NewLine and Jackson kiss and make up... The Hobbit parts 1 and 2 !!!

[Sauced]

It was an excuse to work on back story to all of the dwarven and elven languages he was writing.  He was a linguist, worked on the Oxford Dictionary, all that good stuff.  Bombadil was the first character, he wrote a story for his daughter about the adventures of a doll he accidentally flushed.

[Polysorbate80]

The inclusion of the whole Bombadil bit has never, ever made any sense to me.  I've read the trilogy several times, but after the first reading I always got to that part and thought, "oh, yeah, hobbit acid hippie trip" and skipped it.

[Phildo]

As I understood it, The Hobbit was written so that he wouldn't have to include expansive back story when he finally got around to writing LoTR.  And Hobbit was written as a children's book so that they could grow into his more mature storyline.  All the stuff that came after(Silmarillion, etc) was the extra linguistic and historical stuff.

I've also heard some people explaining that Tom Bombadil was put into the story because he was some sort of elder god/creator figure.

[Morat20]

As I understood it, The Hobbit was written so that he wouldn't have to include expansive back story when he finally got around to writing LoTR.  And Hobbit was written as a children's book so that they could grow into his more mature storyline.  All the stuff that came after(Silmarillion, etc) was the extra linguistic and historical stuff.

I've also heard some people explaining that Tom Bombadil was put into the story because he was some sort of elder god/creator figure.

I think Tolkein hinted at that (that Bombadil was one of the Valar), but that he deliberately left it unresolveable because he felt a world should have mystery.

Which sounds like EXACTLY the sort of bullshit I'd spew if I put in a stupid character during an early draft, liked him too much to remove, and never could come up with a decent reason he was there besides "I liked him!".

[Johny Cee]

As I understood it, The Hobbit was written so that he wouldn't have to include expansive back story when he finally got around to writing LoTR.  And Hobbit was written as a children's book so that they could grow into his more mature storyline.  All the stuff that came after(Silmarillion, etc) was the extra linguistic and historical stuff.

I've also heard some people explaining that Tom Bombadil was put into the story because he was some sort of elder god/creator figure.

I think Tolkein hinted at that (that Bombadil was one of the Valar), but that he deliberately left it unresolveable because he felt a world should have mystery.

Which sounds like EXACTLY the sort of bullshit I'd spew if I put in a stupid character during an early draft, liked him too much to remove, and never could come up with a decent reason he was there besides "I liked him!".

Want to start by saying you had some great points in the post before this one, Morat.  Especially in regards to differences in visual vs. written mediums.

I like the Bombadil bit.  It helps to establish that this is a wider and deeper world than just the Ring story,  just like the occassional reference to Sauron being only a minion to a deeper and more malevolent power.  It shows how the hobbits,  and most Men,  are really limited in their worldview.

It also sets up that there is an easy out for Frodo.  Just give the ring to Bombadil, who is unaffected by it and can handle himself.  It makes Frodo's choice to try and destory the ring, at whatever cost to himself, a heroic choice.  He doesn't take the easy path out.  That's the reason that he garners the respect he does from Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, and the rest.

He chooses the path of self-sacrifice for the benefit of all,  rather than be railroaded down that path because he has no actual choice.

[Morfiend]

Oh, I don't know - there's a fair old bit of story there.
Part one: Everything up to & including escaping the Mirkwood elves (meeting up, leaving the Shire, trolls in the woods, up into the Misty Mountains, orcs/goblins, gollum & "What have I got in my pocket?", escape into Mirkwood, spiders, elves, and escape in barrel)s.

Part Two: Lake-town, the Lonely Mountain, Smaug, the theft, the Arkenstone, the death of Smaug, the siege of the mountain, the Battle of Five Armies, Bilbo returning home.

Throw in a little more side-details (Gandalf's 'errands'/"The Necromancer", what the dwarves were up to when Bilbo was playing riddle games, etc) and make the final battle epic enough and there's ample there for two 2 to 2 1/2 hour films.

