A 'darker' Hobbit [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem

03-21-2007, 12:26 PM

Among all the fuss surrounding CoH we seem to have forgotten the other major Tolkien related publishing event of this year.

I found this on a search about the 'Mr Baggins: A History of the Hobbit' (the equivalent, I suppose of HoM-e for TH):

"The 1960 Hobbit has never been published but will be included in my forthcoming edition of The Hobbit manuscript. As I said in the footnote, it’s relatively brief but of great interest. In the meantime, if you’re not familiar with Tolkien’s other slightly earlier recasting of the material, "The Quest of Erebor", which appeared in Unfinished Tales, I suggest you look it up; other versions have since appeared in HME Vol. XII and in the revised edition of The Annotated Hobbit. The 1960 Hobbit would have been the Third Edition of the original book, had he carried through on the revisions, and would have changed the tone about as much as the 1947 rewrite of the Gollum chapter changes that section."

Mr Baggins is due to be published in two volumes in May & June.

I'm assuming that this '3rd edition' will basically show Tolkien's attempt to re-write TH along the lines of what we have in The Quest of Erebor. Of course, its difficult to discuss the details of a book that hasn't been published yet, but it just got me wondering whether we'd consider such a 're-write' as 'better' than the version we have. If Rateliff is correct that this version, if completed, would have been the '3rd Edition' then this 'darker' version would have replaced the one we have - in the same way that the 2nd edition would have replaced the 1st.

Would we have missed the 'lighter' version of the story - the 'children's book'? Personally, I'm looking forward to reading 'Mr Baggins' as much as CoH.

Any thoughts?

(Oh, & btw, there's a new edition of Mr Bliss out in October)

The Might

03-21-2007, 01:13 PM

Interesting news davem, I for one enjoy the lighter version too, but I would definitely like to read this more recent one too.
Perhaps a sort of attempt to close the gap between the LotR and The Hobbit, as far as the language used or the style of writing is concerned. I enjoyed the chapter in the UT with all the extra-information, so I'll be looking forward to purchasing the book :)

Lalwendë

03-21-2007, 02:18 PM

Mithalwen

03-21-2007, 02:30 PM

I didn't know about this and I am delighted. I find The Hobbit cloying now- though I found it still "works" well read aloud to young children - and have often wished he had written a grown up version in the style of The Quest of Erebor which would fit better with the LOTR ..but then I also wish he had rewritten some of the early chapters to fit in with the rest of LOTR....

obloquy

03-21-2007, 02:37 PM

Hopefully this updated version will make it possible to take the story more seriously in our discussions here. As it is, it's way too old to be relevant to the post-LotR Middle-earth. There might actually be some useful information about dragons, Mirkwood elves, the Necromancer or Beorn in this revision.

The Sixth Wizard

03-21-2007, 02:39 PM

I'm perfectly happy with the version we have now to be honest, though of course I'll want to read this. I'm not sure if my contentment is due to familiarity or not, but I do know that the version I have read so often has a special place, and any new version wouldn't be able to take that away. A bit like 'New Coke' was never going to replace the original flavour I've grown to love. ;) Sometimes, a rest is better than a change...

It's quite annoying actually that Tolkien was such a perfectionist - had he not been so obsessed with redrafting maybe he would have published more work in his lifetime? But then this begs the question, would it have been as good? :confused:

That's a good point and I've wondered about it before, but unlike us, most people have trouble reading LOTR, let alone all the other manuscripts etc that we drag up. I think it's better to have used a lot of time on one story and made it amazing, than skimp for economics and make it many average ones.

I think that's why the LOTR movies were so good, they actually wanted to make a good movie, shot on location, with handmade armour and stuff etc. You could argue that the actual SCRIPTS were rubbish but at least it looks good... ;)

Lalwendë

03-21-2007, 02:39 PM

Would you have been happy with it as a 'replacement' though? Because that would have been what happened - we'd simply not have the existing Hobbit, it would merely be a curious collector's item for sale at high prices on eBay (as V1 is now).

Did you read The Hobbit first? I've got the feeling you did? This does have a point....;)

Would kids who read The Hobbit at an early age as a 'kids' book' still be caught up with the same enthusiasm for Tolkien if they read a darker book? Would they read it at all? It's one of those books that any parent, no matter how 'puritanical', would feel comfortable giving to a child to read, but I'm not sure they would feel the same about a darker story.

The thought of having the early chapters of LotR re-written fills me with abject horror though!

I've absolutely NO problem with the Hobbit 'not fitting' - I mean, nor does the Sil, and thinking along those lines leaves us with a 'canon' of one book, which is just stupid to my mind. Few if any writers produced a lifetime's body of work which was entirely consistent in tone, voice and style, and I have no problem that Tolkien's work is the same. It's interesting rather than annoying to me. ;)

Mithalwen

03-21-2007, 02:52 PM

I have no problem with not fitting per se ... it is the fact that it is so much a children's book withall those asides that makes it just about unreadable for me now .let alone the Tralalalally Elves..... It seems to be the children's version of teh "real story".

Children love dark books - always have done ..... though I do wonder at the sanity of the parents who take very tiny children to the Harry Potter films.... especially latish showings.... but the Hobbit is already pretty dark and the most upsetting thing was the goblins eating the ponies (which Tolkien clearly realised given the high equine survival rate in LOTR). For my money the Barrow Wight and Old Man Willow are two of the scariest part of LOTR and that is in the "Hobbit style bit". It is not content but style...

davem

03-21-2007, 03:03 PM

This is another interesting bit I found from Rateliff:

"It can hardly be coincidence that as late as 1940 (sic), when writing the
opening chapter of The Hobbit, Tolkien felt free to include not only
references to Beren,... [more of his mythology]... but also to the Gobi
Desert, Hindu Kush, and "the Wild were-Worms of the Chinese" as part of
Bilbo's world.

Clearly here we are dealing with the first draft of the story, & these primary world references were removed before the story was sent to the publisher. But one can see a continuum here - we have at the start a very 'fairystoryish' world, filled with references to 'exotic' places like the Hindu Kush & the Gobi Desert, & at the end, by the time of the proposed '3rd edition' an attempt to fully integrate TH into the Legendarium, not just in terms of style, but also of language.

I think in a way we can see the process repeated in LotR - the early chapters, as Mith points out, are very close in style to TH as we have it, while by the end we are completely in the world of the Sil. Hence, if this 3rd ed. of TH had been completed One can only assume that the early chapters (or at least the first chapter) of LotR would also have required re-writing as that would have seemed 'out of place'.

Lal's point is interesting - given a 3rd ed Hobbit would have replaced the one we have, how many fans would have been drawn into Tolkien's world? Would any of us really want to sacrifice that innocent world, where there was less noise & more green, simply to have something that 'fitted' better with LotR? Its not so much the 'darker' style that would have 'excluded' children, perhaps, as the more adult style & language that would have resulted - its not a book that parents would have chosen to read to their children.

And of course, one would have to wonder (given the reaction of A&U's reader to the Sil legends Tolkien offered as a sequel to TH) whether, if TH had been in a more 'adult' style in the first place, we'd have anything of Middle-earth at all. It seems that publishers were much more 'tolerant' of 'fantastical' literature back then when it was aimed at children (not discounting, of course, the works of Dunsany & Morris).

Sardy

03-22-2007, 08:39 AM

http://www.amazon.com/History-Hobbit-John-D-Rateliff/dp/0261102915/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7160472-6441565?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174574185&sr=8-1

960 pages?! Can that be right?

In any case, I am looking very much forward to a darker, more adult and more LOtR-consistent "Mr. Baggins." In my opinion, it won't detract at all from previous editions of "The Hobbit." Personally, I would like to introduce my children to the original (2nd edition) and let them discover LOtR, Sil, and the "new" Hobbit" later and at their own pace...

Kuruharan

03-22-2007, 08:52 AM

Perhaps this will settle the "dwarves set off on this quest with no weapons" problem, which was always one of the oddest things for me.

MatthewM

03-22-2007, 10:04 AM

Interesting news. I'm eager to read this eventually.

davem

03-22-2007, 12:21 PM

http://www.amazon.com/History-Hobbit-John-D-Rateliff/dp/0261102915/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7160472-6441565?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174574185&sr=8-1

960 pages?! Can that be right?.

