XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Steuard Jensen  wrote:   
      
   > [I've posted this on my blog, but it clearly belongs here, too.]   
   >   
   > Peter Jackson confirmed recently that he will make The Hobbit into   
   > three movies, rather than two as formerly planned. To my eye, this is   
   > a spectacularly bad idea. Why, you ask?   
   >   
   >  * The Hobbit is shorter than any of the three volumes of The Lord of   
   >    the Rings. Stretching it into two films already seemed like it   
   >    would require a lot of filler; three just seems like madness.   
      
   Relevant if he was only making an adaption of that one book. I think   
   the trailer and the released material has shown us that that isn't the   
   case.   
      
   >  * Given that the book was aimed largely at children, one might have   
   >    hoped that the movie would be good for kids, too. But a three-part   
   >    series already makes that implausible, and almost every bit of new   
   >    material I can imagine adding to the main story would make it more   
   >    mature in tone.   
      
   Well, I don't think the movie(s) will be aimed towards children. But   
   having said that, my children loves the three Lord of the Rings movies   
   (aged 8 and 10).   
      
   >  * Harry Potter worked as a series of films because it was seven   
   >    self-contained stories. The Lord of the Rings held up as three   
   >    films because it was truly epic in scale. But The Hobbit is (for   
   >    the most part) a simple adventure story, much of it just a series   
   >    of loosely connected episodes with just one major plot arc from   
   >    beginning to end. Yes, it has an epic backdrop, but that's not   
   >    central enough to the main story to sustain an epic-scale film   
   >    trilogy.   
      
   Again, the one story arc of the Hobbit is just one of the story arcs   
   we'll see in the movie(s), if the released material is any indication.   
      
   >  * One of the stories that Jackson fears "would remain untold" without   
   >    a third film is "the Battle of Dol Guldur". Mr. Jackson, if I don't   
   >    know how the White Council "attacked" Sauron to drive him out of   
   >    Mirkwood, I'm pretty sure that you don't, either. Apparently you   
   >    think it was a battle. Why am I not surprised?   
      
   Maybe it was a game of wordfeud? :) We all know how many non-violent   
   confrontations the people of Middle Earth has had with Sauron :)   
      
   >  * Copyright law puts Jackson in a bit of a Catch 22 here. He has the   
   >    rights to make a movie based on The Hobbit and LotR (including its   
   >    appendices). He emphatically does not have the rights to use   
   >    material from Tolkien's other books such as The Silmarillion or   
   >    (most notably) Unfinished Tales. (Nor will he: the Tolkien Estate   
   >    is rich enough that its priority is protecting Tolkien's legacy,   
   >    not making more money. And Christopher Tolkien abhors the way that   
   >    Jackson warped the essential themes of LotR.)   
      
   Well, you probably know as much about the licensing situation between   
   the Tolkien estate and New Line Cinema as you do about the   
   confrontation with Sauron - guesses.   
      
   I think that door swings both ways either way. I think New Line Cinema   
   is wealthy enough to be sued bu the Tolkien estate. But I'm only   
   guessing. Perhaps they've found a way to include material without   
   breaching licensing.   
      
   >    That's a problem. If I wanted to expand upon the story told in The   
   >    Hobbit, the first place to look is absolutely "The Quest of   
   >    Erebor", a section of Unfinished Tales containing a scene that   
   >    Tolkien removed from the concluding chapters of LotR shortly before   
   >    its publication. In it, Gandalf explains much of the backstory to   
   >    The Hobbit: why he was involved at all, what his interactions with   
   >    Thorin were like when Bilbo wasn't there, and all sorts of other   
   >    details that would be impossible to guess specifically from the   
   >    appendices to LotR. Other sections of the book are relevant, too,   
   >    as are bits from other books.   
      
   Indeed. Also, they could also just make it up! I.e. if it's supposed   
   to be an adaptation of the Hobbit, any scenes outside of that scope   
   has to be a fabrication of the screen writers. When the faithful   
   complains about this - one could always refer them to the Tolkien   
   estate being to stuck up to *LET* them to a proper adaptation of those   
   events.   
      
   >    Jackson can't use any of that material without opening himself to a   
   >    lawsuit that would have a good chance of blocking release of the   
   >    films entirely. But if he invents his own clearly-different   
   >    replacements, he's deliberately changing Tolkien's story.   
      
   Or rather, is forced to do so due to the Tolkien estate. You make it   
   appear that it's one person that is making the decisions here. NLC and   
   MGM is in it for the profits and   
      
   >    course, he's done that before with less justification, but for the   
   >    previous films he still claimed repeatedly that he was doing all he   
   >    could to bring Tolkien's vision to life. This time, making that   
   >    claim could get him into deep trouble.   
      
   How so? I mean, I understand what you mean, but if he *can't* bring   
   Tolkiens "vision to life" due to the Tolkien estate, the problem lies   
   with them, not him. His choices are to fabricate these events at the   
   perilous wrath of the Tolkien faithful, or do it anyway and risk a law   
   suit.   
      
   >    The easiest way to avoid those issues would be to make The Hobbit   
   >    into just one film, or maybe two, and simply not address them in   
   >    substantially more depth than the original book did.   
      
   But then New Line Cinema wouldn't make as much money, now would they?   
   :)   
      
   > After writing all that, I saw a wonderfully concise statement of the   
   > issue that someone shared on Facebook: "Bilbo's reaction to the   
   > announcement of a 3rd movie was actually already quoted in The Lord of   
   > the Rings: 'I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over   
   > too much bread.'"   
   >   
   > Anyone else have thoughts on the three-movie idea?   
      
   I'm fairly certain that there is enough material filmed to fill three   
   movies with ease. When New Line Cinema realized this, dollar signs   
   formed in their eyes and they pushed for three movies.   
      
   It could also be that the producers and director decided after seeing   
   a rough cut of the first movie (which they probably don't have yet,   
   but a rough draft) that they wanted more space to spread that butter   
   on :)   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)