Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[TheLostPilgrim]

I'm a fan of the Jackson LOTR films, even despite their deviations from the source material; They were overall very well received films and at the time reignited the biggest interest in the books since the '70s. They are generally considered film classics and will have a good reputation in history. But that was ten years ago, now.

The Hobbit, unfortunately, is not only looking to be both very much different from the source material, but also is looking to be a bad film. The overuse of (what looks to be poor quality), the 48FPS controversy CGI, toilet humor, childish jokes, the comedy-adventure film tone, and now the PETA controversy are making it appear like this film might be a flop--both commercially and creatively.

The overuse of CGI is turning off a LOT of film purists, the idea of a "prequel" to the LOTR is being seen as a shallow, George Lucas-esque cash grab by people who aren't aware that The Hobbit existed long before Peter Jackson, the three film idea is being seen as a cash grab by fans of the Jackson films who are also knowledgeable of The Hobbit, the comedic/childish tone is being seen as crappy by mainstream film goers who don't seem to want anything that isn't gritty and realistic; Tolkien purists are upset at the way Jackson is enlarging The Hobbit's story, stretching it beyond it's natural boundaries, and even inserting characters who never existed in the original novel.

You also now have PETA creating a LOT of negative buzz for the films claiming in essence that there was sadistic treatment of animals during the filming. I've seen strong calls by PETA to boycott the films and the negative stories are making waves both in the British and American press VERY CLOSE to the release date.

I'm worried that:

1) This film will be a flop. I've read IMDB and other sites and A LOT of people have made up their minds that this film will be as bad as Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, that Jackson is the new George Lucas, and others who are boycotting it for various reasons (mostly the tone and the three film idea).

2) That the film, if it fails, will hurt the "Tolkien brand", or shy future readers away from The Hobbit. I mean people who are either too young now, or who are simply unaware that The Hobbit was a book written long ago, might have a negative perception of the book and associate it with the poor film based on it, and as such, pass it by. Many filmmgoers are ignorant; as I said, I've seen many who steadfastly believe that Jackson invented "prequels" to The Lord of the Rings to cash grab; Who are totally unaware that The Hobbit existed as a book has been in existence for nearly 80 years. I'm worried that the film, if it fails, and the bad reception, will hurt The Hobbit in the future, and Tolkien in general.

I mean very few modern day readers (of my age; I am 21), for example, have even HEARD of Gone with the Wind, the book; they only know of the film. And they base their perception of the book (it must be great, since the film was great) on the quality and reputation of the film.

I'm worried that as time goes by, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in general may be forgotten, consigned to a little niche. Not many of my generation have any clue who George MacDonald was, for example. Right now, because of Jackson's LOTR films, a lot of my generation and those older know those books and love them...But I'm afraid The Hobbit film will do just the opposite with the younger members of my generation and the younger generation (kids now in that 8-12 year old group).

[Inziladun]

1) This film will be a flop. I've read IMDB and other sites and A LOT of people have made up their minds that this film will be as bad as Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, that Jackson is the new George Lucas, and others who are boycotting it for various reasons (mostly the tone and the three film idea).

I think the box office takings will be respectable. I really can't see it being a "flop", not the first installment anyway, but I do think a lot of people who liked the LOTR films are in for disappointment. I think the comparison to Lucas is apt, at least from what I've seen from the trailers. As you said, the "jokes" and gratuitous CGI are the more glaring similarities to The Phantom Menace, but the prequel trilogy parallel is there as well.

2) That the film, if it fails, will hurt the "Tolkien brand", or shy future readers away from The Hobbit. I mean people who are either too young now, or who are simply unaware that The Hobbit was a book written long ago, might have a negative perception of the book and associate it with the poor film based on it, and as such, pass it by. Many filmmgoers are ignorant; as I said, I've seen many who steadfastly believe that Jackson invented "prequels" to The Lord of the Rings to cash grab; Who are totally unaware that The Hobbit existed as a book has been in existence for nearly 80 years. I'm worried that the film, if it fails, and the bad reception, will hurt The Hobbit in the future, and Tolkien in general.

Hmm. Will people who actually read books assume that the movie is such an accurate adaptation that they'll avoid the printed matter? I hope not. I think there are readers who watch movies, and then there are dedicated movie watchers who occasionally read books. The former understand the problems with film adaptations, and I think the story is strong enough on its own that PJ can't kill the book for them.
As for the latter, they aren't as likely to actively seek out the book anyway.

I'm worried that as time goes by, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in general may be forgotten, consigned to a little niche. Not many of my generation have any clue who George MacDonald was, for example. Right now, because of Jackson's LOTR films, a lot of my generation and those older know those books and love them...But I'm afraid The Hobbit film will do just the opposite with the younger members of my generation and the younger generation (kids now in that 8-12 year old group).

Well, the books were "consigned to a little niche" anyway, before PJ and the LOTR marketing came along. Before those films, I knew only a handful of people who had ever read the books, and none whose level of interest in them approached mine. Yet, the books have thrived over the long years. I trust that will continue, especially with the internet and its excellent (ahem ;)) fora that allow anyone to virtually meet and discuss these wonderful stories.

[TheLostPilgrim]

I think the box office takings will be respectable. I really can't see it being a "flop", not the first installment anyway, but I do think a lot of people who liked the LOTR films are in for disappointment. I think the comparison to Lucas is apt, at least from what I've seen from the trailers. As you said, the "jokes" and gratuitous CGI are the more glaring similarities to The Phantom Menace, but the prequel trilogy parallel is there as well.



The problem is I've never gotten the "overusing CGI is bad" argument. If the technology is available, why not use it? Technology should not take precedence over story or be used at the expense of the story and characters, but can be a useful tool. The anti-CGI movement seems to be a very big thing amongst people in their 30s or so ever since Lucas and I've never understood why. As to the tone...Even without Jackson's jokes, I think the tone was ALWAYS going to be different. Therein lies the quagmire. If you keep The Hobbit's tone to the letter, you're going to disappoint a ton of people who go in thinking "The Hobbit = The Lord of the Rings." If you alter the tone of The Hobbit to be as dark and grounded as The Lord of the Rings, you've lost a great deal of the magic and wonder of that book. It's sort of lose-lose.