Well, its in two volumes http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Hobbit-Mr-Baggins-v/dp/0007235550/ref=sr_1_2/026-3247634-6064465?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174587559&sr=1-2

& http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Hobbit-Return-Bag-End-v/dp/0007250665/ref=sr_1_3/026-3247634-6064465?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174587559&sr=1-3

Mithalwen

03-22-2007, 01:06 PM

Who is the editor ..someone from Marquette?

Edit:
*Googles* .... yes in a way.....

davem

03-22-2007, 01:15 PM

Who is the editor ..someone from Marquette?

Edit:
*Googles* .... yes in a way.....

John D Rateliff. bit more here:
http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/historyofthehobbit2.htm

Elladan and Elrohir

03-22-2007, 02:24 PM

This is magnificent news! I had heard that a book was being prepared, but never expected it to release this year, the same year of CoH. 2007 will be the greatest year for Tolkien publication since the release of The Silmarillion, some thirty years ago.

Now I can't decide which I'm looking forward to the most: CoH or HoH.

obloquy

03-22-2007, 03:23 PM

Now I can't decide which I'm looking forward to the most: CoH or HoH.

Hurin has always been one of my favorite Tolkien characters, and First Age stories are generally more appealing to me. However, nearly 1,000 pages of unpublished late-era Tolkien is pretty amazing, even if it is just Hobbit rewrites. I mentioned the possibility of some new light shed on certain Hobbit peculiarities before, but knowing that we'll be receiving two fat volumes has really got my imagination excited.

Child of the 7th Age

03-23-2007, 12:05 PM

I have been waiting for this book for many years--back when it was assigned to another author. To be truthful, I'm more excited about this than CoH, but I am probably in the minority.

I actually don't have a problem with "another" Hobbit. We already have 3 Hobbits: the original, the revised, and the parts in UT discussing Bilbo and such. Most of us see the revised as the "real" Hobbit though there are still folk around who cut their teeth on the first one. I suspect the revisions will not take the place of anything....but just be another alternative. We already have this situation in terms of other things in the Legendarium...the same story in Silm and HoMe with different viewpoints. I honestly don't think it will knock out the original.

Plus won't that 960 pages read more like HoMe (discussions of variant text from different periods) rather than the Hobbit itself. Discuss of variants is interesting but doesn't tug at the heart the way a "real" book does.

By the way, I am glad you put up this thread. I am looking forward to discussing the book when it comes out.

William Cloud Hicklin

03-23-2007, 12:09 PM

davem

03-23-2007, 12:34 PM

Child of the 7th Age

03-23-2007, 12:53 PM

Just to clarify: technically there are already three 'versions' or editions, the 1st (1937), 2nd (1951) and 3rd (1966), in the last of which Tolkien cleaned up some passages, mostly to integrate better with The Lord of the Rings. To get really geeky, each publisher of the 3rd Edition used a slightly different text (finally resolved by Doug Anderson).

Yes, you're definitely right. I am kind of a nut about collecting Hobbits (books...not live ones) When I started collecting Tolkien books, I was trying to get "everything" Tolkien wrote, but that proved impossible as the different editions and reprints exploded. More recently, I've focused on the different editions and translations of The Hobbit. There is a difference between #2 and #3 but I don't think of it in the same way as the major difference in the storyline between #1 and #2, or the extra material in UT.

There's some really great art out there in Hobbit translations....artists that most English-speaking readers are less familiar with...which makes these fun to collect.

Davem -- And I thought I was the only one counting the days till these volumes came out. They've been delayed so many times....for years and years....even more than Hammond's guides. It will be interesting to see what JR does. There's another web group he posts on and I've kind of quietly watched the progress of the book that way.

The other book I am really waiting on is this: J.R.R. Tolkien: Interviews, Reminiscences, and Other Essays (Hardcover)
by Douglas A. Anderson (Author), Marjorie J. Burns. It's been promised several times but still doesn't have a publication date.

It's a very different type of book but this description sounds interesting:

Compiled by noted Tolkien scholars Douglas A. Anderson and Marjorie J. Burns, this book provides an invaluable insight into Tolkien's thought through interviews, personal reminiscences, and remembrances collected nowhere else.
Tolkien gave some twenty interviews in his lifetime. In this collection is the unedited transcript of an interview for the BBC, giving the only surviving impression of what it was like to converse with Tolkien.
Firsthand impressions ranging from those of the lexicographer of the Oxford English Dictionary to those of friends such as Robert Murray, Norman Power, Donald Swann, the science ﬁction writer, L. Sprague de Camp, and Tolkien's eldest son, Michael, the reminiscences are lively and loving testimonials.
Most of the essays here were written by people who knew Tolkien and explore other aspects of his life: Christopher Tolkien on the making of The Silmarillion, Priscilla Tolkien on his art, Rayner Unwin on publishing Tolkien, and more.

Oldest son Michael??? Hmm..

Estelyn Telcontar

03-23-2007, 01:20 PM

I'm with oblo, Child and davem on this one - I do look forward to the new Hobbit! Now that's partially because I'm not such a huge Sil fan - I think these books will be easier going than HoME. After all, the time in which Tolkien wrote the Hobbit is definitely more compact, so there should be more development than actual contradiction.

I've found out that there's a new book by Tom Shippey coming up: Selected Essays on Tolkien. I hope to get more information and to be able to buy it at the German Tolkien Seminar in May. We've also been informed of another interesting book: Inside Language: Linguistic and Aesthetic Theory in Tolkien by Ross Smith. More on that too when I see it.

Sir Kohran

03-24-2007, 11:40 AM

I think I should say that I find it impossible to see The Hobbit as part of LOTR or The Silmarillion - every time I read about the Elves saying "Most astonishing wonderful!" or anything like that I just lose the illusion. I see The Hobbit as its own story set in its own universe; the Trolls can speak and have second names, the animals can talk, the Goblins are separate from Orcs and the Necromancer is not Sauron but a dark, myserious sorcerer in a distant land. I also dislike the idea that the writing style of TH is 'childish' - it is just a different writing style than what Tolkien wrote most of his other work in; it can be read perfectly well by teenagers and adults.

So in some ways, I am looking forward to seeing what LOTR version of the TH would be like - but I somehow prefer the original version.

davem

03-24-2007, 11:44 AM

I think I should say that I find it impossible to see The Hobbit as part of LOTR or The Silmarillion - every time I read about the Elves saying "Most astonishing wonderful!" or anything like that I just lose the illusion.

I argued this very point a while back - based on things Verlyn Flieger said in a talk at the Tolkien 2005 conference in Birmingham, but it seemed just about everybody disagreed with me.

William Cloud Hicklin

03-24-2007, 04:23 PM

I argued this very point a while back - based on things Verlyn Flieger said in a talk at the Tolkien 2005 conference in Birmingham, but it seemed just about everybody disagreed with me.

But you were right. Thjere's littled dout (per John Rateliff) that The Hobbit originally had no more connection to the legendarium than did Roverandom- although it wound up being drawn in. Even so, the borrowing of names like Elrond and the very inchoate Thu/Sur of the Fall of Numenor were really just throwaways, not intended especially seriously.

davem

03-24-2007, 06:13 PM

But you were right. Thjere's littled dout (per John Rateliff) that The Hobbit originally had no more connection to the legendarium than did Roverandom- although it wound up being drawn in. Even so, the borrowing of names like Elrond and the very inchoate Thu/Sur of the Fall of Numenor were really just throwaways, not intended especially seriously.

Clearly. Yet one can understand Tolkien's problem once the Hobbit sequel becomes LotR & the culmination of Legendarium. This is why I'm so fascinated to read his attempt to make it 'fit'. The drive for internal consistency seems to have dogged Tolkien for most of his creative life & is quite probably one of the main reasons he published so little on M-e.

I can't help wondering what would have happened if circumstances had been different & it had been Roverandom that had been picked up by A&U instead of TH, & what would have happened if they had asked for a sequel to that....

EDIT

Personally, I love TH, & wouldn't change it at all, but I hold to my guns on its inconsistency with the rest of the Legendarium. When I dared to raise my head above the parapet & say that 'tra-la-la-lally'ing Elves, & 'cockerney' trolls didn't fit into the Legendarium I got a good few responses from other posters attempting to 'prove' that they were perfectly consistent, & 'why shouldn't the Elves in Rivendell 'tra-la-la-lally the night away', or Trolls refer to their victims as 'Poor little blighters'?.....

I wonder whether those things will be seen to have survived into the proposed, 'more consistent' '3rd ed.'....