Dont forget the part with the Werebear guy, Beorn or something like that.

[Roac]

It also sets up that there is an easy out for Frodo.  Just give the ring to Bombadil, who is unaffected by it and can handle himself.  It makes Frodo's choice to try and destory the ring, at whatever cost to himself, a heroic choice.  He doesn't take the easy path out.  That's the reason that he garners the respect he does from Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, and the rest.

He chooses the path of self-sacrifice for the benefit of all,  rather than be railroaded down that path because he has no actual choice.

It was discussed at the Council that Bombadil would be a most unworthy guardian.  Aside from the possibility of him simply misplacing the ring and thus allow Sauron to get it, hiding the ring anywhere wouldn't stop the wheels already in motion.  I think the quote from the Council was along the lines of "he [Bombadil] would be last as he was first, but in the end he too would fall".  There is some suggestion that he was a Maia, and there is a great writeup on the web somewhere that argues that he was even Aule.

I think not; the Maia, and especially the Valar, were deeply interested in the goings on of Morgoth/Sauron.  Saruman and Sauron were both Maia under Aule, and the whole reason the Istari (Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the blue wizards) came to Middle Earth was to put a stop to Sauron by aiding the people.  I don't think Aule (or another Valar) would have been indifferent to the Ring.

You are right that he is intended as an enigma; a contrast to the stark black and white that is all over the rest of LotR.  He's a reminder that there's something else in the world.  That something else may be a good thing or not.  It seems that Tolkien gives a strong affirmative that Gandalf is on the right path, since he died and was resurrectd by God (Illuvatar).  That's the only interferrance in ME that Illuvatar made that I'm aware of.  Still, it's a reminder that things aren't as dark as Sauron would like, nor is Sauron as strong as he'd like.

[Phildo]

I was under the impression that the Valar had withdrawn from Middle Earth entirely at this point.  Hanging out on their little island with the refugee eleves, etc.  And if they really wanted to stop Sauron, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for them at this point, sans Morgoth.  So I'm pretty sure that they wanted men to sort out their own mess.

[Roac]

I was under the impression that the Valar had withdrawn from Middle Earth entirely at this point.  Hanging out on their little island with the refugee eleves, etc.  And if they really wanted to stop Sauron, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for them at this point, sans Morgoth.  So I'm pretty sure that they wanted men to sort out their own mess.

They had changed tactics.  A lot of the problems that were caused weren't just from Morgoth, but the infighting that occured because the Valar were trying to control things too tightly.  The new tactic was to try to effect change indirectly - hence the Istari.  They did want to stop Sauron, but they did not want to do so through force of arms. 

[Jain Zar]

LoTR is a children's book. 

If you're misusing "children" to mean teenagers (which usually get classified as "young adult" when talking about reading levels), I might agree with you.  Otherwise, you're crazy.  I read pretty far above my grade level as a kid, and I still couldn't make it through LotR until I was 15 or so.  I think I was about 8 when I read The Hobbit.  There's a pretty huge gap there.

The famous "they're movies about walking" rant that you're referencing was written by someone who had never read the books but thought the movies were a snoozefest.  FWIW.

I read Two Towers and Return of the King when I was 12 or 13.

I tried rereading the whole series and gave up when Tom Bombadil showed up.  it was dull and boring and silly.
Hmm, maybe I should just do it like I did as a kid and start from Two Towers...

Its wierd, but LOTR to me works better as a series of ungodly long movies (Extended Editions are way better than the theatrical cuts.) than as books.

[Abagadro]

Its wierd, but LOTR to me works better as a series of ungodly long movies (Extended Editions are way better than the theatrical cuts.) than as books.

I agree. I generally think the books are terribly written but the core story is good, which the films were able to distill down.

[HaemishM]

I tried rereading the whole series and gave up when Tom Bombadil showed up.  it was dull and boring and silly.
Hmm, maybe I should just do it like I did as a kid and start from Two Towers...

