XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: steuard@slimy.com   
      
   In message , Sandman   
    wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Steuard Jensen  wrote:   
   >>  * 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.   
      
   My point isn't that Jackson is only drawing content from /The Hobbit/,   
   but rather that he's been more or less explicit that /The Hobbit/ will   
   remain the center of the story. (That is, we won't be seeing the   
   history of Numenor, or Aragorn securing his realm against the remnants   
   of Sauron's armies.) That being the case, there's only so much that   
   you can tack on outside what was in the book before it starts to feel   
   like filler.   
      
   Some additions are pretty natural: showing scenes from the history of   
   Erebor, for instance, and fleshing out everything that Gandalf was up   
   to before and during the story. But the more time you spend on those   
   things, the less focused the story will feel (and the slower the main   
   plot will seem to progress). Especially with the Dol Guldur bit, that   
   is in a very real sense a completely separate story from the main   
   thread of /The Hobbit/. Yes, Gandalf knows how they're related, and   
   yes, they are both important background for LotR. But from the point   
   of view of these movies in particular, they're quite independent (much   
   more so than the multiple threads in /The Two Towers/, for example).   
   The outcome of one has no particular effect on the outcome of the   
   other. So while I agree that one might in principle be able to make a   
   good movie or two about either one, it feels really odd to blend them   
   together. (Sort of like interspersing scenes from /Das Boot/ with scenes   
   from /Saving Private Ryan/, spread over two films. Well, okay, a   
   *little* more connected than that. :) )   
      
   >>    ...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.   
      
   I completely agree. But again, my point is that Jackson continues to   
   assert in multiple ways that /The Hobbit/ will be the core of the   
   films, no matter how much additional material he pulls in from   
   elsewhere. Also, I really don't know how "epic in scope" the White   
   Council's action against Dol Guldur might be, but it never seemed to   
   rise to the level of "On this hangs the fate of the world" that we see   
   in LotR. (It always seems like just another skirmish in an age-long   
   war, rather than a make-or-break moment for either side.)   
      
   >>  * 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 :)   
      
      He chanted a song of wizardry,   
      Of piercing, opening, of treachery,   
      Revealing, uncovering betraying.   
      The sudden Felagund there swaying   
      Sang in answer a song of staying,   
      Resisting, battling against power,   
      Of secrets kept, strength like a tower,   
      And trust unbroken, freedom, escape;   
      Of changing and of shifting shape   
      Of snares eluded, broken traps,   
      The prison opening, the chain that snaps.   
      
   Ok, I won't keep going, but that block of the Lay always makes me   
   shiver, all the way up to "And Finrod fell before the throne."   
      
      
   Point is, I personally have not usually seen the White Council as a   
   military alliance. Lorien could clearly raise an army at need, but   
   every statement about the defenses of Rivendell that I can think of   
   centers on the innate power of those dwelling there: Elrond raising   
   the river to bar the ford, or Glorfindel riding fearlessly against the   
   Nine while blazing like a foxfire in the world of the Unseen. ("The   
   might of Elrond is in wisdom not in weapons, it is said.") None of the   
   Istari could command any military might at all. (Saruman clearly   
   wasn't going to speak up about his Uruk-hai!)   
      
   So sure, a primarily military conflict might have been the plan, and   
   surely Sauron had many minions to defend his stronghold. But I've   
   always wondered whether their essential assault might have taken place   
   on a more, well, spiritual (or magical?) level. I don't know what that   
   would mean, and perhaps it's a ridiculous idea altogether. But in the   
   end, we just don't know, because Tolkien never gave any details one   
   way or the other.   
      
   >>  * 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.   
      
   Unlike "the battle of Dol Guldur", we've got actual quotes from the   
   principal people involved to base our beliefs on here. :) Christopher   
   Tolkien has been explicit on multiple occasions about his distaste for   
   Jackson's movies. The Tolkien Estate has already mounted one lawsuit   
   attempting to prevent the filming of /The Hobbit/. So I rather   
   disagree with your premise here.   
      
   >>    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.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)