Lalwendë

03-24-2007, 06:35 PM

I argued this very point a while back - based on things Verlyn Flieger said in a talk at the Tolkien 2005 conference in Birmingham, but it seemed just about everybody disagreed with me.

Yeah, and we still argue about this one even now. :P

Mostly as I just don't have this difficulty fitting in The Hobbit with the rest of Tolkien's work on Middle-earth. I thought Verlyn Flieger was being unfair to say it was full of 'Pigwiggenry' and thought "Tut-tut! What a soundbite that is!". Course I'm interested to see the rewrites, but The Hobbit as it is was quite Perilous enough for my view of Middle-earth anyway. It also has some nice grown up satire on English ways, which is most un-kiddy, and is easily dark enough to fit in, considering it is mostly about a smaller quest, not about the culmination of the Third Age and apocalyptic battles and returning high kings and the destruction of evil overlords and whatnot. And it has a ruddy great Dragon in it, which counts for plenty in my book. ;)

Maerbenn

03-31-2007, 07:37 AM

Technically yea, but its not the '3rd edition' that Tolkien originally envisioned - I should have been clearer. Can't help wondering whether that '3e' would have been a 'Myths Transformed' kind of mistake on Tolkien's part - suppose we'll be able to form our own opinions on that when the work finally sees the light.The third (1966) edition of The Hobbit that did come out has the Wood-elves lingering ‘in the twilight of our Sun and Moon’ while the Light-elves, Deep-elves and Sea-elves are living for ages in Faerie. But I would not consider that change a ‘mistake’. ;)

davem

03-31-2007, 11:08 AM

The third (1966) edition of The Hobbit that did come out has the Wood-elves lingering ‘in the twilight of our Sun and Moon’ while the Light-elves, Deep-elves and Sea-elves are living for ages in Faerie. But I would not consider that change a ‘mistake’. ;)

The question that occurs to me is whether he wanted to change TH simply in order to make it 'fit' better with the rest of the Legendarium, or whether he actually felt that it wasn't good enough in itself. His comment from 1937 that he “preferred my own mythology…to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Voluspa, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes”. seems to imply the latter

It seems from this comment that he was 'disappointed' with the book to some degree even before LotR was started. Even as a 'children's' book he seemed to have felt disappointed with it - in a 1967 interview with Philip Norman he states:

"The Hobbit" wasn't written for children, and it certainly wasn't done just for the amusement of Tolkien's three sons and one daughter, as is generally reported. "That's all sob stuff. No, of course, I didn't. If you're a youngish man and you don't want to be made fun of, you say you're writing for children. At any rate, children are your immediate audience and you write or tell them stories, for which they are mildly grateful: long rambling stories at bedtime.

"'The Hobbit' was written in what I should now regard as bad style, as if one were talking to children. There's nothing my children loathed more. They taught me a lesson. Anything that in any way marked out 'The Hobbit' as for children instead of just for people, they disliked-instinctively. I did too, now that I think about it. All this 'I won't tell you any more, you think about it' stuff. Oh no, they loathe it; it's awful.

So TH wasn't written for Tolkien's own children, & the style is 'bad' (in Tolkien's own words) because it was written 'as if one was talking to children'. He seems to be saying that he only wrote it isn that style 'because he didn't want to be made fun of'. Strange admission, & one that seems to go completely against his position re Fairy Story as set out in OFS - that Fairy Stories are not for children. In this comment he seems to be saying the very opposite - that the 'immediate' audience for such stuff are children & that when you write such things you say they're 'for children' to avoid being made fun of.

So, up to the time he produced TH he saw children as the primary audience for such stories, but not too long afterwards he could stand up in front of an audience & state that Children are not the primary audience - adults are. I wonder what happened to cause the change?

Whatever, from his words, it seems that both the syle & much of the content of TH displeased Tolkien, & this seems to have been at least partly behind his desire to re-write it.

Rumil

03-31-2007, 11:24 AM

I was interested by the views that The Hobbit just doesn't fit into the Legendarium and wanted to add my tupennyworth.

There are clear inconsistencies, like the cockney trolls and camp elves, but I would invoke a variant of the 'translator conceit' to cover these. If we imagine that The Hobbit was added in to the Red Book more or less complete by Frodo from Bilbo's story, then the question becomes, what was Bilbo writing?

I think that Bilbo was writing a children's story for his nephews and nieces, based on his adventures but in a less serious tone than we see in UT, for example. Therefore The Hobbit is a Frodo's childhood bed-time story. Of course, it is great story all by itself, but when we try to link it in to the Legendarium, I think it becomes the basis for detective work. In my opinion most of it is 'true' in Middle Earth terms but some aspects were altered by Bilbo either for dramatic effect or covering his tracks (such as the ring incident).

For example, I'd like to think that Bilbo 'really was' captured by the Trolls but that he invented most of their speech and names either because the original was not understandable or too foul for young ears! I can see Bilbo with an admiring circle of young Hobbits gathered round the fire one winter's evening doing all the Troll voices in proper fairy tale style and when some young Took or Brandybuck asked the name of the troll, inventing 'Bert' on the spur of the moment.

Lalwendë

07-06-2007, 01:42 PM

We have just got the second volume of The History of the Hobbit - Return to Bag End and davem is reciting bits out of the unfinished revised version that Tolkien attempted during the 1960s (picture the scene - he is laying on the settee with the book, accompanied by a cat, telling me things in a shocked tone of voice...).

Now without revealing too much for those of you who are also reading this or are waiting for the postman/Father Christmas/Birthday presentses to bring it, he has told me, knowing full well my reaction, that Tolkien altered one of my favourite sections, the agonising greeting scene between Gandalf and Bilbo. And that is not all. Suffice to say I am very pleased that Tolkien did not complete this revision and publish it. :eek:

And I have revived this thread because I have to ask:

What if it had been published?

The changes are really quite shocking. Yes, it might fit into the legendarium better (and thus have saved davem a lot of grief some time ago - remember his argument? It still rages in our house. ;) ), but really, so much of the colour and humour has been lost that I don't like it. Would we have been looking at the text we all know and love so well as a mere comic curiosity?

Elladan and Elrohir

07-12-2007, 11:47 AM

Mercy, don't tease us like that; we Americans won't get the book for a while longer yet!

I know Tolkien grew to despise the style of TH, but I still think it's most astonishing wonderful. Based on what Lal has said about his "3rd edition" revisions thus far, it's probably a good thing he never completed them -- though I would love to have a Hobbit that fit perfectly into the Legendarium, to compare with the one we all know and love.

I've been rereading Tolkien's letters a lot lately (a marvelous volume, that: enlightening about M-E and about so many other things; Tolkien had a lot of wisdom that never made it into his books) and it seems clear to me that he envisioned TH as being part of the Legendarium. Wish I could provide direct quotes, but my volume is not with me at present.

Probably that's the main reason he wanted to revise it so extensively, though; because he viewed it as a part of his Legendarium, but felt that its style was unworthy.

Well, sadly, I've said all that and not expressed an original thought. But all this issue of revision does raise a question to me. Much of the controversy among Tolkienites regarding the (possibly) impending Hobbit film centers around the essential change in tone that PJ or whoever would make. But can it not be argued that changing TH from a light G or PG into a heavy PG-13 is in line with Tolkien's desires? Perhaps the movie (if and when it gets made, which I believe it will) will be much more faithful to JRRT's vision than any would expect.

I cannot wait to get these books and see what Tolkien had in mind for his 3rd edition.

davem

07-12-2007, 12:16 PM

As Rateliff points out the main effect is to make Gandalf less 'eccentric' & more like the Gandalf we know from LotR, & Bilbo actually a lot stupider - at one point he comments that the Lonely mountain must be a few days journey away! Bree & the Rangers get a mention, but its the 'rationalising' Tolkien attempts that break the spell to a great degree - the Dwarves leave a bag of instruments in the porch, rather than pulling them out of nowhere, the Trolls are still speak 'cockerney' & there is more development of the journey to Rivendell, in an attempt to match the journey time of the Hobbits & Strider. And the mentions of an 'engine' & a 'pop gun' are gone (of course, removing the 'engine' reference from TH makes the reference to an 'express train' in LotR more glaring & out of place).

Basically, Tolkien begins re-writing the story from the start, but before long he is simply making alterations to odd sentences, & getting himself into more & greater difficulties. Rateliff points out that TH is set in a 'fairytale' world where moonphases & details of time & distance are not really that important, but LotR is a more 'realistic' work & what emerges is that TH could not have been rewritten in the style of LotR without completely destroying the magic.