I don't mean Jackson taking things in a more lighthearted direction; the book is overall more lighthearted. But if we're going to focus more on humor, the humor should be intelligent, clever humor. Not toilet jokes or jokes about Bombur being fat. You can make a little jabby joke here or there, a subtle one, about Bombur's weight, but making the joke part of his character just degrades his character. The problem Jackson faced is how to balance the tone of The Hobbit against the tone of the Lord of the Rings successfully, and not come off with a film that is like Phantom Menace (which tries to simultaneously court the 8-11 year old demographic while also targeting the then 30something year olds who grew up with the original films). I fear Jackson has gone down the same route, trying to target two audiences at once. You can't please everyone and any attempt to do so will result in failure.

And the three films are stretching it. I understand his desire to show as much of the story and backstory as possible; I do not feel his motive is cash grab. But the problem is two fold: If you have two stories (The main Hobbit story, and the White Council story) in the films, it could take away from the main Hobbit story, which is really a coming of age tale, in a way. On the other hand, most casual filmmgoers have no clue about the White Council or Dol Gulder or any of the stuff that was indeed happening during The Hobbit, so they simply think Jackson made all this up and added a third film to cash grab.

For myself, I think the "Third Film" should've just been the Extended Editions of the two films. While three, a trilogy, makes for a nicer number, it might've fared better with two films and allowed for a perhaps more centered story to unfold.


Hmm. Will people who actually read books assume that the movie is such an accurate adaptation that they'll avoid the printed matter? I hope not. I think there are readers who watch movies, and then there are dedicated movie watchers who occasionally read books. The former understand the problems with film adaptations, and I think the story is strong enough on its own that PJ can't kill the book for them.
As for the latter, they aren't as likely to actively seek out the book anyway.


What I bolded of yours is my fear.


Well, the books were "consigned to a little niche" anyway, before PJ and the LOTR marketing came along. Before those films, I knew only a handful of people who had ever read the books, and none whose level of interest in them approached mine. Yet, the books have thrived over the long years. I trust that will continue, especially with the internet and its excellent (ahem ;)) fora that allow anyone to virtually meet and discuss these wonderful stories.

I suppose but weren't the books HUGE during the 60s, 70s and 80s--Practically a definitive part of popular culture in those eras, before PJ? I mean all those bands like Rush and Zeppelin helping popularize the books and the FRODO LIVES signs in the subways of New York etc etc. Plus you had in the '80s and '90s the influence of Tolkien on the development of Dungeons & Dragons and tons of like minded games and would-be-Tolkien fantasy novels....

I'd say the '60s, '70s, '80s and to a lesser extent '90s were a golden age of the fantasy genre and of Tolkien especially and beyond the works of Tolkien being forgotten, a larger part of me fears that the fantasy genre in general is dying off.

[Elmo]

At least wait for the film to come out before making such extreme judgements on it please. I have high hopes for this film and expect it to the meet such hopes.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

At least wait for the film to come out before making such extreme judgements on it please. I have high hopes for this film and expect it to the meet such hopes.

It will require two-and-a-half years to watch this two-and-a-half-hour movie, so one will have to sit through the First Third of the Hobbit, to see how much narrative bloat, gratuitous CGI, fan-fiction cameo appearances (not to mention crass commercial product placement) to expunge from the mind so as to glean what part of the Hobbit one has actually seen. Then one will have to repeat this filtration process over the next year-and-a-half with The Second Third of the Hobbit and The Third Third of the Hobbit.

Or, one could wait until 2015 for the extra-special director's-cut DVD featuring a properly edited, two-and-a-half-hour version of The Hobbit.

[Mithalwen]

You have high hopes others have deep fears. They are entitled to express them eapecially as a part of a well structured post.

I don't plan on seeing the films in cinema but I am not worried about the books. Lord of the RIngs was voted book of the century bafore the films came out and The Hobbit is one of the dozen books bookshops always have in stock and IIRC has never gone out of print.

[alatar]

The Hobbit is much more childish than LotR or the Sil, and so why not have a lot more fun with the film?

I can't repeatedly reread it like I can the other books - The Hobbit's that different, and it's possible that as I've aged I've left it behind.

So I will see the films - you never know.

[Inziladun]

The Hobbit is much more childish than LotR or the Sil, and so why not have a lot more fun with the film?

It's true that The Hobbit is on a different level than LOTR, but that shouldn't give PJ license to overtly dumb down the story; make it indistinguishable from the Eragons and other "modern" stories.
There's a distinction between chilish and childlike, and I don't think the film makers get that.

[LadyBrooke]

Tolkien purists are upset at the way Jackson is enlarging The Hobbit's story, stretching it beyond it's natural boundaries, and even inserting characters who never existed in the original novel.

Weren't the Tolkien purists upset at the Lord of the Rings movies too? I mean, I had problems with the movies, and I'm no where near a purist (just a devoted Faramir and Celeborn fan). The thing is, characters were always going to have to be inserted that didn't exist in the original novel, whether they were named or not - you can't have Mirkwood with 3 or 4 elves. And while Tauriel is controversial, I find that there's also people that support the Hobbit movie because she's been inserted.

I mean very few modern day readers (of my age; I am 21), for example, have even HEARD of Gone with the Wind, the book; they only know of the film. And they base their perception of the book (it must be great, since the film was great) on the quality and reputation of the film.

I'm worried that as time goes by, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in general may be forgotten, consigned to a little niche. Not many of my generation have any clue who George MacDonald was, for example. Right now, because of Jackson's LOTR films, a lot of my generation and those older know those books and love them...But I'm afraid The Hobbit film will do just the opposite with the younger members of my generation and the younger generation (kids now in that 8-12 year old group).
I think comparing Tolkien to George MacDonald is a bit of a stress. MacDonald, however much I like The Princess and the Goblin and The Princess and Curdie, is dated. Most of his works are highly religious in nature, in the same way that Lewis' Narnia books are. There are plenty of people that can't stand those, but that love Tolkien's books.

