h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Anyone who's a fan of the half animated/half live action version DON'T HURT ME!! (I know that it has its fans...)

To get away from animated midgets with robotic enhancements for a moment:- I would like to say that one of the things that worries me most about this production; is that all the film might do is expose the books many aforementioned weaknesses. I can't see a cinema audiance (outside Chinese cinemas where this happens regularly) just accepting that Gandalf got reincarnated without wondering how. Or just accepting that the rings are powerfull without any reason being given.

Reincarnated? Oh dear. This is getting a little over my head. But why would they feel the need to even mention that? And as for magic rings, why would we 'believe' in a galaxy far, far away, a long time ago? It's fiction. If that is the fact that a fictional world functions on, why shouldn't we 'believe' it? (Sorry, but someone has to play the part of the optimist, but if the movie DOES suck, feel free to hunt me down and razz me personally.)

Studios with huge budgets and teams of special-effects artists will go through an amazing amount of work for minor things. And I'm talking about shortening 5' 9" actors by a couple of feet, not nitpicking over a couple of inches. Anyway, changing scale through camera angles still requires some post production (getting the lighting and diffusion to look right). Not nearly as much as the face-pasting, though, you're right about that.

Anyway, as far as the plot-holes of the books go, I don't have any answers for those. Well, I have some, but they're not at all solid. As far as Gandalf goes, maybe he got resurrected as Gandalf-da-White because Saruman had cast off that title (and any associated powers/responsibilities). Some kind of line-of-succession thing. And as for the ring, I'm not sure if the exact mechanics of its power are all that important, as the "power of the rings" is more of a symbol. The One Ring is a pretty obvious example of power corrupting*. But even if those statements don't satisfy you (and they probably won't. They don't really satisfy me, to tell you the truth), a good production should make all this moot. If the film is well done, the audience shouldn't give a second thought to things like this.



*But if you still think the rings should have some particular powers, just assume that they can fire bursts of energy (ala Street Fighter and Dragonball Z), except know one ever does it in any of the books.

If you were to read the books as a coherent screenplay... well, that would be a mess, to say the least. Just like in any book-to-movie production, certain things will have to be played down (like any literal ressurections) (Give me a break, I forgot that part...) whereas action-packed scenes will almost certainly be highlighted (like Eowyn kicking Nazgul butt! You GO girl!). It's a very visual medium, and movies have to be made in respect to that. If it were to include all of the nitty-gritties, it would A) rival wagnerian operas in length, and B) loose roughly 9/10 of the audience within the first 30 minutes, particuarly if they went through the trouble of filling in the holes for those of us who didn't read the Simirillian (sp?).

I disagree.
"People are more willing to swallow a BIG lie than a small one"
The problem as I see it isn't that there are assumptions but rather the audiance doesn't even know whats happened let alone how.
Too go back to the 'Star Wars' example, people will happily accept faster than light travel and Jedi powers as the result can clearly be seen. But would they accept this?

"But you're dead!"
"No I'm not."
"Oh. Thats alright then."

Or this?

"That ring is EVIL!"
"Wow! why?"
"Cause Sauron made it!"
"Wot's it do that's so evil!?!"
"It can make itself seem heavier."
"Wow! EVULL!!"

Audiances need a reason more than they need a means.
In the case of TLOTR there is no clear reason as to why they should consider the ring so important. Such a major flaw at the start of a film can permanately throw the audiance and leave them feeling rather confused and distant.
By comparison 'Star Wars' immediately established in the audiances mind that the empire was nasty with the battle scenes. But 'The Phantom menace' was let down by the fact that the bad guy Darth Maul (or whatever his name was) didn't come across as evil until the final fight scene.