One of my favourite lines 'less noise & more green' is lost. Interesting addition to the inns of the Shire: The 'All-welcome Inn at the junction of the Northway & East Road. "So called because much used by travellers through the Shire, especially by Dwarves".

Apparently Tolkien gave the manuscript, as far as it went, to a friend, who responded 'Its good, but its not The Hobbit.' Chapter 1 is renamed 'A Well-Planned Party', & the Narrator (irritating or charming depending on your point of view) disappears. In the end Tolkien seems to have lost interest simply because such a re-telling would have meant a total re-write, & ultimately a whole new story. Interesting to read but ultimately a dead end, sadly.

As to the proposed movie adopting a more 'adult' style in telling the story, well, Tolkien couldn't do it without breaking the spell, so I doubt PJ & co could....

Note the different title of Chapter 1 - 'A Well planned Party' as opposed to 'An Unexpected Party' in the original. Clearly the party was unexpected by Bilbo, & so the focus was to be on him as hero of the story. The change to making the party 'well planned' puts the emphasis more on Bilbo as 'victim' of the machinations of others. Bilbo becomes less intelligent in the story, more at the mercy of others.

Lalwendë

07-13-2007, 07:38 AM

One of my favourite lines 'less noise & more green' is lost. Interesting addition to the inns of the Shire: The 'All-welcome Inn at the junction of the Northway & East Road. "So called because much used by travellers through the Shire, especially by Dwarves".

That's pretty grim, actually. It sounds like a cheap motel :(

I do have to laugh that Tolkien retained his Cockernee trolls. One of the usual criticisms levelled at TH as 'not being part of the legendarium' is the use of the trolls in this way - Flieger even brought this out in support of her own argument against TH being suitable for the legendarium! So clearly Tolkien himself thought that Cockernee Trolls were perfectly alwight. ;)

Makes you wonder - the changes, once you get into them, are not very nice at all. It's like hearing about an ugly motorway being driven through a much loved piece of ancient woodland. Maybe we should stop griping about the style of The Hobbit being so different and hence it not 'fitting in'?

Elladan and Elrohir

07-13-2007, 12:27 PM

As to the proposed movie adopting a more 'adult' style in telling the story, well, Tolkien couldn't do it without breaking the spell, so I doubt PJ & co could....

Well, I don't think the word "spell" would come into play even if PJ gave us a Hobbit that did have cockney trolls and tralalalalling elves.

davem

07-13-2007, 01:55 PM

Well, I don't think the word "spell" would come into play even if PJ gave us a Hobbit that did have cockney trolls and tralalalalling elves.

But they're only annoying if TH is read in the light of LotR. As part of TH as a stand alone tale (which is what it was meant to be) they fit. Reading Tolkien's attempt to revise TH shows that it can't be done. I'm sure many of those who are looking forward to a TH movie are assuming that it will be in the style of the LotR movies. It probably will be, but it won't be TH as we know it. The assumption, & one that Tolkien shared when he began the revison apparently, is that TH is an 'adult' story like LotR but simply written in a whimsical 'children's story' style. It isn't. The story is what it is. To rewrite it as an 'adult' story & make it fit with the LotR movies will result in something that is 'almost, but not quite entirely, unlike The Hobbit.'

Sauron the White

07-13-2007, 02:58 PM

Reading Tolkien's attempt to revise TH shows that it can't be done.
That is one viewpoint. The other is that JRRT simply tired of it and went on to something else .... probably something else which was not finished either. His not completing the rewrite of THE HOBBIT may speak more to his work habits and changing interest in the world of ME than it does that such a HOBBIT rewrite simply cannot be done.

Regardless, all of this certainly will give a sheen of credibility to any efforts by Jackson or other film makers to make a more adult HOBBIT which fits in better to the style and approach of LOTR films.

davem

07-13-2007, 03:44 PM

That is one viewpoint. The other is that JRRT simply tired of it and went on to something else .... probably something else which was not finished either. His not completing the rewrite of THE HOBBIT may speak more to his work habits and changing interest in the world of ME than it does that such a HOBBIT rewrite simply cannot be done.

You have to read the section to see why he gave up, & why it couldn't be done. The attempted re-write simply doesn't work.

Regardless, all of this certainly will give a sheen of credibility to any efforts by Jackson or other film makers to make a more adult HOBBIT which fits in better to the style and approach of LOTR films.

Possibly. To me it will show they haven't learned the lesson Tolkien learned. I wonder how many of those who want a 'Hobbit' movie actually want a movie in the style of the book, & how many want a 'grown-up' version. It strikes me that those who want such a 'grown-up' version don't actually want a Hobbit movie at all & perhaps dislike the fact that TH is a children's book. TH is a fairy tale, full of fairy tale characters & situations. It can't be re-written in another style. I repeat - the friend who Tolkien lent the manuscript to told him 'Its good, but its not The Hobbit'. And it is 'good' in its own way - not great (& TH is a 'great' book) - but good, or at least interesting. But a movie in that style would not be The Hobbit at all.

To my mind attempting to do what a far more creative person than you attempted & failed to do doesn't lend credibility to the attempts of lesser minds -& I don't want to argue that point: read 'Return to Bag End' & you'll see he did fail to re-write TH in the style of LotR because it couldn't be done - & if the inventor of M-e couldn't achieve that I don't see how anyone else could.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 08:32 AM

To my mind attempting to do what a far more creative person than you attempted & failed to do doesn't lend credibility to the attempts of lesser minds

Again, you seem to impart JRRT with superhuman almost god-like qualities that no other single human could ever hope to match. If JRRT did not do it then no one can. Nonsense. There are many type of creativity and talent. Some is evidenced in writing of books, others in making of films. To say that one is "far more creative" and to use a phrase like "lesser minds" is simply silly.

JRRT himself felt that LOTR was not a filmable book. Other creative minds proved him wrong.

I will not use such value loaded terms as "lesser" in making that comparison.

Elladan and Elrohir

07-14-2007, 09:28 AM

It's at least worth a debate, anyway. Just be careful not to fall off topic about whether LOTR was indeed shown to be a "filmable" book, which is another thread in itself.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with davem that if Tolkien couldn't do it, why should PJ bother trying? On the other, StW makes the good point that JRRT is in the end a fallible human like the rest of us. I think surely that the issue of the difference in mediums between a book and a movie should come into play here. Is PJ making a PG-13 Hobbit essentially the same as JRRT writing a PG-13 Hobbit? Or do the differences in the two forms of art make it possible for PJ to succeed where Tolkien failed?

I haven't made up my mind either way on this issue, honestly. And of course, though I've learned a lot about the book/movie differences, I'm still rather a novice in that area. Not to mention that I haven't even read Tolkien's "darker Hobbit." I'll let somebody else talk now.

davem

07-14-2007, 10:02 AM

Again, you seem to impart JRRT with superhuman almost god-like qualities that no other single human could ever hope to match. If JRRT did not do it then no one can. Nonsense. There are many type of creativity and talent. Some is evidenced in writing of books, others in making of films. To say that one is "far more creative" and to use a phrase like "lesser minds" is simply silly.

JRRT himself felt that LOTR was not a filmable book. Other creative minds proved him wrong.

Well, first of all, as far as I'm concerned PJ's production was not a film of LotR. The depth, mood & 90% of the backstory were all sacrificed to sfx, gore & puerile jokes about dwarf tossing.

However, that aside, Tolkien was a greater writer than Jackson, Boyens & the other one. Tolkien knew his world better than them, & was a deal more insightful when it came to what works & what doesn't. Tolkien couldn't make a more 'realistic' (ie in the form of LotR) Hobbit work. And the reason for that is clear when you read Tolkien's attempt. This is not a matter of a 'better' writer being able to do what Tolkien couldn't. Its a matter of the nature of the story itself. TH is a fairy story, not an 'epic romance'. You can't make a fairy story into an epic romance & have it retain its essence & spirit. It becomes something else. When you read Tolkien's attempt at revising TH what you notice is how much is lost. However annoying or 'twee' you find the narrator you realise that he is necessary to TH - certainly at the start. Even little 'jokes' being removed (like the reference to the origin of Golf in the killing of Golfimbul are lost because they wouldn't fit the more 'serious' tone, but you miss them. As you read you're constantly aware of what's been lost. The revised version is not 'comfortable'.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 10:31 AM

as far as I'm concerned

So then we are not discussing reality but only your perceptions on the skewed opinions which result from your perceptions. That makes it a whole lot easier to justify any position you may take.