While I can see where you're coming from, perhaps it will assure you if I tell you that when I was working in my school districts's middle school library two years ago, I remember checking Tolkien's books out to many a kid and that my little brother (currently in the age range you specified) is reading the Hobbit. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I find that at least among the people I hang out with at college, most of us are Tolkien geeks to the extreme, with younger cousins, siblings, nephews, or nieces that are also growing up to read the books. I think that as long as there's some of us that love the books to introduce them to the younger generation, there's always going to be Tolkien fans.

They might come across it differently - my little brother saw me playing LOTRO and decided to join me in playing, before staring to read The Hobbit and planning to see the movie this fall. But I don't think Tolkien's books are going to disappear.

[Morthoron]

Weren't the Tolkien purists upset at the Lord of the Rings movies too?

Nothing against you, LadyB., but every time I see the word "purist" in conjunction with a person irritated or upset about the manner in which Jackson buggered the Bagginses, I wonder.

For instance, I wonder what is the opposite of Purist? The Illiterati? or simply Impurists? I've never given a name to these contrarians.

[Rhod the Red]

I wouldn't say so.

By including characters & elements that were left out of TLOTR
they're compensating with a 3-movie provision. I can appreciate
that.

[Pomegranate]

I think what purist means for me in these kind of situations are people who are not able to accept that the movies are interpretations, not illustrations. While I'm not saying that any of you guys would particularly be such - I think a lot of what has been said here is valid and reasonable - there are quite a lot of people who have not been able to accept that movie as a template is very different from books and has a different set of usable devices for storytelling (and thus lacks the option of, for example, having 13 characters that, apart from some exceptions, only differ in the colour of their caps), and that what we are seeing here is something that Peter Jackson sees inside his head when reading the books, rather than something that should be taken for canon.

That being said, I am mildly worried about these not ending up being good films. The Hobbit as a book has at least for me had the status of nice and easy-to-read fantasy: if I have friends who are new to the genre, I could suggest they read that, to lure them into the world. The movie clearly doesn't seem to have that simplicity - it looks like it might end up being a lot more confusing than other recent fantasy movies. Then again, it's hard to say anything just yet - what I'm mainly concerned about is the ability of the team to merge the two stories together in a meaningful manner and to explain the premises of the Dol Guldur plot for those who don't understand it beforehand, and there's nothing in the trailers to suggest them having succeeded or failed in that. But time will show: I'm sure a lot of people will go see the first movie, and the level of success in that one will determine the fate of the others.

Regarding Bombur (looking at you, Pilgrim): It might just be that I haven't read The Hobbit in a while, but I can't see it as degrading his character a lot, if PJ'd base it solely on weight - it isn't that far from it in the book. In the book most of the dwarves are "the dwarves" and that's the end of their person - this ignoring Thorin and Balin, and Fili, Kili and Bombur (Fili and Kili are younger and that's their role, Bombur's lazy and fat and doesn't want to accept being reminded/treated through his weight, but that's really the extent of it). Or can you tell me a deeper characterisation of Bombur? What should PJ have put in in order to make him become/stay a full character? I do understand perfectly the negative feelings people had about Legolas and Gimli being treated as the comical sidekicks, since there was actually something to be lost/changed there, but doesn't Tolkien himself use Bombur as the funny fat guy?

[LadyBrooke]

Nothing against you, LadyB., but every time I see the word "purist" in conjunction with a person irritated or upset about the manner in which Jackson buggered the Bagginses, I wonder.

For instance, I wonder what is the opposite of Purist? The Illiterati? or simply Impurists? I've never given a name to these contrarians.

:D I have no idea, given that I would hardly label myself a purist (not caring that much about Bagginses or Hobbits in general.) I won't give my thoughts on the opposite of Purist, since Purist has all sorts of negative connotations for me...I would say that I think that there's a difference between being a purist and being upset that PJ messed up a character. One, to me, is the kind folks that chase me down and yell at me about stories labeled crack/humor not following the books exactly...the other is a valid thing. It's the middle ground that gets tricky, especially when it's not clear if people are complaining because they truly dislike something, or just for the sake of complaining....

[alatar]

Weren't the Tolkien purists upset at the Lord of the Rings movies too?Yes...and well, yes.

Initially I was upset that PJ wasn't following the Books, and more importantly, MY vision of the same. But with time I let that all that 'purist stuff' go and yet still found tomes of material in which to criticize PJ, such as lack of consistency, dumbed-down humor, the word "She-elf" ...:rolleyes::D

The thing is, characters were always going to have to be inserted that didn't exist in the original novel, whether they were named or not - you can't have Mirkwood with 3 or 4 elves.I understand what you mean - orc #12,210 isn't as exciting as Lurtz - but in LotR, main characters were left to the side (Eomer) to make room for Brego snogging Aragorn.

And while Tauriel is controversial, I find that there's also people that support the Hobbit movie because she's been inserted. I guess that we'll have to wait and see how it all works out.

[Morsul the Dark]

I read LOTR after watching the first movie.

I think it's fair to say it'll attract more people to Tolkien. Those that decide to not read the books probably wouldn't have anyway.

I think with LOTR films the book is 1000 pages so it's tough to say what PJ should and shouldn't have changed my biggest issue was the elves at Helm's Deep but if you watch the extended editions a lot of what was missing was filmed just not in the theatrical version. Certain things had to be changed for cinema for example Glorfindel becoming Arwen there was a lot of anger over this but for me after watching the movie AND reading the book Glorfindel was just an extra character that added nothing, for the movie, execpt(to the average audience member) "Well, random character saves the day nice plot device."

The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted story and frankly I'll judge it when it comes out, but at least one scene I expect to be different is the ravens and thrush talking. And probably the Eagles. My issue is the three movies deal. I want each movie to be at least 3-3 and a half hours. Because if they're each 2 then I feel they forced the added film. Also I figured with 2 movies they'd most likely split it at them getting dragged to the dungeons in mirkwood. with three films I have no idea.

Another issue is as someone else mentioned the dwarves aren't exactly the most unique of characters, and Bombour is often ridiculed for his weight in in the BBC Radio version.

[LordPhillock]

from what I can gather, they're ending the first movie after the eagles rescue the dwarves from the warg attack, and ending the second film most likely after Smaug has died. Which makes me think Hobbit 3 will be really short. Apparently Jackson stated somewhere that the first film will barely be longer than 2 hours. I can't seem to find the article though.