I see your point about proving to an audience that the ring is evil. There probably isn't enough time. In the book, Tolkein talks about how the ring has made Bilbo feel "drawn" and how both Bilbo and Frodo change behaviour over time. On the other hand, there is one dramatic incident when Galdalf casts the ring into the fire and reads the words there in the Morgul tongue (Aszh Nazg Gimburtaluk etc. sp?). The books says that he is terrifying and his face becomes clouded (or something like that - I haven't read the books for 10 years or more). I seem to recall that the animated version did this quite well and also had a little flashback to the making of the rings. Also, this is legend, myth, sometimes you just point to someone and say baddie. If you get the atmospherics right, people will believe.

Well, the main reason for destroying the ring is the fact that Sauron cannot die until it's destroyed. I happen to have the Tolkien Illustrated Encyclopedia here, so let's take a look at how Sauron can rise again faster than one of those damned inflatable clowns (caution, I'm going to make a few references to events in the Mythos's history without elaborating on them, and you might not know what I'm talking about.)

1) Sauron has a nice, Maia-spirit form. He completely destroys Numenor, and the cataclysm destroys him as well.

2)...But through the powers of the !!!!, Sauron rises again as the "Dark Lord" (big-scary-flaming-black-armor form). Returns to doing the things he's best at, like laying waste to Middle Earth. Is defeated only when the RING is cut from his finger.

3)...But the !!!! isn't destroyed, and Sauron rises AGAIN, as that flaming-eye dealy. Spreads major evil across Middle Earth (Can you say,"Corrupted SARUMAN, the head-wizard-honcho!"?). And the only thing that stops him is the destruction of the RING.

So you see, the ring is more important than just an invisibility-doohickey.(Take THAT, Harry Potter and his lame-ass invisibility cloak!)

But that's exactly what I meant about stories and fictional worlds "operating" on certain "facts". Don't go into details on why gandalf is suddenly alive-- just state:

G: "Hey, here I am!"
Hobbits: "But you died!"
G: "Ha, ha, stupid hobbits!"
Hobbits: "Hey! what's with the new threads?"
G: "I'm now Gandalf the White!"
Hobbits: "Oh... very well, then. Did you bring any pipeweed with you?"

See? If it's phrased right, it could work. They see Gandalf... he's now wearing white... he's there, and alive and well. If they were to never mention it again, no one would think anything about it, except for people who read, remembered, and thought about the books. That would make up maybe 1/10 of the audience. They, (if they were willing to accept someone else's vision, and the limitations of film) would think "Oh, that was a clever way of avoiding THAT mess!" The other, less forgiving, fans would becry the trechery and go out feeling miserable. (How many people do you think that saw Phantom Menace read at least ONE Star Wars novel prior to that? How many read enough of the books to catch that Darth Maul wasn't the first one to have a double-bladed lightsaber (or so I've heard) ? Guess what fraction of that group felt miserable about the whole thing?)

They're making the movie the best way they know how. The makers aren't out to slaughter Tolkien. They're out to entertain people, and make money doing it, that's all.

Embarassingly enough, I DID know that Exar Kun (A serious sith badass) was the first guy to weild a double-bladed lightsaber (He doesn't use it in the novels, as he's only a disembodied spirit. Just in the comic books). But I didn't really care. If the majority of movie-goers think that Maul was the first guy to use one of those puppies, I don't have a problem with that. Frankly, I think anyone who DOES has much more serious issues.

Now, back to the whole Gandalf Reborn(tm) thing... There was one major reason I never questioned it, but I don't know that it applies to most people: I was EXPECTING Gandalf to return. Come on. What was it, the first book in which we see Gandalf plunge to his "firey end(?)"? Did anyone here really think the writer would have killed off a major character like Gandalf THAT EARLY? Sheesh, killing off Frodo would have (almost) been more acceptable. Anyway, I felt that Gandalf's return was just par for the course. Nothing unusual there.