That's a shame, because outside of the Bombadil part, Fellowship was the best written book of the series. It didn't wander or dawdle like Two Towers did, and it didn't have the overwrought Biblical style of language that Return did. That's why it was also the best movie of the bunch.

[Paelos]

I loved the series in collective, but I hate the Two Towers. I slogged through that portion of the books. It just never went anywhere for me, but the movie did a good job, I think, of bringing something to the screen that I was frankly dreading to watch.

[Morat20]

That's a shame, because outside of the Bombadil part, Fellowship was the best written book of the series. It didn't wander or dawdle like Two Towers did, and it didn't have the overwrought Biblical style of language that Return did. That's why it was also the best movie of the bunch.

I always felt that Fellowship was the best movie simply because as a book (or at least, where Jackson ended the movie) it had the most concrete and self-contained storyline. It was well spaced dialogue and action. And it ended well -- a climactic battle and a parting of ways. It's obviously not THE end, but it's a decent ending.

[eldaec]

there's ample there for two 2 to 2 1/2 hour films.

This is Peter Jackson, there is no way either film will be over in 150 minutes.

I think Tolkein hinted at that (that Bombadil was one of the Valar), but that he deliberately left it unresolveable because he felt a world should have mystery.

He left it unresolved because the Bombadil sequence was weakass self-indulgent allegory and Bombadil himself was a crappy dues ex machina which Tolkien (given his well reported hatred of allegory) should have been throughly embarassed about and probably was. Tolkien publically admitted that the only reason he was in was because he had invented the character and wanted to do something with him, whether or not it impacted the plot.

One of the best decisions Jackson made was cutting Bombadil and giving a few of his lines to Treebeard where they made some actual contribution to the piece.

In The House of Tom Bombadil was a fucking manatee chapter.

[Ironwood]

I tried rereading the whole series and gave up when Tom Bombadil showed up.  it was dull and boring and silly.
Hmm, maybe I should just do it like I did as a kid and start from Two Towers...

That's a shame, because outside of the Bombadil part, Fellowship was the best written book of the series. It didn't wander or dawdle like Two Towers did, and it didn't have the overwrought Biblical style of language that Return did. That's why it was also the best movie of the bunch.

[Ironwood]

I tried rereading the whole series and gave up when Tom Bombadil showed up.  it was dull and boring and silly.
Hmm, maybe I should just do it like I did as a kid and start from Two Towers...

That's a shame, because outside of the Bombadil part, Fellowship was the best written book of the series. It didn't wander or dawdle like Two Towers did, and it didn't have the overwrought Biblical style of language that Return did. That's why it was also the best movie of the bunch.

Heh.  It was the best because Aragorn Saluted the Orcs before going into a killing frenzy.

[BigBlack]

I can see no good reason, narratively speaking, to make the Hobbit into two movies other than an absolute whore-like money grab. There's just no reason. One 3-hour movie should be more than enough.

But I'm sure we'll get 2 separate 3-hour movies, then a DVD release of those movies, then an extra-special 5-hour collector's edition of each with never-before seen, completely made-up scenes involving hobbit grooming or some such bugfuckery.

Seriously, JUST FUCKING GET AN EDITOR WHO WILL TELL YOU "NO." I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there is no reason to make 2 Hobbit movies, just like there was no reason for a 3-hour King Kong movie.

They do it because people will buy that shit.  I watched the first LOTRO movie in theaters, fell asleep about halfway through the second one despite my best efforts to give a shit about something so trite, and peaced out on the third.  If you quit paying for whatever mediocre crap they foist upon you, they'll quit making it.

[Soln]

I wanna see that magic arrow Bran uses to 1shotTripleBackstabCrit Smaug with. 

I was like 12 when I first read that, and I was still like "WTF??"  It made the Monty Haul AD&D modules for me at the time more trying, since my expectations were off.

[lariac]

I can see no good reason, narratively speaking, to make the Hobbit into two movies other than an absolute whore-like money grab. There's just no reason. One 3-hour movie should be more than enough.