[Morsul the Dark]

Apparently Jackson stated somewhere that the first film will barely be longer than 2 hours. I can't seem to find the article though.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35587

According to Empire Magazine published Oct 24, PJ said the first movie will be about 2 hours 40 minutes. Not great but not too bad.

[LadyBrooke]

Yes...and well, yes.

Initially I was upset that PJ wasn't following the Books, and more importantly, MY vision of the same. But with time I let that all that 'purist stuff' go and yet still found tomes of material in which to criticize PJ, such as lack of consistency, dumbed-down humor, the word "She-elf" ...:rolleyes::D

I understand what you mean - orc #12,210 isn't as exciting as Lurtz - but in LotR, main characters were left to the side (Eomer) to make room for Brego snogging Aragorn.

I guess that we'll have to wait and see how it all works out.

Yeah, there's certainly tons of room to criticize PJ, not trying to say there isn't (like I said before, I hate how Celeborn was treated. I think that the movies diminished both his and Galadriel's characters with those changes, but I won't go into that here.) I just want to give the movies a chance - especially since I do know that some kids are reading the books because of the upcoming movies (like my brother/minion) and that I read LotR because of the movies to begin with. Now, the Tolkien Estate has untold amounts of my money...

[Inziladun]

Yeah, there's certainly tons of room to criticize PJ, not trying to say there isn't (like I said before, I hate how Celeborn was treated. I think that the movies diminished both his and Galadriel's characters with those changes, but I won't go into that here.) I just want to give the movies a chance - especially since I do know that some kids are reading the books because of the upcoming movies (like my brother/minion) and that I read LotR because of the movies to begin with. Now, the Tolkien Estate has untold amounts of my money...

If people read the books because of the movies, that is the best outcome they could provide, regardless of box-office takings or possible awards.
As for the Estate having the money....well, I doubt they have as much as popular belief would credit. They've had to fight (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18014) with New Line for a share.

[Glorthelion]

The Hobbit trilogy will never be as good as the LOTR. I'm not sure about doing damage but it will certainly be read more often in the lead up. The other day I saw a school jock borrowing a Hobbit novel.

[Glorthelion]

I've read the earlier replies. If Jackson wants to 'show more of the story' then perhaps the third film shouldn't be part of the trilogy but rather a separate film containing white council stuff, something like an interquel. That way like some people said earlier in the thread, the continuity wouldn't be interrupted.
Jackson is a talented director, I love him and I'd hate to see his huge project turn into a trilogy of error.

[Kuruharan]

I agree with Mith that The Hobbit existed long before the films and the story itself isn't going to be "damaged" by anything the film does or does not do.

Whether the Tolkien brand might be damaged by poor films...maybe in the eyes of pop culture. But pop culture is fickle, shallow, vulgar, and for the most part rather vile. I'm not sure I'd want my worth to be measured by such a thing anyway. Also, if Tolkien stays in the spotlight, its probably inevitable that pop culture will turn against him eventually anyway because it is fickle and one of its defining characteristics is getting sick of and turning on whatever has been the "it" thing for too long.

Tolkien's stories have weathered such storms before and I have no doubt will have to again in the future.

[Mithalwen]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9575599/The-Hobbit-unearths-a-hoard-of-myths.html

I don't know if this is the best place to put this article but it is pertinent - and more learned than most. Sorry for the delay.. I found an unread section of paper tucked away.

[Rhod the Red]

I'm ovverall pleased.

Remember it is by sheer chance both the books and movies have been made.
We're lucky to have gotten either available.

When it comes to the films, I'm pleased that the rewriting & so on has ensured box office success and wider & new interest for people that otherwise would not have come.

Plus the splitting of The Hobbit into 3 films and inclusion of Radagast & Saruman, and anything else, helps compensate for the glossing over of them in the LOTR films. So I'm not feeling bad about PJ's efforts. I'm happy these books became films.

[Rikae]

I think it does further the impression that Tolkien's books are nothing but fun escapism for teenage boys. The LoTR films already did this, and I get tired of hearing intellectual types dismiss books they haven't read while the rest say "I loved the movie, but I couldn't get through the first chapter in the book. It was so boring!" In both cases, people who don't know Tolkien at all are running around claiming they do.
Now we're up for another round of that, along with "Lonely Mountain" ice cream sundaes at diners and terrible Hobbit puns in every paper for the next three years. I'm really looking forward to it.

Not to say I don't find things to enjoy in these movies, but I do think they misrepresent the books. Book fans who start as movie fans seem quite rare (even if we tend to collect them here).

[Mithalwen]

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

[Bêthberry]

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

Putting a positive spin on this . . . perhaps the framer of the question was aware that the movies were marketed as a trilogy but that Tolkien himself said LotR was not a trilogy? It was printed in three parts I believe because of economic issues in England in the mid-50's.

[Mithalwen]

I will try to think that.

[Bêthberry]

It's an idea straight from St. Jude.:(

[Kuruharan]

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

Quite probably they wouldn't be aware of the books in any event.

[Snowdog]

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part of which FILM trilogy?

I don't know if they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

I'm afraid it has become part of pop culture. As good or as bad as the Peter Jackson films were/are, they have co-opted the Lord of the Rings in the minds of so many. At an advance screening of The Hobbit, and at an 'Elevensies" party at a local "Tolkien" geek's house, the chatter was mostly about the movies. Any purist book thinking was gently shuffled aside, but shuffled aside none-the-less. And there was a standard theme of "Peter Jackson's" Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings talk in the theatre crowd. Where as the Lord of the Rings movies were made with thought to the fact they were unsure how they would be received, The Hobbit was made knowing that it would be watched by many due to the popularity of the previous movies. The Hobbit movie presented is rubbish, and is just more nails in the coffin of the Professor's literary masterpiece. It will now be known as "Peter Jackson's story" in generations to come.

[Bêthberry]

Possibly, but I think myths have a way of outliving their authors.

And we can point to the situation in New Zealand where folks are petitioning to have a mountain named after Tolkien. At least they aren't asking it to be named after Peter Jackson.