You do not consider the Jackson LOTR films to be film versions of LOTR books. It seems the rest of the world has spoken on this issue --- and has spoken rather loudly.

Reminds me a bit of the old story about the proud mother who watched as her son marched by woefully out of step in a parade proclaiming loudly "everyone is out of step but my Johnny".

davem

07-14-2007, 10:34 AM

You do not consider the Jackson LOTR films to be film versions of LOTR books. It seems the rest of the world has spoken on this issue --- and has spoken rather loudly.

And what percentage of the movie audience has actually read LotR?

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 10:44 AM

I do not know ---- do you? And what would that prove anyways? That only persons like yourself have the true believers inside and holy knowledge to talk about such things?

davem

07-14-2007, 10:56 AM

I do not know ---- do you? And what would that prove anyways? That only persons like yourself have the true believers inside and holy knowledge to talk about such things?

Your argument seemed to be that 'the rest of the world' had spoken & declared that the movies were faithful representations of the books. I'm not disputing the popularity of the movies, I'm just pointing out that the fact that lots of people liked the movies does not prove that they are faithful representations of the books in style or content. Given the amount of money the movies made I'd suggest that many, many more people have seen the movies than have (or will) read the books. They cannot therefore add anything to a discussion on whether the movies are faithful to the books.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 11:02 AM

davem

07-14-2007, 11:14 AM

Yet again we have the use of value loaded words intended to win the day with their decisive implications. Now its FAITHFUL. The fact is this and its fairly simple. JRRT said he did not feel a filmmaker could film LOTR. That was partly his motivation for selling the rights. Why not put some money in your pocket to pay the taxman when you also feel that nothing will come of the rights you are selling away? Very clever of the Professor. Sure, I will sell you the rights to something but I feel you cannot do it anyways.

But someone did. Once rather poorly in the case of Bakshi and three times rather successfully. I am not talking about your opinion - or my opinion - but in the opinion of the ticket buying public, the professional critics, and the industry insiders who lavished the films with awards of excellence.

Again --- a book is one thing - a film is another thing. They are not the same.

Which is all very well & good - except I stated clearly & unambiguously in my last post that the movies were successful. I didn't care for them & now find them merely irritating - but that is neither here nor there. All I was saying was that most of those who have seen the films have not read the books (given audience size against numbers of books sold) & therefore cannot comment on whether the movies were faithful adaptations or not.

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 11:21 AM

The depth, mood & 90% of the backstory were all sacrificed to sfx, gore & puerile jokes about dwarf tossing.

90% of the backstory was not sacrificed. Some of it was, but certainly not 90%. That's just a ridiculous statement.

SFX? How else are you going to show the grand scale of Middle-Earth?

Gore? There wasn't much gore compared to other action movies, and Tolkien himself was quite bloody - at one point Sam walked down a tunnel in Cirith Ungol and we are told of severed and scattered heads and limbs. If that's not gore I don't know what is.

I didn't like the dwarf jokes either but this is a movie and it needs comedy, even if this wasn't the best way to do it.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 11:34 AM

I am writing this from memory - so I could be in error - but I recall that JRRT himself said he had two choices when it came to film rights sales. The choice he made was quick money up front as opposed to small money attached to his involvement with the film. One could say that JRRT himself realized his sale of the film rights meant changes in any eventual film. He knew that and accepted that. he knew that any definition about being "FAITHFUL" was simply not in the cards given how he sold the rights of his own free will.

For anyone to then use a word like "faithful" to discredit the films as not an adaption of the books is simply not fair given that JRRT himself went into the deal with both eyes opened, his mind sound and his hands outstretched.

davem

07-14-2007, 11:47 AM

For anyone to then use a word like "faithful" to discredit the films as not an adaption of the books is simply not fair given that JRRT himself went into the deal with both eyes opened, his mind sound and his hands outstretched.

I wasn't using 'faithful' to discredit the films. I was merely pointing out that they weren't faithful to the books.

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 11:47 AM

And anyway, I think Tolkien would have understood the need for changes. He didn't just sit down one day and right it all out and say that was exactly how it was. He was often making changes and alterations to the story and characters.

davem

07-14-2007, 11:57 AM

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 12:09 PM

Bêthberry

07-14-2007, 01:20 PM

But to argue that a film - any film - is not "faithful" to the book is simply like arguing that today is not like yesterday. Its obvious and irrelevant. The transfer of the written word on a large number of pages is going to render a different product when it is placed on film - a totally different artistic medium.

. . .

Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.

Wait a sec and hold on! Let's consider this point generally.

I don't think it is necessarily or automatically irrelevant to consider how well a movie adapts a novel. For every film adaptation I've ever seen of a major novel, part of the discussion has always involved the nature of the adaptation. It is part of understanding how movies differ from novels and what the two different art forms need to engage their particular kind of art. We can learn more about a book if we understand what parts lend themselves well to cinematic reproduction and what parts don't. We can also learn more about films.

Frankly, to me, in seeing how and where PJ's films differ from LotR, we can see that PJ was working with two inspirations, his love of Tolkien and his love of Lucas. Those two inspirations worked to create the films.

Just as it is well to consider what Tolkien's expectations were when he sold the film rights. But that does not limit anyone from examining the question himself. It's all in the nature of discussion and there's no reason to bound our expectations by those Tolkien might have had.

By the way, are we discussing a film that hasn't been made yet? And a book of revisions previously unpublished that some of us haven't read yet? Now there's proof positive of the nature of human conversation. :D

davem

07-14-2007, 01:33 PM

Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.

But you misunderstand my argument. I'm not arguing there shouldn't have been changes. I'm arguing they were bad films & the changes were bad changes.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 02:52 PM

I do feel that this is the type of discussion which flourished a few years ago, ran its course and proved to be a rather dry riverbed. It really makes no difference how any of us feel about things like a "faithful adaption" or if the changes were good or for bad. Why?

In the end it is rather simple. The book is one thing. The films are quite another. Yes, the 3 films are based on the book. Yes, the films are an adaption of the book. But these discussion always come down to exactly the same thing over and over again. That being - somebodys opinion if they liked it or not. I really do not think so high and mighty of my own opinion as to place it in exalted place to hold dominion over all others. One can stand on the shores where the ocean meets the land and plant their two legs firmly in the sand and attempt to hold back the incoming waves...... but with what success? You can not hold back the tides.

In the end the film is judged as to the quality it possesses as a film. Consider the following that does not depend on my individual opinion or the individual opinion of anyone else no matter how learned, well read or knowledgable.

A film is often judged on its financial success. The three LOTR films all broke into the All Time Worldwide Box Office Top Ten. TTT reached number four and ROTK is still at number two. In fact, ROTK became only the second film in history to reachthe $1 billion dollar gross figure (US dollars). Including other rights, the three films took in over $4 billion dollars. From an initial investment of about $400 million, that is success in spades.

But there are many films which are of low quality but take in money and are profitable. Some people prefer to judge a film by the educated collective opinion of the community of critics that are paid to judge the cinematic quality of such things. All three films were very well reviewed with ROTK being one of the best reviewed films ever. Several internet sites will report on this if you want to look at them. Again, wild success by this measurement.

But some say that the opinion of film critics, even that of several hundred trained film critics does not mean much. What about the opinion of the film industry itself? The various 3 films won many awards of excellence from various countries and branches of the film industry. This was climaxed by the Academy Awards given the film including the eleven won by ROTK including Best Film of the Year.

The combination of all three of these categories - box office returns from the masses, collective praise from the professional critics, and industry awards has never occured before in history in three films made by the same filmmaker.

Again, I do not exalt my lone opinion upon the altar of the world to think that I know more than it does. But it seems that these type of discussions - or better yet, this ongoing six year plus discussion, always come down to somebody thinking that they are blessed to be some sort of TRUE BELIEVER who has been blessed with a special knowledge that elevates their opinion in both quality and substance over that of the rest of the world.

In the end it always comes down to "yes, but you do not know about it as much as I do". And in the end, what you think you know did not make a damn bit of difference in the film. It was irrelevant.

