Re: More Hobbit pictures | SPOILER THREAD

[Mrs Figg]

If it was GOT Bridgit would end up with her head on a spike. so thats quite my kinda thing yes.

[Sinister71]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with Gollum being cold blooded killer in The Hobbit. Haven't read the book in a while, but I don't think Gollum actually realizes the ring is missing until well into the game of riddles. A cold blooded killer surely has the intention to kill straight away, and while for sure Gollum is dark and sneaky, I got the vibe that at that inital encounter he is more curious than ready to chop Bilbo's head off I hope he isn't as detached as he was in the LOTR though, because obviously, the agony of losing the ring hasn't hit him yet


Which leads me to my main point

There's gunna be another Bridget Jones film?!

But it was Gollum's intention to Kill Bilbo all along. he was curious not seeing another being like himself in So long but Gollum wanted to check out Bilbo if you were because he was different than an orc. But he was still a killer. I guess I just seen him as Dark and dangerous and not the schizophrenic split personality case that Jackson made him in TTT and ROTK.... Gollum was way too upbeat for me in those films and it just seems like Jackson is more concerned with showing off Gollum than using the character in a dark dangerous manner... esp if they have him with the Smeagol part of his personalities which is nowhere evident in the book at all And IMHO opinion should remain that way

I guess this one of those examples of the links back to LOTR that they are trying to confirm. I guess you are right, though I did, I admit read him as more of a mischievous character rather than down and out dark & evil, but even at that stage he obviously wasn't a "good guy". Though he has to be more human than he was in LOTR otherwise they'd ruin the whole character- it'd be like 2 different characters

I much prefer the Gollum from FOTR, how he is covered in darkness and appears to be more malicious, than the nut job Jackson gave us in the rest of the trilogy. Now the Gollum from FOTR I could have gotten into but to have Golllum as Smeagol I just think thats a major mistake

[Mrs Figg]

As has been said, Gollum in the Hobbit is just a lonely sad creature in the darkness who has just lost his precious and is desperate and full of rage at Bilbos taking the Ring. He probably just fed on passing orcs and wasnt particularly evil at that time, just a strangler in the dark when he needed to eat. But the malevolent nature he became, came later in LOTR after he had spent much time searching and building up a well of hate against Baggins. Either way the whole Smeagol/Golum talking to himself thing is probably just to signify that deep down there was still a tiny bit of Smeagol who was not entirely ruined. But it is still tedious to watch too much of it.

[Sinister71]

As has been said, Gollum in the Hobbit is just a lonely sad creature in the darkness who has just lost his precious and is desperate and full of rage at Bilbos taking the Ring. He probably just fed on passing orcs and wasnt particularly evil at that time, just a strangler in the dark when he needed to eat. But the malevolent nature he became, came later in LOTR after he had spent much time searching and building up a well of hate against Baggins. Either way the whole Smeagol/Golum talking to himself thing is probably just to signify that deep down there was still a tiny bit of Smeagol who was not entirely ruined. But it is still tedious to watch too much of it.

But does that really need to be portrayed in the Hobbit? Why should we be worried about Smeagol at this point? Smeagol's story comes out later in the story as a whole. Whether he was or was not wholey evil isn't really the point, but what is, is the fact that Gollum at least the way I understand it had become a predator of sorts. hunting and killing and sneaking thru the dark doing what he needed to survive and not sitting around carrying on conversations with himself. I just think in order to keep the flow of the story in proper perspective they should go more in the shadows with Gollum instead of bringing him fully into the light and then having the character regress in FOTR just to become a schizophrenic babbling idiot in TTT and ROTK. For me anyways it ruins the character arc of Gollum by introducing Smeagol at this point in the tale... To me it makes more sense to let Gandalf tell Frodo his original name since according to Tolkien's own writing Bilbo did not know him as Smeagol... Hopefully once they cut the scene together they will find adding Smeagol doesn't work in the overall context of the story as a whole

[Norc]

SINISTER! HELLO!!!!