[Nerwen]

At an advance screening of The Hobbit, and at an 'Elevensies" party at a local "Tolkien" geek's house, the chatter was mostly about the movies. Any purist book thinking was gently shuffled aside, but shuffled aside none-the-less. And there was a standard theme of "Peter Jackson's" Hobbit.
But from everything I've heard this film *is* very much "Peter Jackson's 'Hobbit'", rather than Tolkien's– and perhaps it's just as well it should be seen as such.

[Morthoron]

And we can point to the situation in New Zealand where folks are petitioning to have a mountain named after Tolkien. At least they aren't asking it to be named after Peter Jackson.

They are naming a small hill after Jackson. More like a hillock. But it will have an enormous green screen behind it to give the appearance of a mountain.

[Lalwendë]

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

A colleague knows a Mastermind question setter and they certainly do not allocate General Knowledge questions according to the contestant's intellectual level. All four of them get questions of the same level so that it is fair. If you analyse the questions, then there tend to be 'sets' of similar questions and each of the four contestants will be asked one of them - e.g. there will be a question each about Prime Ministers or Saxon kings. The other three contestants will have also been asked questions about films.

[Rhod the Red]

Also not everyone's imagination or ability to read properly, is exactly the same. Some people no doubt found it easier to watch the films, then read the books.

[Mithalwen]

A colleague knows a Mastermind question setter and they certainly do not allocate General Knowledge questions according to the contestant's intellectual level. All four of them get questions of the same level so that it is fair. If you analyse the questions, then there tend to be 'sets' of similar questions and each of the four contestants will be asked one of them - e.g. there will be a question each about Prime Ministers or Saxon kings. The other three contestants will have also been asked questions about films.

They did seem easier than those for the ordinary contestants but it didn't help this chap since he still did not recognise it. But it is comforting if it was film because they needed a film question rather than because it has been forgotten that it was a very successfil book first.

[Rhod the Red]

That depends on how you define 'successful'. If Tolkein tried to get it published today he'd obviously be rejected out of hand. His book breaks all the rules; no sex, no this, no that, etc.

He didn't exactly get overall acceptance in the literary community. Most just waved it off, remember. The same as with the possibility of ever being made into film(s), as you might recall.

One trend in the 1950s and 60's in literary circles, particularly in Britain was opposition to high fantasy. That's why Tolkein's work wasn't as widely accepted at the time as compared to today. JK Rowling got much the same treatment and rejection by the literary community too if I recall correctly; it was only the films for her books that shut the critics up, except maybe the religious nuts.

Or do you disagree?

[Lalwendë]

They did seem easier than those for the ordinary contestants but it didn't help this chap since he still did not recognise it. But it is comforting if it was film because they needed a film question rather than because it has been forgotten that it was a very successfil book first.

I think they've been easier than usual over the whole series, but that's probably because they don't want the celebs' charities to miss out if they end up scoring nil points. They do try and make sure each contestant has a broadly matching 'set' though.

They had a question about the Daphne Du Maurier novel Rebecca tonight, rather than one about the Hitchcock adaptation, so I feel rest assured they were not being overly 'easy' by not asking about books.

One trend in the 1950s and 60's in literary circles, particularly in Britain was opposition to high fantasy. That's why Tolkein's work wasn't as widely accepted at the time as compared to today. JK Rowling got much the same treatment and rejection by the literary community too if I recall correctly; it was only the films for her books that shut the critics up, except maybe the religious nuts.

Do the critics like JK? All I ever hear from critics are sneery comments along the lines of: "Well they have got reluctant readers interested but they are really badly written." Pure. Jealousy. ;)

[Mithalwen]

The Lord of theRings is one of the top selling books of all time and was voted book of the 20th century by readers. That is quite successful whatever the literati may have thought fifty or sixty years ago. Most authors and publishers would be happy with that.

Many younger academics find him quite worthy of their attention. Some of them even post here. I like the Harry Potter books though I think Order of the phoenix could have lost a hundred pages. I also think Rowling really loves language as the raw material of her work and knowa her mythology but maybe since I read her as an adult I don't find her world aa engaging.

[Lalwendë]

The Lord of theRings is one of the top selling books of all time and was voted book of the 20th century by readers. That is quite successful whatever the literati may have thought fifty or sixty years ago. Most authors and publishers would be happy with that.

Many younger academics find him quite worthy of their attention. Some of them even post here. I like the Harry Potter books though I think Order of the phoenix could have lost a hundred pages. I also think Rowling really loves language as the raw material of her work and knowa her mythology but maybe since I read her as an adult I don't find her world aa engaging.

Academics are probably wising up to the fact that it's now a market out there and students want to study works they feel they will get something out of as opposed to those they are told they should get something out of - and as forums like this prove, there's actually endless picking to be had from Tolkien's work. It will go on regardless.

JK Rowling's Harry Potter books are very under-rated by a lot of adults, but her work too stands up to digging. Just one thing I realised the other day was how she pays homage to Tolkien by using some of his Hobbit surnames. I love Order of the Phoenix for the pin sharp satire on the Civil Service, and maybe a worse enemy even than Voldemort, Dolores Umbridge.

[Rhod the Red]

My memory is strongest about treatment of the first two HP films that the critics were kindest then. However the transfer to film of the latter ones seemed to have irked many, as if Rowling made a mistake getting more serious and darker in the latter books. While I didn't see it as a mistake, because a storyline without flow feels plastic & artificial to me

I guess Rowling was correct that people wayyyy underestimate children's ability to absorb serious issues or events. As if they couldn't hack the latter books & they aren't forced to in their lives, which is rot. Children in Western societies don't life a perfect life in a bubble that can only be pierced by dark books & films; the literary critics perhaps ought to open their minds more.....ahem, lol.

[Lalwendë]

A very nice colleague of mine today crept over and said "Look what I've decided to give another go!" It was an old, but very unbattered copy of Lord of the Rings. A while back she had said to me that she absolutely could not stand the way Tolkien writes, she'd tried to read it and failed. But she went to watch The Hobbit over the Christmas break and now she's been inspired to give Tolkien another go.