This is why I say that anyones opinion about the "faithfulness" of the films to the books is irrelevant. It does not matter. Attempting to throw a loaded term like "faithfulness" into the discussion merely is a distraction or attempting to set up a strawman which only serves your opinion. I can measure financial success by box office returns. I can measure critical success by the collective opinions of the community of professional critics. I can measure success by the level of awards given out withing the film community. All three say something by themselves. Together they are the tide of world opinion on these films.

Now plant your feet firmly on the shore and scream about "faithfullness" into the oncoming tide.

Morthoron

07-14-2007, 03:17 PM

Looking strictly at Jackson's LotR films from an objective manner, if one compares it to a truly great film adaptation (David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia or Zinneman's A Man for all Seasons, for instance) one finds that Jackson removed much of the subtlety and nuance from Tolkien's original plot, opting for fireworks over substance (and this could be, as Bêthberry inferred, Jackson's 'Lucasization' of Middle-earth). Much of the acting is wooden and trivial, and this is due in part to Jackson's insistence on taking artistic license decidedly too far. The dialogue that works the best is indeed taken directly from Tolkien's original storyline, and those sequences which are universally panned are invariably of Jackson's devising.

Do not get me wrong, I own all three extended versions of the DVD's, and I believe Jackson's trilogy is cinematographically superb. The spirit of Middle-earth does indeed reside in the wonderful ambience of the film's versions of the Shire, Minas Tirith, Moria and Edoras, but there is an infuriating undercurrent that runs throughout the films of Jackson's heavy-handed scripting that is bitter to the palate, and for the most part totally unnecessary. I am not speaking of time compression and omissions (like the deletion of Tom Bombadil or the wholesale elimination of the 'Scouring of the Shire'), I understand fully the need for brevity and compactness in film making; however, I do take issue with the many oddities Jackson threw in that neither added to the dimensions of the movies nor improved upon the original plot.

Sorry for adding to a digression, but as I have yet to read the 'Darker Hobbit', I can't rightly comment on it in context. I only know that as it was originally published (as a children's story), I cherish it immensely and so does my young daughter. I am not certain that the changes mentioned are altogether good or necessary, given the endearing impression of the orignal reading.

Nogrod

07-14-2007, 03:24 PM

I think that one of the problems resides in this bussiness of drawing lines of faithfulness between movies and books in the first place. Cinema is a different media from literature.

Not to talk of rendering an epos like LotR into a different media. You're never going to accomplish that and thence dicussing about faithfulness isn't exactly to the point?

But that does not mean that the value-meters you Sauron brought forwards are any good either. There are reasons (a lot of them) to say PJ's movies were beautiful to look at but shallow. But these reasons need not tie themselves to the "faithfulness" aspect. They were shallow as cinema.

The box-office ratings? Quite a many people went to see "The Independence Day" as well... Remember, most people go to see a movie once so they have not known what crap it was but the marketing hype was loud enough to lure them into the theaters. I'd believe more any "after-movie polls" than just pure attendance numbers. And anyhow quality and quantity are different things after all?

Collective praise by the critics? I'm not sure about the U.S. if every critic is fed by the big movie-corporations but at least in Europe I think most of the critics had a long list of reservations and some even scorned the whole project. So at least here it was not a "collective praise"...

The industry awards? Well what else could they have done after the popular phenomena the movies made? What would have been the Oscar-committee's credibility rate after the third box-office hit? If they'd given the Oscars for a good film they'd at least picked the first one but for some reason they didn't... :rolleyes: But to be serious... that was an after-award as ever there was one! They couldn't just not notice them at that point.

But coming back to my basic idea. As film and literature are two different medias both should try to excel in those areas their media makes them excel.

PJ probably tried his hardest (at least in some part) but just couldn't make it.

So a brave interpretation would have been in place, original view with an excellence in telling the story via a film-media, and hopefully lots of money behind to make it look good as well... PJ's was a compromise with some highly potential visual & musical artistic aspirations blended with box-office requirements (the storyline, the cast...) - and possibly PJ's shortcomings as a director...

Sorry to say this. I loved the films for what they looked like and I love the music as well... but as movies... no I can't love them as movies. :(

EDIT: Looking backwards into the thread this clearly is steering far away from the actual topic... I'll promise to try and stay better in the topic the next time.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-14-2007, 03:48 PM

Regardless of the Masses (whose collective judgment makes McDonald's a great restaurant) and the judgment of the AMPAS and film critics (all movie people), look at the consensus of those who know Tolkien best- Tolkien scholars. Their verdict is *unanimous*- YECCCHH!

(Not to mention JRRT's own children. Christopher's disdain for the fluicks is well-known, and Priscilla told a story about having re-typed the early chapters of Lord of the Rings for her father, and being terrified to the point of nightmares by the Black Riders. Someone asked if she had seen the movies. With her very English (almost headmistressy) tact, she said that she would 'rather not go into that'. The questioner just wondered if she had still found the Black Rider's frightening in the film. 'Oh, good God no!' she exclaimed, adding something about 'spectacle and sensation'.)

The biggest problem with PJ's work is that it's *shallow*- but of course the non-reader or casual reader isn't aware of the depths PJ never plumbed. Where at least in theory something on a par with Lawrence of Arabia might have been possible in other hands, what PJ gave us was Indiana Jones and the Ring of Doom. Again: Yeccchh!

NB: PJ's "love of Tolkien????" Get a clue! PJ set out to make a sword 'n' sorcery flick and only then learned that Zaentz was willing to deal- and PJ hadn't read the book since he was a teenager.

And it shows.

Oh, sure, he talked a good game in interviews- most of the time. Well, guess what? Smeagol lied. PJ has also said this: "Tolkien's tale was long and boring....I think I did better."

Bêthberry

07-14-2007, 03:57 PM

Well, I will get back to the original question and say that the problem lies with Tolkien and his constant niggling.

Once a book is published, it cannot be unpublished (although it can be censored, banned or burned). Even if it were withdrawn from book sales, it would still exist in libraries (unless they pulled it off the shelves, and what a cry that would raise!), in private collections, and in the dearly loved memories of the children who had it read to them or of the children who read it and also of those adults who love it too, tra la la lally and all.

Tolkien was of course free to see, as a sort of academic exercise, if TH could be retoned to suit LotR. But that would/will always remain a post-publication exercise. Once a book is given to the world, it cannot be taken back. It no longer 'belongs' to the author, but to the world. Any revision would be simply a second (or third, as the case may be) version, and left to the tastes of the reading public.

davem

07-14-2007, 04:18 PM

Tolkien was of course free to see, as a sort of academic exercise, if TH could be retoned to suit LotR. But that would/will always remain a post-publication exercise. Once a book is given to the world, it cannot be taken back. It no longer 'belongs' to the author, but to the world. Any revision would be simply a second (or third, as the case may be) version, and left to the tastes of the reading public.

And yet the 'official' version we all know & love contains the re-written Riddles in the Dark, which (to my mind after reading the original) doesn't 'fit' as well as the version it replaced. That revision was done purely to bring TH into line with the Gollum of LotR. Clearly Tolkien wasn't attempting this revision as an academic excercise but as a potential replacement text. If it had replaced the edition we now have then its possible that TH as we know it would have been as difficult to get hold of as the 1st ed. Hobbit text is now.

Oh, sure, he talked a good game in interviews- most of the time. Well, guess what? Smeagol lied. PJ has also said this: "Tolkien's tale was long and boring....I think I did better."

I hadn't come across that quote before; however, that attitude came through for me in the movies

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 04:19 PM

William ... you are simply in error when you state this

Regardless of the Masses (whose collective judgment makes McDonald's a great restaurant) and the judgment of the AMPAS and film critics (all movie people), look at the consensus of those who know Tolkien best- Tolkien scholars. Their verdict is *unanimous*- YECCCHH!

The point of my listing of the three areas of success was that normally they are mutually exclusive of each other. But in the case of LOTR, the three different areas all apply to the LOTR films. McDonalds may be a financial success but please show me where professional food critics rate it as a great restaurant.
Please show me where McDonalds has won industry awards for its quality of food or ambience of its eating establishments? In simple point - they do not. They have achieved financial success and it ends with that. Your analogy is faulty and flawed at its basic premise when compared to what I used to define success with the Jackson films.

Jacksons films of LOTR achieved three very different kinds of success which usually are not found in the same package. No single filmmaker in the 100+ year history of the medium ever achieved that type of success with three films - let alone three consecutive films - yet alone three films on the same subject.