Hell, yes! I read that and didn't beleive it, either! (I mean, he's a wizard, it's practically his JOB to get out of that sort of situation...) Though, killing off Frodo might be an extreme example of his importance. I'd rate the head-honcho hobbit a good .37 points over the wizard. (We all know that Sam, Merry or the others would have continued the quest... right? Okay, maybe not... but still, Frodo IS the main character in the novel, not Gandalf, no matter how many sparkley pretty things he makes.) But yeah, I got your point-- totally expected.

ps
I know someone who got seriously tiffed over the double lightsaber thing... even though I pointed out that they never insinuated in the movie that he was the first to have one. But there's nothing wrong with just knowing it, I assure you. You were just among the well informed, but did you get passionately angry about the fact that Exar Kun wasn't even mentioned? I hope not.

Yeah, I'll drink to your PS, Cenchrea! And talking of the 70s, .... no better not. But they did improve round about '77. Didn't they?

No, I didn't mean that there's anything WRONG with knowing about Exar Kun (but becoming "passionately angry" about the whole Maul thing is a bit obsessive). I just meant that it pushes the needle on my Nerd-O-Meter a little farther towards the red-zone; But then, I'm on the internet discussing Tolkien...

...Never mind.

The hobbits in the movie are going to be played by normal-sized actors, and then computers will be used to shrink them down to hobbit-size. Thank goodness they're not using actual vertically challenged folk--think about how awful "Willow" (also filmed in New Zealand) was. And if you care about the cast, I stole this from
[Broken link removed by Moderator]

Aragorn: Viggo Mortensen
Arwen: Liv Tyler
Beregond: ?
Boromir: Sean Bean
Bilbo: Sir Ian Holm
Celeborn: Marton Csokas
Denethor: ?
Elrond: Hugo Weaving
Éomer: Karl Uban
Eowyn: Miranda Otto
Faramir: David Wenham
Frodo: Elijah Wood
Galadriel: Cate Blanchett
Gandalf: Sir Ian McKellen
Gimli: John Rhys-Davies
Gollum: computer (Andy Serkis)
Haldir: Craig Parker
Legolas: Orlando Bloom
Merry: Dominic Monaghan
Pippin: Billy Boyd
Sam: Sean Astin
Saruman: Christopher Lee
Ted Sandyman: Brian Sergent
Theoden: Bernard Hill
Wormtongue: Brad Dourif

So there you have it. And if Peter Jackson (director) screws up these books, I'm going to be very angry. We'll know Christmas 2001.

Hey! I thought Willow was cute! But thanks for giving us the low-down on the hiegth issure, but rest assured, we'll probably still argue on how it could have been done "best".

WOOHOO! Who guessed right? What was that? Eh?! That's right, EMAR!

Okay, they probably won't use the exact method I described to do it, but I DID say they could shrink normal actors digitally. And I hadn't even looked it up or anything. Ah, the joys of gloating.

Hey! Who was closer?! I said "cut, resize, paste" and you started going off about the whole general mish mash of digitally enhanced hobbit limbs! (Okay, I said it rather jokingly, but I DID say it, didn't I?)

But beside that point...

Did they film the hobbits in front of blue screens and then matte them in? Because if they were to be in the shoot w/ the full-sized actors and then be "cut, resized, and pasted" wouldn't there be missing background to account for? (Learned that lesson the harsh way through Adobe Photoshop, among various other art/photo programs from hell!) Did the hobbits even need to go to New Zeland for filming? (And if the blue screen is the case, it needn't of been done digitally, though it's preferred.)

Well, there could be another alternative to cut-and-paste-limbs and/or blue screening. You could take a 3D scan of the actors, then go in and adjust their digitized frames in a 3D modelling program. This was actually what I originally had in mind (I swear!), but I hadn't quite gotten my thoughts on the subject in order. The only problem with this method that I can think of is that adjusting the scale of the actors images would also alter the scales of any textures that apply to them (skin and clothing and such). But, I suppose special-effects gurus could find some away around that problem.

;-P Can't you come up with a simple, elegant solution for anything? C'mon, I dare ya. A simple, elegant solution for what a Balrog would sound like and how they'd achive it... shoot.

Just do what they did for the dinosaurs of "Jurassic Park": Go out and record various animal and heavy machinery noises, then splice a few together. Simple enough?