I was quite pleased with this. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

I don't know if this applies as an answer to the question in the title, but this may provide indication that the movies will do damage to the themes of the books.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmiller/2013/01/tolkiens-son-peter-jackson-eviscerated-lord-of-the-rings/

[Ulvenok]

I think the hobbit will kill the popularity of the genre. People who love it will still love it, but I doubt it will remain popular worldwide, it will have a niche audience like it was meant to have. The lord of the rings movies introduced many to Tolkien, likewise I think the hobbit will de-introduce many to Tolkien. It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know. How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.
In the last years of his life, Tolkien became greatly disappointed by some of the liturgical reforms and changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, as his grandson Simon Tolkien recalls:

I vividly remember going to church with him in Bournemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn't agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious. He simply had to do what he believed to be right.
As for how Tolkien would have liked this abomination that is the hobbit, I'll let him speak for himself:
However, Tolkien was not fond of all the artistic representation of his works that were produced in his lifetime, and was sometimes harshly disapproving. In 1946, he rejected suggestions for illustrations by Horus Engels for the German edition of The Hobbit as "too Disnified ... Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of".
Tolkien was sceptical of the emerging Tolkien fandom in the United States, and in 1954 he returned proposals for the dust jackets of the American edition of The Lord of the Rings:

Thank you for sending me the projected 'blurbs', which I return. The Americans are not as a rule at all amenable to criticism or correction; but I think their effort is so poor that I feel constrained to make some effort to improve it.

He had dismissed dramatic representations of fantasy in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", first presented in 1939:

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. [...] Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted.

Especially this quote makes it sound like Tolkien would hate the movie.
On receiving a screenplay for a proposed film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings by Morton Grady Zimmerman, Tolkien wrote:

I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.

Tolkien went on to criticize the script scene by scene ("yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings").
From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

It will be cleaner ;)

[Morthoron]

It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know.

Then I guess you'll be leaving the forum then? Have a nice life.

How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.

I see Christians dress like biblical characters every Christmas season. People dress up like characters in Dickens novels and I don't know how often I've seen folks dressed up in Shakespearean garb. And then there are hundreds of Renaissance festivals all over the world. Your point is as pointless as Tolkien's was bemoaning losing control of his creation. If he were that adamant about retaining control of his works, then he wouldn't have sold the movie rights to pay tax bills. But he did sell the rights. He took the money. He spent the money. Oh well, so much for self-righteous indignation.

From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

Yes, he would hate the films. But he has no one else to blame but himself. He also had no control of how his fans would react to his works. But it's a far sight better that they are dressing up as characters and collecting toys - and in the process buying millions of his books - than it would be if he never sold a single volume. Most starving or fledgling authors would fully welcome such adulation, don't you think?

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

I believe you should retract some of your statements here.

[Ulvenok]

Yes, he would hate the films. But he has no one else to blame but himself.
Really, I'm one of those that think it actually would be possible to make a proper adaption of the book. Jackson did a decent job with the lord of the rings, but he slaughtered the hobbit.
Then I guess you'll be leaving the forum then? Have a nice life.
I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

[alatar]

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff.
That's so interesting. Your interest (from the number of impassioned posts) seems at odds with your shame. :D

From my point of view, if you can't be true to yourself, why bother? I'd say, Man up!, but that might be considered racist as you might be an elf or dwarf or hobbit or dragon or talking fox or ent or...well, you get the drift.

I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...Wow! Again, you do know that we're discussing movies based (loosely :D) on books, not religious or political beliefs, where one states an opinion (sometimes supported by data) and sees what others think? I can remember my first few LotR movies posts :eek:; then when I took a breathe, learned that there were other points of view that, though different from mine, helped me understand the movies so much better.

Anyway, still haven't seen the Hobbit. Might takes the kids some day; probably should read the book to them first.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.

[Formendacil]

Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.

Actually, if my books end up going unread because of the movies, they're likely to see increased longevity.

On the other hand, if the movies bring new readers to Tolkien, some books are likely to take quite a beating. :p

[Lalwendë]

I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

I collect toys. I've got almost all of the action figures released with the LotR films. I've been buying the Lego sets lately. I made a seven foot long Nazgul cloak and swanned around in it at Birmingham 2005 and got drunk and laughed at people dressed as Gandalf and the Balrog playing 'Golfimbul' with a fake sword and a doll's head. I also collect the books and have many different editions - we have three different sets of the History of Middle-earth. I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive because I find both of them enjoyable. I'll be the first to admit that I'm being ripped off somewhere along the line and I should probably have invested the cash in a pension or something (dull) instead of helping fill the coffers of the Estate and toy manufacturers, but no, I enjoy it. And I don't care if anyone thinks I'm a fool for that. Geek Pride :cool:

[Ulvenok]

Wow! Again, you do know that we're discussing movies based (loosely ) on books, not religious or political beliefs
Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.
I collect toys. I've got almost all of the action figures released with the LotR films. I've been buying the Lego sets lately. I made a seven foot long Nazgul cloak and swanned around in it at Birmingham 2005.
You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw. :)
Geek Pride
It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

[alatar]

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.Okay. Others may think that there's a BIG difference, and you may want to understand that difference so that you understand people better.

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.Sorry if this old man (ancient of days, it seems) chortles at your statement. Ah youth...:rolleyes::D

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...Hoot! Maybe, Ulvenok, you learn that, with the exception of being rude to or flaming another member, people here are pretty accepting. Heck, I can even post side by side someone who thinks that PJ's Witch King could best Gandalf. I think them completely and utterly wrong, and I tell them so, but I (try) never to get nasty about it.

To each their own. Go ahead, live a little...dress up as Sebastian. :eek:

[Rhod the Red]

Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.

He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done.

But then this is half a century later, when film-making has more applicability.

Sir Christopher Lee met Tolkein, did he ever relay a movie-making ever position? No, just frustration at the early attempts.

There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film. That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? For people that see these films first, for many it'll ensure they'll read the books. Whereas if they never saw it in the cinema probably would never have read them even if you recommend them as a friend or something.

This was my position on the Harry Potter series. After seeing the 1978 rendition of TLotR I was determined to watch PJ's translation, even if it wasn't 100%; I was already a fan & understood the facts that had to be accepted. They hype about the HP series only was confirmed for me after I saw the first HP film in 2001. That's how some minds click. It's only fair to just accept it, not assume that all others don't really know or appreciate things. That's just snobbery

[Nerwen]

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.
You mean politics, religion, mythology and fantasy novels, surely?