Tolkien scholars know one thing very well - the writings of JRRT. When it comes to film they have shown little practical knowledge of how films work or how the film industry works. They have pretty much shown themselves (with some exceptions) to fall into the TRUE BELIEVER category. They covet their special knowledge and hold it above the world - the great unwashed ignorant masses, or Masses as your post refers to them. Snob appeal anyone?

Nogrod

07-14-2007, 04:21 PM

Once a book is given to the world, it cannot be taken back. It no longer 'belongs' to the author, but to the world. Any revision would be simply a second (or third, as the case may be) version, and left to the tastes of the reading public.And just think the rows over all these now appearing "director's cut" -versions of different films! I think Blade runner started it but now they seem most like marketing programmes than questions of any artistic integrity...

But even with the question of the artist's actual will to bring forwards a more thought of or not "censored" (because of the sales-demands or whatever) version of the work I do agree with Bêthberry here. Once let loose is also out of one's authority for the eternity... No one can claim back the experiences people have already had with those works and any newer version will always be the underdog or the curiosity among people with experience with an earlier version.

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 04:27 PM

I hadn't come across that quote before; however, that attitude came through for me in the movies

There's a reason you hadn't come across that quote before; it probably doesn't exist - the only result I find was an Epinions review, where some purist ranted on for ages about camera angles and didn't bother to review the rest of the film. He also complains about the Hobbits having 'Irish accents', which is a bit stupid when Ian Holm, Andy Serkis, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan all came from the UK (Sean and Elijah were American, yeah, but they used English accents) with no Irish actors in the entire trilogy.

I did find this PJ quote, though:

“We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that. In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves.”

Bêthberry

07-14-2007, 04:33 PM

And yet the 'official' version we all know & love contains the re-written Riddles in the Dark, which (to my mind after reading the original) doesn't 'fit' as well as the version it replaced. That revision was done purely to bring TH into line with the Gollum of LotR. Clearly Tolkien wasn't attempting this revision as an academic excercise but as a potential replacement text. If it had replaced the edition we now have then its possible that TH as we know it would have been as difficult to get hold of as the 1st ed. Hobbit text is now.

Yes, I know that about 'Riddles in the Dark'. To my mind, it was wrong to revise TH and market the revision as the 'canonical' (oooh, that word again) text. We complain about books that are 'revised' for "political correctness", to make them compatible with the values of subsequent ages, so why cannot one complain that such changes on Tolkien's part represent a faulty niggling? At the very best, I would argue that both texts should exist. Perhaps readers should be given the choice--as some modern children's books do now--about which version to go to?;)

I wonder, are there other writers who have done this kind of revision/editting in 'second' editions?

The fact that Tolkien never completed the 'darker' version says something about the process, I think. Or maybe just about his writing habits, lol!

EDIT: Sorry, cross-posting with Noggie and others and absolutely must dash now.

Nogrod

07-14-2007, 04:35 PM

The point of my listing of the three areas of success was that normally they are mutually exclusive of each other. But in the case of LOTR, the three different areas all apply to the LOTR films.I quess I just put that in question in my post #58 - in all three fronts... (well, I'm the first to blame not reading thoroughly what others have said in an extended thread...) But you can't just fend of any questioning of your argument that easily... :)

“We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies."Show me someone who can do that - how much s/he tries - and I'll show you that the moon is made out of cheese... :D

davem

07-14-2007, 04:38 PM

There's a reason you hadn't come across that quote before; it probably doesn't exist - the only result I find was an Epinions review, where some purist ranted on for ages about camera angles and didn't bother to review the rest of the film. He also complains about the Hobbits having 'Irish accents', which is a bit stupid when Ian Holm, Andy Serkis, Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan all came from the UK (Sean and Elijah were American, yeah, but they used English accents) with no Irish actors in the entire trilogy.

I found this:

http://www.glinka.ru/eurogym/korotkih/peterjackson.htm - at the bottom of the page, just above 'Salary'.

Nogrod

07-14-2007, 04:48 PM

I wonder, are there other writers who have done this kind of revision/editting in 'second' editions?I don't know so much about writers themselves but after they're dead things have been re-printed alongside with the "originals"... as the markets have many times been saturated already. So surely to make the cash-machine sing in the first place...

In Finland there was a case just a few years ago when a piece central to Finninsh 20th century literature, Väinö Linna's "The Unknown Soldier", was reprinted by the name of "A War Novel". It had in it all the things that the editor for the publishing company had took out from the original version printed in italics (like some versions of Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" under Sovjet cencorship).

In the end it turned out that most of the deletions were mainly literary shortcuts and indeed "betterments", not political choices as so many people had foreseen...

So these markets as well seem to work more on profit than artistic integrity... so sad as it is.

Would there be this discussion without today's competition of quartal performance by all the publishers as well which seem even to include a possibility of taking in the cash-flow from all the Tolkien fans with a third version of the Hobbit? :(

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 04:48 PM

Jackson is proud of his films. So what? This is the only "quote" (if indeed it is one since the source is not cited) that I have seen where Jackson has adopted this tone. I can show you many others where he is rather respectful of JRRT and his work.

Sir Kohran

07-14-2007, 05:02 PM

I found this:

http://www.glinka.ru/eurogym/korotkih/peterjackson.htm - at the bottom of the page, just above 'Salary'.

I'm a bit doubtful of that; it's right at the bottom of the page which looks a little suspicious.

Also note that my earlier quote was there too.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-14-2007, 08:14 PM

Whether you believe PJ said what is attributed to him, Davem is quite right- that attitude is apparent throughout the films. He's constantly "improving" the books, with an eye toward more fights, more action, more noise and shrieking, more eye candy: So what if there's no fight on Weathertop- we need one! The cave troll fight we invented and the Balrog aren't enough excitement- lets have a physics-defying teetering staircase! Boy, a warg attack would juice things up! Let's turn the Dead of the marshes into water zombies! Gee, an avalanche of skulls would be neato-keen! Let's have a Nazgul nearly nab Frodo at Osgiliath! And on and on and on......

It not much of an argument to list a handful of plot-points and boast that PJ put them in the movies. Plot is *all* he ever perceived. Nothing more- and even then he couldn't get it right.

This is where the 'snobbish' Tolkien scholars are coming from. They know from long study that the Lord of the Rings is far more than just an adventure yarn, and it's painful to see it reduced to such a simplistic level-even beyond the plot and character vandalism, it's plain the PJ never understood what it was all about.

Sauron the White

07-14-2007, 08:30 PM

Lets all join hands and learn together: a book is one thing - a film is quite another. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great movie - and vice versa.

davem

07-15-2007, 12:45 AM

Lets all join hands and learn together: a book is one thing - a film is quite another. What makes for a great book does not necessarily make for a great movie - and vice versa.

Were you ever unfortunate enough to see the 'Hamlet' scene in Last Action Hero?

[Jack Slater (Schwarzenegger)is Hamlet]
Hamlet: Hey Claudius! You killed my father! Big mistake!
Narrator: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and Hamlet is taking out the trash.
Old Man: Stay thy hand, fair prince.
Hamlet: [shooting him] Who said I'm fair?
Narrator: No one is going to tell this sweet prince good night.
Hamlet: To be or not to be? Not to be.

That's precisely what PJ did with LotR as far as I'm concerned.

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 08:56 AM

Morthoron

07-15-2007, 09:00 AM

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 09:47 AM

fron Nogrod in a post attempting to refute my claim that the professional critics lavished acclaim upon the 3 LOTR films:

Collective praise by the critics? I'm not sure about the U.S. if every critic is fed by the big movie-corporations but at least in Europe I think most of the critics had a long list of reservations and some even scorned the whole project. So at least here it was not a "collective praise"...

If you look at two different websites you will get the proof of my point. The first is metacritic.com -- it keeps track of professional media critics reviews. It tries to limit itself to only the full time critics. Here are the figures for approximately 40 reviews they tracked

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
92 out of 100 - listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

THE TWO TOWERS
88 out of 100 listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

RETURN OF THE KING
94 out of 100 listed by the site as getting "universal acclaim"

rottentomatoes.com is a bit more expanisve in thier definition of a film critic so they have between 175 and 227 listed. Here are the figures for the 3 LOTR films

FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING
93% positive out of 183 critics reviews

THE TWO TOWERS
97% positive our of the 206 critics reviews

RETURN OF THE KING
94% positive our of the 227 critics reviews

Again, my point is NOT that the critics are always right. Sometimes the public can love a film that critics hate or vice versa. Sometimes the industry can bestow awards of excellence of films few saw while spurning the fan favorites of the year. The 3 LOTR films are the exception because they achieved the level of a rousing success by three distinct measurements of film success
box office take
critical acclaim
industry awards

Name me any other three films by the same director which can match that feat?