I think that it wasn't until Gollum met Frodo and had to make compromises that this Smeagol side came through. Before that he was just, well, Gollum really. evil. killing. wicked. you know. so to have a very prominant Smeagol I think would be wrong, to show an uncertain side and a sad side of him yeah, but not the "sweet" and "joyful" Smeagol. if you know what I mean.

[Sinister71]

SINISTER! HELLO!!!!

I think that it wasn't until Gollum met Frodo and had to make compromises that this Smeagol side came through. Before that he was just, well, Gollum really. evil. killing. wicked. you know. so to have a very prominant Smeagol I think would be wrong, to show an uncertain side and a sad side of him yeah, but not the "sweet" and "joyful" Smeagol. if you know what I mean.

I don't mind seeing some sadness in the character what I don't want to see is the schizophrenic chatter back and forth between Gollum and Smeagol like we had in TTT and ROTK. I mean I'm not really sure about totally evil either, but I do think he was more animalistic in nature than he was in TTT and ROTK due to his interaction with Frodo. But I think that animalistic nature is something they should show instead of trying to play up the whole multiple personalities angle.

[Mrs Figg]

I would like to see as little of Gollum as possible, just the Riddle scenes and thats it, I agree that all that talking to himself stuff is boring and not in keeping with his character. I think he had forgotton his name until Frodo mentioned it much later.

[Sinister71]

I would like to see as little of Gollum as possible, just the Riddle scenes and thats it, I agree that all that talking to himself stuff is boring and not in keeping with his character. I think he had forgotton his name until Frodo mentioned it much later.

I agree they need to get Gollum in and get him out and not make a big deal about him. after all he is only a minor character in the Hobbit. shocking right?

[David H]

I think that animalistic nature is something they should show instead of trying to play up the whole multiple personalities angle.

I think "animalistic" is a good description. I don't see any evil in Gollum. He'd eat Bilbo with no more guilt than a fish or a goblin, but certainly no pleasure either or he would have killed him to start with.

JRRT makes the point that Gollum is more curious than hungry at the moment, which for me is one of the parallels to Smaug in "Inside Information". Both could have easily killed Bilbo in an instant, but instead struck up a conversation out of curiosity.

But I really can't see how somebody can read "Riddles in the Dark" without seeing some humor. Just the idea of a riddle game in which the hero agrees to be eaten without a fight is both grizzly and droll, and characters who use words like "scrumptiously crunchable" are hard to for me to take entirely seriously. It's the same dark humor as in Sherlock's duel of wits with the cabby in 'Study in Pink'. [ I hope at least some of you found that amusing!] ".

So for me, if the scene is done all for horror with no humor it will be a complete waste. If it's done for pure slapstick with no sense of horror, it will be equally a failure. The trick will be striking the right balance between the two.

[Norc]

agree David (love your little Sherlock there ) I didn't really mean evil, but I couldn't find any good ecplenation right there, but animalistic is rather good. It is a fair point Mrs Figg maid that Gollum had forgotten his original name Smeagol until Frodo mentioned it, and therefor this "Nice" Smeagol in him wasn't present until then. Talking to himself, ofcourse, he's alone and has been for quite some time, but I think they should leave this "splitting the character Gollum" out of The Hobbit. He is wicked, and psycho and scary and creepy, but there is no Smeagol in him. yet. it is buried somewhere deep in his soul.

[Mrs Figg]

I totally agree with your analysis Dave, a fine balancing act is needed. Tolkien of course did it perfectly.