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw. :)
Me neither! Let us both rejoice! Down with the overweight and bespectacled!

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...
Interesting. I'd have thought being ashamed to let anyone even know you visit a forum some members of which collect "toys and stuff" counts as "really caring", alright.

[Nerwen]

There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film.
Is there? I have never heard anyone (with the possible exception of Ulvenok here) express this view-I have, however, very often heard people accuse others of holding it, because they complain about lack of fidelity in an adaptation. Not the same thing.

That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? ??You would if the clones turned out deformed monstrosities, surely? Not the best choice of analogy there, I think.

[Zigûr]

While I believe that the films would be far more dramatically effective if they hewed closer to the original texts I don't think that they're especially damaging in and of themselves. I think the main danger they pose is the potential to trivialise discourse on the subject of Professor Tolkien's work by having this Hollywood filter layered over the top. I don't mean to say that's a fact, just something I think might be a risk. The films are, in my view at least, rather shallow (thematically) compared to the source material and I am occasionally concerned about their presence in culture getting in the way of a deeper appreciation of Professor Tolkien's work, not in isolation necessarily but at least in terms of its own merits.
That being said I believe Professor Tolkien might possibly have been more agreeable to a film adaptation if in his time there had been the kind of modern techniques and technology which can bring Faerie to life on the screen today. His main objection seems to me to have been this attitude of changing things for no particular reason.
I suppose that's why I find An Unexpected Journey to be a good deal more disingenuous as an adaptation than the films of The Lord of the Rings: I can just imagine someone watching that film, deciding to read the book and being bewildered by how brief and utterly different in tone it is to the adaptation. The films of the LR make major changes in terms of plot and characterisation but the atmosphere and pacing are more comparable (in The Fellowship of the Ring at least). Actually maybe Fellowship is the only good example...

[Morsul the Dark]

I think the hobbit will kill the popularity of the genre. People who love it will still love it, but I doubt it will remain popular worldwide, it will have a niche audience like it was meant to have. The lord of the rings movies introduced many to Tolkien, likewise I think the hobbit will de-introduce many to Tolkien. It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know. How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.

As for how Tolkien would have liked this abomination that is the hobbit, I'll let him speak for himself:


Especially this quote makes it sound like Tolkien would hate the movie.

From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

It will be cleaner ;)

Dear Lord where to start...

Well let's start with your first paragraph here,(Which later you contradict but claiming not to judge, by the way) Your first paragraph is probably the most on-topic of this diatribe. You claim that The Hobbit will "de-inroduce" many to tolkien. I disagree I think the Movie, being more action packed, will bring in more readers.

I think Tolkien's book is fantastic and works on paper on screen through if you think about it there are pretty good chunks of time in the book of really nothing occuring outside of Bilbo and Bombor complaining.

Now then you continue on calling people pathetic, for dressing up and enjoying their fandom. I actually owe my recent weight loss to geekness(a contradiction for sure) I was 245lbs(about... estimating 110-125 kilos something like that 2.2 lbs per kilo) now I'm at 202 because I wanted to dress up in a cool costume and look good in it.

More fans can mean more longegevity even in a fairly secluded forum such as this. Even you with your...shall we say... contreversial, opinions bring new conversation to the board. Without new comers how can we keep the conversations alive only so many times to go over whether or not balrogs have wings(they do deal with it;))

Then you talk about religion as if it's on the same level as Tolkien. I'm assuming you were just trying to get a rise out of people.

You're ashamed to be a geek? You must still be in Junior High. Such distinctions have no real say in the real world. I consider my style Business Geek. looking at me I'm a very well kept and groomed guy but you look at my arms you'll see on the right a triforce/mad hatter tattoo on the other a video game spell/Dr who tattoo. Yet I'm a Manager at myplace of business and held in fairly high regard by the district managers.

Let me give you some advice, don't be ashamed to like something, don't be afraid to admit you like something. Truth, truth is all that matters. If you're too scared to admit you like Lord of the Rings which is currently a fairly main stream interest(a theme park planned and everything) then you'll never be able to fully and whole heartedly pursue a more important dream. A more worthy goal.

[Morsul the Dark]

Really, I'm one of those that think it actually would be possible to make a proper adaption of the book. Jackson did a decent job with the lord of the rings, but he slaughtered the hobbit.

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

I also wanted to respond to this sorry for the double post.

Jackson didn't do too bad with LoTR though honestly I found his changes far more glaring in those movies than The Hobbit.

I still love the last March of the Ents in the bbok I was in awe but on Screen chills, literally. I was hypnotized by that scene.

Again heed my advice if you can't be honest about talking about Tolkien how can be honest about more important things? My wife knew the day nay the hour we met that I was a geek through and through I've been a geek since at least first grade got my first pair of glasses and was THRILLED(my favorite ranger being th blue ranger who wore glasses:D) Of course I met my wife when she bonked me in the head with a sword so the whole geek thing worked in the situation.

Again with the muslim/taliban comparison? Us liking LoTR and dressing like characters doesn't compare to blowing up cars and

Things of that nature. and frankly if us in costumes makes us the talibanm that makes you the "regular" muslim which mean you worship Tolkien 5 times a day is that really more sane? See how silly it sounds now.

Comicon in San Diego is HUGE. Bi Bang Theory one of the hottest shows on. Super Hero movies are blockbusters LoTR and TH BLock busters. Star Wars is EVERYWHERE. Harry Potter is a featured area in universal And J.K Rowling is the first person to become a Billionare from writing books.

Geekdom is no longer a niche. We're mainstream. You seem to just want to be the kid that hates Tolkien now because "he sold out man!"

[Aiwendil]

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

I don't quite know how to break this to you, but calling people or the activities they engage in 'pathetic' is pretty much the definition of judging them.

Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.

He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done.


I've got to disagree with you on two counts here. First, I wouldn't say that film making in Tolkien's time was crude. 'In Tolkien's time' would be up to 1973, so already you've got brilliant special effects pictures like 2001. But since the discussion is about the Zimmerman script, let's limit ourselves to pre-1958; still we're in a period where many cinematic masterpieces had been, or were being, made. Even before The Hobbit was written, you have pictures like King Kong that used special effects to depict monsters and fantastical creatures. Film-making was far from a primitive thing when Tolkien wrote his critique of the script; it was already a highly developed art form and a huge industry.