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

Bêthberry

07-15-2007, 10:02 AM

You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

There's an error of logic here. Hating Peter Jackson and his work or disliking the films does not mean denying the historical record. It means simply having independent judgement and freedom of thought. That is allowed in most democracies, although not in Mordor.

When I saw RotK in the cinema, I had the misfortune of sitting behind four young girls who did nothing but hoot, hollar and laugh with cynical derision at every speech Aragorn made--I got a running commentary on the movie. In fact, I suspect they came to the film in order to laugh at it. I won't repeat their verbal comments here as I'm sure they would earn me an infraction if not a wrist slapping from the mods. But their money still went into the movie coffers and I suppose one can say that they were entertained.

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 12:38 PM

Sir Kohran

07-15-2007, 01:03 PM

There's an error of logic here. Hating Peter Jackson and his work or disliking the films does not mean denying the historical record. It means simply having independent judgement and freedom of thought. That is allowed in most democracies, although not in Mordor.

When I saw RotK in the cinema, I had the misfortune of sitting behind four young girls who did nothing but hoot, hollar and laugh with cynical derision at every speech Aragorn made--I got a running commentary on the movie. In fact, I suspect they came to the film in order to laugh at it. I won't repeat their verbal comments here as I'm sure they would earn me an infraction if not a wrist slapping from the mods. But their money still went into the movie coffers and I suppose one can say that they were entertained.

And what about all the people who went in, saw it, and praised it? Their money also went into the movie coffers.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-15-2007, 01:27 PM

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I truly believe after several years on various JRRT based websites that there are a group of Tolkien book based people who would never ever ever be satisfied with any film adaption of LOTR. Even if someone would take a billion dollars and make 50 hours of film translating every blessed page with every single line and song, they would still find fault with something and that is what they would dwell on in post after post for years to come.

I was about to dismiss this as a strawman (akin as it is to the two different media = blank check argument); but have to agree that there are some who *know* (this is indisputable fact) that no film adaptation can ever do complete justice to any decent book- not even Harry Potter: and further as a matter of personal predeliction prefer that therefore no attempt should ever be made on a book as complex and multi-layered as The Lord of the Rings.

I don't myself fall into that camp. However, that is not nearly the same as claiming that, since no adaptation can ever be completely successful, we thereby must accept any old crap instead. PJ's action-adventure flicks are, again, shallow. There is nothing intellectually challenging, and what little tone of high seriousness to be found is quickly dispersed by the next popcorn-movie moment.

Imagine instead what Kurosawa (may he rest in peace) might have done with this story. Even if he put everyone in kimonos and samurai armor, the result would *still* have been far closer in spirit to the books than PJ's rock 'em sock' em extravaganzas. Imagine Coppola, or Kubrick, or any of a number of *serious* and intelligent directors whose megaphones PJ isn't worthy to polish. Even Ridley Scott would have done a better job, and that's not saying a lot.

The Lord of the Rings is not just a pulp-fantasy adventure story! But that's all PJ gave us. Far better he should have done something like Shannara or the Belgariad than take on an author he can't comprehend.

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 02:40 PM

WCH - Ridley Scott did his own version - it was called LEGEND and it sucked bigtime. Heroic fantasy has been something of quicksand for many filmmakers and Scott is just one example. The fact that Jackson did the three films and they had such huge success on several fronts is a profound statement in and of itself.

You claim the films are shallow. To support this you claim

There is nothing intellectually challenging, and what little tone of high seriousness to be found is quickly dispersed by the next popcorn-movie moment.

Sounds to me like you are a "glass is half empty" kind of person. Moments such as the funeral song sung by Eowyn is far from shallow and resembles nothing in pupl slam bam fiction. We have many soft moments such as the conversation about life and death between Gandalf and Frodo in Moria, Arwens vision of a child, Arwen by the tomb of Aragorn, Theoden reciting as he puts on his armor, the four hobbits back in the pub treated as strangers by the rest of the world they saved, ... all that and more. If Jackson wanted to make a mere sword and sorcery epic, none of that would have been in there. None of it.

SHALLOW says to me that it is very one dimensional and that single dimension is without nuance or subtlety. The scenes I mentioned put that claim to rest. And there are more. Many more.

If all you want to see is the action - that is your choice. Just admit your biases going in.

Bêthberry

07-15-2007, 02:51 PM

Bethberry ... if you reread my post you will see that I did not connect a dislike of the Jackson films with a denial of the historical record. That indeed would be an error of logic as you state. What I said was this

Quote:
You can hate Peter Jackson and his work all you want. But to ignore the success of the films is simply denying the historical record.

My statement was directed at those who want to imply that the LOTR films were some type of failure simply because they did not approve of them or of parts of them. I provided three industry standards to measure a films success. All three were achieved by the LOTR films ... and then some.

Oh dear. Do forgive me for reading your "But" as an intensifier, since it began the sentence, rather than as a conjunction implying contrast.

This is really a matter of tomayto or tomahto. There are several measures of success viewers can point to and several definitions of success. Popularity and critical acclaim are some, and I applaud your endeavours to search out all these websites. (For the record, they do not record some of the negative reviews by critics in my town, but then I don't live in the centre of the cinematic universe--probably the suburbs. ;) ) Yet these polls and statistics do not deprive viewers of the right of individual definitions of failure. If a person was not pleased with the movies, then the movies failed for them.

For me, I applaud the moving of Boromir's death to the end of the first movie, as it gave that movie a very dramatic climax and implied greater peril to come. It shook us (me?) out of the happy sweet depiction of the Shire and prepared for the darkness to come and gave a satisfying conclusion to the character we saw arguing at Elrond's Council. Well and good. I can't say, however, that Denethor's Plunge did anything but to turn the event into cinematic histrionics. It sacrificed a study of the terrible effect on Denethor of looking into the palantir for special effect. As well, Denethor's death paled substantively beside that of his son Boromir; had these two deaths been more closely related with similar emotional effect, I would have cared more about the fate of the White City. As it was, I kept thinking of the Emperor's fall in SW3 and that, for me, was a mistake. I laughed, instead of cried, I suppose I could say. I'm sure there are many who are quite happy with laughing.

Anyhow, that's all I have to say on the matter. I wouldn't for the world deny you your têtê à têtê with others who may be more extreme than I in their condemnation of the movies, so do carry on without me.

Sauron the White

07-15-2007, 04:05 PM

I cannot disagree with your analysis of the Denethor plunge situation. Perhaps the justification was the wide angle shot which showed the armies of Mordor as they laid siege to Minas Tirith. I suspect that was the purpose of it.

William Cloud Hicklin

07-15-2007, 05:27 PM

According to the DVD supplementals, they used that shot because they already had it: they ran backwards the model-tracking run they had already made to open the coronation scene (crowds/armies were of course added later.

It's still silly. But by that point I SO didn't care what happened to film-Denethor anyway.

Morthoron

07-15-2007, 05:35 PM

It's still silly. But by that point I SO didn't care what happened to film-Denethor anyway.

Yes, he was rather an oaf wasn't he? Not a shred of the dignity that Denethor possessed in the books. But one of the best scenes of the movie is where he orders Pippin to sing. The juxtaposition of Denethor mauling his food, Pippin singing plaintively and Faramir's doomed ride was perhaps the only Jackson inspired piece I cared for in the whole film.

Findegil

07-18-2007, 07:21 AM

Ohh, what a nice topic this has been - back on page one of this thread!

Didn't we have this discussion many times before? It is boring and fruitless and both sides have already learned that several times. So why again ruin a topic by puting in arguments about Peter Jacksons films?

First of all: The topic was JRR Tolkiens revisions of his own book 'The Hobbit' - not to make a movie out of it but to make it a diffrent book.

Second: Peter Jackson is out of the 'Hobbit-Film', as far as I know. (I do not care much, so don't put to much trust on my word in this matter.) So what ever we think he could have done will remain speculation for ever.

Third: Since the rights of "Return to Bag-End" are not sold, and probably will not be sold as long as the Tolkien trust can help it, we won't get that 'darker Hobbit' as a film.

Respectfully
Findegil