The Hobbit movie made before LOTR

[aktarian]

Would it be possible to have The Hobbit be made beofe LOTR kicked off the franchise, so to speak? I'm hoping so that The Hobbit is first one and sticks more to the book and doesn't cram in Saruman, Sauron, Radagast etc as OTL where PJ feels the need to make it more simialr to LOTR.

Pro:
-might be easier to make decent CGI earlier because it might require less of it or less advanced
-shorter book so it can be made into a single, altough long, movie or two "normal" sized ones so cheaper
-smaller cast, specially principal characters so again cheaper and less need for well known actors so maybe one or two are better known
-so being cheaper studio might opt for The Hobbit instead of LOTR, seeing how PJ pitched this movie first and proposed to follow it up with 2 part LOTR

Against:
-LOTR is, IMO, better known book
-LOTR's story is easier to make into epic movie, though The Hobbit might not be made as one, making it easier to pitch and market

Anyway, I think it's possible with some things sorted out differently and/or studio deciding The Hobbit might be safer choice and doing it first. If it succeeds then they follow it up with LOTR, and agree to do so before, if not it's less of a loss than potential LOTR flop. So, thoughts?

 

[sharlin]

Thing is, if it stuck to the book it would be crap. The Dwarfs would have been 'characters' distinguishable by their different coloured hats and beards, lacking for the most part any personality and speaking in high pitched voices. The Elfs would be sprites, really really really REALLY camp ones with lots of singing and dancing and talking and giggling about Dwarf beards.

There would be no 'nemisis' character in the form of Azog and thats the role he's playing and playing well instead it would have been "And there was goblins and talking Wargs after them. Why? Because." And the escape from the Goblin Town would be

"Oh no Wargs!"
*EAGLES OUT OF NO WHERE! with no explanation as to why/how they got there that darn quickly*
End!

The whole dual scene and battle on that top at the end of the 1st Hobbit movie was well done and again they are using Azog as a bridge and nemisis character. Was chatting about the Hobbit movies with a friend last night and we agreed that Bolg will get killed by Legolas at the Battle of the 5 Armies (which will probably be HUGE, Pelanore scale instead of the bit it was in the book) whilst Azog will the one who mortally wounds Thorin and then gets killed by the Bear chappy. Whilst Fili and Bili (the two handsome ones who are Thorin's kin) will probably get killed by Bolg who then gets Legolam'd.

Gandalf would dissapear off to have his encounter with the Necromancer and then turn up, mention it for a bit and thats that. Smaug would have consisted of Bilbo going into Erebor, having a chat with Smaug who then leaves and promptly gets shot down.

They would not be the Hobbit and LotR movies they were. Hobbit would be at best a family movie, at worst some kind of weird sing along kids movie.

And a close to the books adaptation of the LotR would be rougly 49 hours long and consist of LOTS of boring, boring waffle interspersed with Bilbo and Samwise having more uncomfortablle 'friendship' moments (I'm saying this as a gay man myself) of them looking intensely into eachother's eyes. Whilst the action scenes

"They have a cave troll!"
*Stabs troll in foot*
"A sting indeed!"
*BALROG!!!!!!*
"Fly you fools"
"Gandaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalf!"
BAD END.

Jackson's done a superb job of adapting the books which are NOT suitable for film into actual film series. Trying to keep them close to the books would produce a flop.

Don't forget that whole very long scenes like the Goblin town part in the movie are like a paragraph at most in the book. You'd have to flesh them out, add more bits otherwise the movie would just seem like a horrifically disjointed mess

 

[ColeMercury]

Weren't there issues with the film rights to The Hobbit that prevented it from being made? I know The Silmarillion won't see any film adaptations as long as Christopher Tolkien's alive.

 

[arctic warrior]

Making the Hobbit first would of course make for more consistency in the sequels - LOTR - but it would be boring; at least till the party reaches Beorn. Would be a nice movie though but the first half "and they were travilling through strange lands where peoples spoke other languages and sang strange songs" will do a lot to put peoples off.
The Hobbit really needs the persuer aka Azog or Bolg to tie it up and make for movie-goer's not losting interest.

