XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Steuard Jensen  wrote:   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Well, considering your earlier suggested cut to make it three films,   
   which I agree with, I just don't see it as a problem if they only add   
   the Dol Goldur thing.   
      
   > 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/.   
      
   Indeed - but still a very compelling story, visually speaking. And   
   could probably fill the better part of an entire movie - by, of   
   course, adding tons of invented content.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Which, I suppose, is his right. And without having seen all movies,   
   you can't really comment on it yet. :-D   
      
   > 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.)   
      
   But it was a turning point in that ongoing war, was it not? Either   
   way, I'm fairly confident that it WILL be made into a huge epic   
   battle. Which means it requires the correct amount of buildup, which   
   also takes time to fill the movie.   
      
   We already know that Gandalf and Galadriel meet in Rivendell in the   
   movie. A good assumption can be made that Galadriel updates Gandalf on   
   the current Necromancer status and that the council needs to meet. Or   
   somesuch :)   
      
   > Point is, I personally have not usually seen the White Council as a   
   > military alliance.   
      
   Really? The entire reason it exists is to combat the darkness of Dol   
   Goldur. It consisted of high elfs and two wizards (probably three) it   
   would indeed be a formidable force. I really can't see this as a group   
   of people whose intentions are to negotiate out Sauron of Dol Goldur :)   
      
   > 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!)   
      
   Well, the Council isn't a "military" force in the sense that it has   
   access to an army (although it really wouldn't surprise me if they   
   have a way to summon one in the movies), but rather military as in the   
   sense of a special force group.   
      
   > 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, for one, hope so! I.e. the White Council needs to storm Dol Goldur   
   - possibly with the use of a Lorien army indeed. After that, I hope to   
   see a confrontation between the wizards and Sauron.   
      
   I'm going out on a limb here and see a scenario where the conflict   
   does drive Sauron from Dol Goldur, but in the process we see Saruman   
   really loose hope. Maybe only seen to the viewers and not the council.   
   Thus laying the grounds for his treachery in LotR. It would be quite a   
   nice tie-up if you ask me :-D   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Well, sure, I was being theatrical. But when was this? It's not   
   unheard of that discussions are brought up again and measures are   
   being taken to please license holders.   
      
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Hmm. I agree that most of the audience won't really care one way or   
   > another, as long as they get an enjoyable movie out of the deal. But   
   > the point is, Jackson already *has* the rights to make /The Hobbit/,   
   > and everyone who's read the book knows that it stands on its own   
   > perfectly well. It would be a little odd to say, "Yeah, but I also   
   > kinda want to include scenes from /Out of the Silent Planet/ at the   
   > same time, even though I don't have the rights. So the Lewis estate is   
   > stopping me from making /The Hobbit/ the way I want to!" It's not   
   > clear to me how griping about his inability to adapt /Unfinished   
   > Tales/ would come across any better.   
      
   Well, all of this are assumptions. And I think two or three movies can   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)