[Pettytyrant101]

There is some humour in the scene, as with most Tolkien humour it arsises frm the situation and the characters personalities.
Unfortuntely Pj does subtle humour about as well as pornography does a subtle exploration of love- not at all.
I agree fully about the gollum/Smeagol thing- according to Gandalf the part of Gollum that is not totally beaten by the Ring actauuly enjoys hearing a friednly voice again, enjoys being reminded of outside, of sun and trees and grass, but it only makes him madder in the end.
There is a fine balance here which I doubt the Coven have the skill to pull off.
There is certainly not in Tolkiens account moments to pause to 'milk the laughs'- its not that sort of scene and will be ruined if PJ makes it so.

[Sinister71]

There is some humour in the scene, as with most Tolkien humour it arsises frm the situation and the characters personalities.
Unfortuntely Pj does subtle humour about as well as pornography does a subtle exploration of love- not at all.
I agree fully about the gollum/Smeagol thing- according to Gandalf the part of Gollum that is not totally beaten by the Ring actauuly enjoys hearing a friednly voice again, enjoys being reminded of outside, of sun and trees and grass, but it only makes him madder in the end.
There is a fine balance here which I doubt the Coven have the skill to pull off.
There is certainly not in Tolkiens account moments to pause to 'milk the laughs'- its not that sort of scene and will be ruined if PJ makes it so.

exactly what they are going to do Petty try and milk the laughs... personally i didn't care for the Gollum schizo scene in ROTK. I thought it seemed forced and a complete waste of time. Jackson is failing to understand that this is backwards in time from LOTR and not set in the same time as it. He's also failing to understand Gollum was very animalistic and primal at this point in what Tolkien wrote. PJ just wants to show off his creation plain and simple, he doesn't care about the context he puts Gollum in the story in as long as he gets to show off his baby. If he truly cared he would listen to some of the fans who actually care about what Tolkien wrote(and not the ass kissing yes men) and dial Gollum way back into something much simpler than the schizo gimp from TTT and ROTK

[Orwell]

[quote="David H"]

But I really can't see how somebody can read "Riddles in the Dark" without seeing some humor. Just the idea of a riddle game in which the hero agrees to be eaten without a fight is both grizzly and droll, and characters who use words like "scrumptiously crunchable" are hard to for me to take entirely seriously.

There is some doubt if Bilbo's last riddle was strictly kosher, even if it was generally agreed by certain of Tolkien's 'authorities' to be within the rules, so maybe Bilbo would have gone one step further and stabbed Gollum before allowing himself to get eaten up? Surely it wasn't fair to be eaten up because one lost a Riddle Game? Mind, that would have probably turned Bilbo into a quasi-Hamlet figure, I guess, and Tolkien was no firm admirer of Shakespeare. Mmmmm... Yes, I guess Tolkien got it right.

[Pettytyrant101]

Odd Orwell, I read it as Tolkien saying Bilbo's last riddle was not within the rules- but as Smeagol agreed to guess at it, and as he took 3 guessses once Smeagol had begun guessing it was deemed 'fair'. I shall have to look that passage up again.

[Orwell]

Pedantry! And technicalizationing of the worse kind, Petty! You knew what I meant!

[Pettytyrant101]

No really, I wasn't absolutely sure and I didnt have the book to hand. Although don't you worry I shall always be on hand to be pedantic and a technicalizationer.

[Orwell]

... Although don't you worry I shall always be on hand to be pedantic and a technicalizationer.

That's easy for you to say.

[Mrs Figg]

[Orwell]

Watch it, Figgy!

[Pettytyrant101]

The feminine mind Orwell is never capable of recognising the deep and meaningful exchange of words that is male conversation.

[Orwell]

Yes, we extremely masculine types are totally impenetrable to the light minded female.

{{{Petty, what I mean by light minded female, is females generally! But shoosh! You mustn't tell them that. They have delicate feelings!}}}

[Ally]

Even though you were a women Orwell, like, only 3 weeks ago

[Mrs Figg]

hey yeah he was a woman! the noive!

[Orwell]

That's why I know so much about the feminine mind. It was a worthwhile experience! (Indeed, I especially enjoyed the new turn on self-love, thank you very much! )