The White Council meeting will still be needed perhaps as an intro to tell what is going on in the forest; I think Jackson did that well as it according to book occurs some 60 years prior when Gandalf heard of and investigated Dol Guldur.

As you said the LOTR is so much more well known and the Hobbit is a childrens book!

 

[sharlin]

ould be a nice movie though but the first half "and they were travilling through strange lands where peoples spoke other languages and sang strange songs" will do a lot to put peoples off.
The Hobbit really needs the persuer aka Azog or Bolg to tie it up and make for movie-goer's not losting interest.

Yep, totally true, the Hobbit as it stands is a very good book, but it would make a DIRE movie. Imagine if they did it like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BZX9g24P-8

Behold the Dwarfs squeaky voices, they sound nearly like Alvin and the Chipmunks. Whilst the elfs would be insultingly poor faeries, more fae creatures than what is today seen as Elfs, tall, beautiful and graceful, no they'd be queer as coots, VERY musical and rubbish. Yes the Hobbits a lovely book, but if converted like the book into a movie, it would be a disaster.

 

[mattep74]

Weren't there issues with the film rights to The Hobbit that prevented it from being made? I know The Silmarillion won't see any film adaptations as long as Christopher Tolkien's alive.

Company that wants to produce Silmarillon: Ok Chris, you get 10 % of the income from the movies.

Chris: I want 25 % of the earnings and become executive producer

Company: 15 %, executive producer and final say about what goes in and what is left out

Chris: We have a deal.

 

[aktarian]

Well, you could cut out the singing and more childish elements and focus on more action packed stuff. And if you working on tight time frame there will be no incentive to add made up stuff. It will not be epic like LOTR but could be still made into good action slash fantasy movie.

 

[ColeMercury]

So I looked it up and apparently I was wrong about the film rights to The Hobbit being an issue.

Company that wants to produce Silmarillon: Ok Chris, you get 10 % of the income from the movies.

Chris: I want 25 % of the earnings and become executive producer

Company: 15 %, executive producer and final say about what goes in and what is left out

Chris: We have a deal.

Christopher Tolkien is an 89-year-old financially-secure curmudgeon who hates the Peter Jackson adaptations and, in fact, all adaptations of his father's sainted masterpieces.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

ther was a fairly successful Hobbit adaptation back in 1977. a 70-minute long run made by Rankin Bass (about 90 minutes with commercials)

 

[ScrewySqrl]

ther was a fairly successful Hobbit adaptation back in 1977. a 70-minute long run made by Rankin Bass (about 90 minutes with commercials)

 

[Lindseyman]

WI Tolkein went back and rewrote the Hobbit to fit in with LOTR? There is a chapter in Lost Tales(I think) which was going to be a chapter in LOTR where Gandalf explains the Quest from his point of view. I'm sure that I read elsewhere that he intended to do this but just never got around to it. Then it would make sense to do the Hobbit first (but as ONE 2 hour film)

 

[wcv215]

WI Tolkein went back and rewrote the Hobbit to fit in with LOTR? There is a chapter in Lost Tales(I think) which was going to be a chapter in LOTR where Gandalf explains the Quest from his point of view. I'm sure that I read elsewhere that he intended to do this but just never got around to it. Then it would make sense to do the Hobbit first (but as ONE 2 hour film)

He already did a little bit of that actually. In the first published form of the Hobbit he won the Ring from Gollum fairly and was led out afterwards. It was only when the Lord of the Rings was written that he went back and changed it.

 

[Alex Richards]

He already did a little bit of that actually. In the first published form of the Hobbit he won the Ring from Gollum fairly and was led out afterwards. It was only when the Lord of the Rings was written that he went back and changed it.

In fact he wanted to do this to pretty much the entire book. A friend convinced him that it wouldn't go down well to completely rewrite what was at that point quite a popular children's book 20-30 years after publication.

 

[Lindseyman]

The Hobbit still keeps appearing as one of the best loved childrens books in Britain when they produce the lists.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Christopher Tolkien is an 89-year-old financially-secure curmudgeon who hates the Peter Jackson adaptations and, in fact, all adaptations of his father's sainted masterpieces.

That's because Christopher Tolkien is the Executor of JRR Tolkien's literary estate and the unsung second author of Lord of the Rings.