But I'm sure we'll get 2 separate 3-hour movies, then a DVD release of those movies, then an extra-special 5-hour collector's edition of each with never-before seen, completely made-up scenes involving hobbit grooming or some such bugfuckery.

Seriously, JUST FUCKING GET AN EDITOR WHO WILL TELL YOU "NO." I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there is no reason to make 2 Hobbit movies, just like there was no reason for a 3-hour King Kong movie.

I bet you hate kittens and eat little babies too.


They do it because people will buy that shit.  I watched the first LOTRO movie in theaters, fell asleep about halfway through the second one despite my best efforts to give a shit about something so trite, and peaced out on the third.  If you quit paying for whatever mediocre crap they foist upon you, they'll quit making it.

[Belle Elegant]

I am actually looking forward to the Hobbit movie(s).  After the lame attempts at fantasy books-to-movies of the Golden Compass, the Water Horse (haven't seen it and am not inclined to), Eragon *shudder* and the one released in last October, it will be nice to see good fantasy movies again.  As for making two movies, I say sure! Why not?  I for one would go see them.  (Yes I was one of those nerds who saw the Fellowship of the Ring 5 times in the theater.) Face it, with all the crap being released these days, movies like that are rare enough.

I only hope they get a good Bilbo.  Ian Holm is too old and I never really liked him as an actor.   

[Johny Cee]

I am actually looking forward to the Hobbit movie(s).  After the lame attempts at fantasy books-to-movies of the Golden Compass, the Water Horse (haven't seen it and am not inclined to), Eragon *shudder* and the one released in last October, it will be nice to see good fantasy movies again.  As for making two movies, I say sure! Why not?  I for one would go see them.  (Yes I was one of those nerds who saw the Fellowship of the Ring 5 times in the theater.) Face it, with all the crap being released these days, movies like that are rare enough.

I only hope they get a good Bilbo.  Ian Holm is too old and I never really liked him as an actor.   

That dude ruled as Ash in Alien.

[Belle Elegant]

Perhaps, but Alien was almost 30 years ago.  However, if they bring back Ian Mckellan and Hugo Weaving, that would be awesome.

[Rishathra]

[Comstar]

Bruce Willis as Bard? I don't think he's killed a Dragon before. He can do with with a Helicopter instead!

[Phildo]

There's only one logical choice for Bilbo:

[HaemishM]

DIE.

[Samwise]

I vote for the guy who played Arthur Dent in the Hitchhiker's movie.  He did good in that, and it's basically the same role.

[schild]

Not even worth it. These movies will be terrible.

Would rather watch Willow. For the 900th time.

[Venkman]

Late to the party.

Where would they split this, movie wise (and knowing actual chronology and time lapse is up for grabs)? Part 1 ends with Smaug realizing his fortune's been stolen? Or when he's killed? Part 2 being all about the infighting and then Orcs/Waurgs?

[Belle Elegant]

One place they could split the movies would be when Gandalf bails on Bilbo and the dwarfs right before they enter Mirkwood.  But that wouldn't really leave much of a climax/cliffhanger for the first movie *shrug*. 

[Evil Elvis]

I haven't read The Hobbit, but I'd guess it would be right after the hour-long battle scene.

[cmlancas]

Nice try. 

[Ironwood]

Cutting it at Bilbo being alone in the Dark or when he pushes the dwarves into the water in Barrels.

This is partly why I don't understand it being two films.  Cutting it is going to make no sense wherever you do it.

[Venkman]

Why wouldn't Part 1 being Smaug (either discovering the theft or being killed) and Part 2 being Battle of the Five Armies make sense? Seems like they'd want to have a good climax for each if they could do it, whereas having OMGCGI Dragon Battle and OMGCGI Army in the same film would be overkill.

Someone earleir said these not being very long movies individually, and I that I agree with. There's a lot that goes on in The Hobbit, but like Bombadil, some of it is not germaine to the central plot elements needed for a good movie.