?

Yet as soon as Gandalf sees an uncanny effect on Bilbo, that he's not aging fast enough, the thought does cross his mind.

[Alatar]

That would be fine, except for that fact that he states its clearly not one of the lesser rings!

Of course, in the Movie/TV Series, we can ignore or fudge that. I still vote not to even raise the subject. Better to leave something out than to deliberately change for no real benefit.

[Ethelwynn]

I think there is a benefit to raising the Ring as an issue, though. Just my opinion, but I think the Shire's innocence is more remarkable when we realize the danger of the world all around our Hobbits. That danger comes from Sauron and the power of the Ring far more than from Trolls, Orcs, or other disorganized baddies. Granted, I didn't recognize this when I read the books as a child. Now that I'm well past childhood the beauty stands out sharply for me because of the looming peril.

[Elentári]

To be fair, that link I gave does not include a detailed mention of Saurman's soothing words at the WC, where he insists that the One Ring has surely rolled down to the sea by now and will never be found. Of course, he was deliberately misleading everyone because he was searching for the ring himself, but as head of their order, Gandalf would naturally have deferred to Saruman's wisdom (and he was the greater authority on the Rings of Power,) not to mention the hypnotic power of Saruman's voice urging him to put further thought of it from his mind.

It almost worked, but for that nagging feeling Gandalf had that he was missing something...

[Alatar]

Which leads us to another problem. Do we show Saruman the White as he was initially, haughty and condescending, but also wise and powerful. Again, if we see him muttering "Muhahaha, the Ring will be mine, Mine I SAY!!" if make Gandy look a bit thick for not suspecting him.

[Elentári]

...which leads back to the big question I posed yesterday: some of us clearly want to write a script based solely on the contents of The Hobbit and equally, some of us are in favour of including scenes to place The Hobbit within the Legendarium.

We are going round in circles here...we need to decide one way or the other on that single point before we can get anywhere!

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I plump for the wider story and I also think the Ring can be handled with some ingenuity. (Or as Alatar described it, fudging) And the moral fall of Saruman gives us another juicy bone to gnaw.

[Alatar]

I vote for the middle ground. The Hobbit, some WC backstory, and a bunch of those "unexplained vistas" Tolkien was so fond of.

Not everything needs to be explained, referenced or pointed out. It just need not be contradicted. We can all know that Saruman was seeking the ring, but the audience should see what Gandalf saw, the wisest of the order, in whom he had absolute trust. If Saruman's decline absolutely HAS to be shown, it should be in private scenes that Gandalf and the others are not privy to.

Personally I prefer a "connect the dots" approach. Let us see Saruman searching the texts for "Isildur's Bane" trying to ascertain what it is. Never mention the Ring. Let other scenes show us Saruman's realisation through his research that it is in fact one of the Rings, believed lost. In that way Gandalf can never suspect, since he believes the ring destroyed with Sauron at the Last Alliance.

Perhaps show Saruman looking at the palantír with temptation, knowing its not safe to use, but realising the knowledge he could obtain with its help. And at this stage it should be knowledge with the power to do good, rather than knowledge to dominate, just as Gandalf later warns against.

But I still think it should start with the Hobbit. The larger, more epic side of the story should be introduced with the White council scenes, with the first mention being an aside in Rivendell. Have Elrond tell Gandalf of a shadow growing in Southern Mirkwood and advising the forest road to the north. Gandalf can suggest convening the council, and state that he will return when the quest is safely underway.

In all these cases the Hobbit can remain the Hobbit. Bilbo's ring can remain a curiosity. Only by the end of the movies should the audience know that this ring and Isildur's bane are one and the same. And nobody else should be given any possible reason to suspect it. Gandalf should not know Isildur's bane is one of the Great Rings, and Saruman should not know that Bilbo found a ring near to the Gladden Fields.

[Elentári]

Well it's good to know that some of us are in agreement! I would certainly take the middle ground that Al suggests, and would be happy to include as much as is deemed appropriate, where it can be made to work.

Regarding "Isildur's Bane," Al, that was simply the name the Gondorian's gave to the One Ring. How can we not have the Wise knowing about the Ring?? Don't quite see what you are getting at, there.

I totally agree with the point that the Wise must of course not know about Saruman's duplicity, but inevitably the audience has to be made aware. Naturally it wll impact on the reveal in FotR, though.

IMO, the original idea of HOBBIT and a bridge film would actually have been preferable in many respects - we could have had the pure HOBBIT straight out of the book, and then used the second film to show the story through Gandalf's eyes and how it fits into the whole. That was actually the approach we took for our F2...


[Just in case anyone is interested, we began with a prologue of Gandalf's recce to DG in 2850, he discovers Thrain who tells him "HE" is looking for the Ring. Gandalf then escapes to call the Council Meeting of 2851.

The film opens properly in 2941 with Elrond receivnng notification of another WC meeting - he comments "The Council...called again after 90 years! I hope Saruman will see fit to follow Mithrandir's counsel this time."

(we also included young Aragorn, with a brief flashback of the circumstances of his arrival 8 years previously.)

Then we had a recap of the scene from HOBBIT where Gandalf takes his leave of Thorin & Co on the edge of Mirkwodd - "DO NOT LEAVE THE PATH!" and then we featured the White Council meeting, with plenty of reference to the previous one.

Action is agreed on and the attack on DG takes place. Sauron is found to have flown the nest, leaving plenty of signs of his occupation for Saruman to pick through after persuading the Wise to depart, insisting there will be another "watchful peace." Gandalf, of course, goes off to catch up with Thorin & co...

Then we cut to Gollum emerging blinking into the daylight from the Misty Mountains and taking up Bilbo's trail...etc.]

[QuackingTroll]

I agree with Al... We don't need to spell out every detail to the audience. I agree that if we do need to mention that they are searching for the ring it should only be referred to as Isildur's Bane or The Weapon of the Enemy. This is not because they don't know it's a ring, but because we don't want the audience knowing, otherwise they'll put two and two together leaving no mystery and making the council look very ignorant for not noticing sooner.

I also agree that Saruman should not be portrayed as remotely sinister. He should be likable and wise throughout. It will make his downfall in FotR more dramatic because we get an insight into how Saruman used to be.

There's also no need to introduce Thorin or the dwarves before Bag End. It's supposed to be an unexpected party after all, let's keep it that way.

As for will it be a stand-alone film or part of PJ's series, I'm not sure, how does everyone else want to do it?

[Ethelwynn]

Happy Easter to all on the board. May you have a wonderful and relaxing one.

Now to the debate: I'll agree that we don't need to spell everything out but I think the audience needs to know more than the characters do. That makes for good tension. All we need to keep our characters from looking silly is to make sure the audience realizes why the characters do not know what the audience knows. For example, if the audience knows why Gandlaf is setting up the unexpected party, there is some tension over what Bilbo will do. If we go directly into the party without setup, it becomes a comedy of manners routine with poor Bilbo being overrun by a pack of unwanted houseguests. This is what it is in the book, but a little extra tension would not go badly IMO.

[Alatar]

If we go directly into the party without setup, it becomes a comedy of manners routine with poor Bilbo being overrun by a pack of unwanted houseguests. This is what it is in the book, but a little extra tension would not go badly IMO.

I disagree. We're making "The Hobbit". Unless we have a really, really good reason to change something I think we should trust Tolkien. After all, he's the one who wrote the book that sold millions of copies!