Second, I don't think it's correct to say that Tolkien dismissed attempts to film his work because he thought they could not be achieved technically. It wasn't that he didn't think the visual effects would be convincing; it was that he objected to the proposed changes to plot and character. None of the concerns that he mentioned, as far as I can recall, had anything to do with the technical aspects of film-making. So I can't imagine that the superior technology available today would have had any effect whatsoever on his opinions regarding cinematic adaptation.

[Morsul the Dark]

Second, I don't think it's correct to say that Tolkien dismissed attempts to film his work because he thought they could not be achieved technically. It wasn't that he didn't think the visual effects would be convincing; it was that he objected to the proposed changes to plot and character. None of the concerns that he mentioned, as far as I can recall, had anything to do with the technical aspects of film-making. So I can't imagine that the superior technology available today would have had any effect whatsoever on his opinions regarding cinematic adaptation.

Agreed in fact it could be argued with available technology used as a crutch the writing would be even further off(I don't know what the zimmerman script looked like so I'm not positive on this.

[Rhod the Red]

Also inspired a lot of art. I recommend deviantart.com

[Zigûr]

Also inspired a lot of art. I recommend deviantart.com
On the flipside what with the saturation of imagery from the films in our culture it can be very difficult to find book-inspired art on deviantart! It's always a nice surprise to find something which hews a bit more closely to the original text and its implied aesthetics.

[Nerwen]

On the flipside what with the saturation of imagery from the films in our culture it can be very difficult to find book-inspired art on devianart!
It can be very difficult to find art on deviantArt...:p

[Bêthberry]

On the flipside what with the saturation of imagery from the films in our culture it can be very difficult to find book-inspired art on deviantart! It's always a nice surprise to find something which hews a bit more closely to the original text and its implied aesthetics.

It saddens me when I see images that so clearly represent Viggo Mortensen or any of the other actors from the movies.

The joy of drawing Tolkien is to use one's own imagination from the words to create a unique visual image, rather than to replicate another image.

[Lalwendë]

To be fair, deviantart is used by a heck of a lot of young people, especially teens, to show off their work, and I remember spending a lot of time copying other images either outright or adapting them when I was learning to draw.

And then of course, there is slash art :eek:

[Bêthberry]

True enough. I remember when we saw the students copying the masterpieces at the Louvre--my kids were very small but they insisted they had to draw too. So my guidebook to the Louvre has their pencil sketches in it too, as I had no other paper. :eek: :D

But what really sparked my reply, and the mention of Viggo, was a picture I saw passed around on FB. It had exquisite technique but it was of a movie shot and it broke my heart that such talent was spent on a movie image rather than an original interpretation. It is true that we take our inspiration wherever we find it, and that everyone has the right of interpretation. Yet that does not mean we cannot also comment upon things. One does not cancel out the other.

[Rhod the Red]

There are variations, including non-film drawings. Like search Gandalf, Saruman & Radagast. Maybe half the results are non-film

[Lalwendë]

True enough. I remember when we saw the students copying the masterpieces at the Louvre--my kids were very small but they insisted they had to draw too. So my guidebook to the Louvre has their pencil sketches in it too, as I had no other paper. :eek: :D

But what really sparked my reply, and the mention of Viggo, was a picture I saw passed around on FB. It had exquisite technique but it was of a movie shot and it broke my heart that such talent was spent on a movie image rather than an original interpretation. It is true that we take our inspiration wherever we find it, and that everyone has the right of interpretation. Yet that does not mean we cannot also comment upon things. One does not cancel out the other.

If someone has done their drawing practise by copying something they may be justly proud of the results - my Art teacher used to tell me off for copying pictures when I was drawing but I argued it was good practise, especially as life models aren't something you get in schools.

I often worry though, whether these exquisite drawings are genuine or done on one of these computer packages that turn your photos into sketches...and I'm not that impressed by pure skill if there's no originality behind it. It's nice, but is it Art?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I saw the film over the hols and thoroughly enjoyed it -- sure, it wasn't the book, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was very pleasantly surprised to see how much of the 'added' material was actually true to Tolkien's other writings and I also very much enjoyed how the 'tone' of the movie was more in keeping with how Tolkien himself wanted to revision the book after having written LotR. I could have done without several of the scenes (which were really just Jackson being self-indulgent and nobody having the authority or balls to tell him that they really needed to be cut -- the dwarves tidying Bilbo's table, Radagast nursing the hedgehog (I mean, really!) and about half the Council-scene at Rivendell) but for the rest it was very well done. I am quite excited about the sequels.

Oh, and for the people who have been complaining that the 48 fps makes it look 'fake'...it isn't real to begin with... :D

[Bêthberry]

I saw the film over the hols and thoroughly enjoyed it -- sure, it wasn't the book, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was very pleasantly surprised to see how much of the 'added' material was actually true to Tolkien's other writings and I also very much enjoyed how the 'tone' of the movie was more in keeping with how Tolkien himself wanted to revision the book after having written LotR. I could have done without several of the scenes (which were really just Jackson being self-indulgent and nobody having the authority or balls to tell him that they really needed to be cut -- the dwarves tidying Bilbo's table, Radagast nursing the hedgehog (I mean, really!) and about half the Council-scene at Rivendell) but for the rest it was very well done. I am quite excited about the sequels.

Oh, and for the people who have been complaining that the 48 fps makes it look 'fake'...it isn't real to begin with...


Am I seeing things? Is that really Fordim Hedgethistle back on the Downs? and using British slang? :eek:

Welcome back, Fordy. :smokin:


I often worry though, whether these exquisite drawings are genuine or done on one of these computer packages that turn your photos into sketches...and I'm not that impressed by pure skill if there's no originality behind it. It's nice, but is it Art?

There are computer packages that can do that?

But then Renaissance artists often had students finish their paintings or work on small areas, if I am not mistaken, so I suppose there have always been apps for artists. :D

[Morsul the Dark]

Am I seeing things? Is that really Fordim Hedgethistle back on the Downs? and using British slang? :eek:

Welcome back, Fordy. :smokin:



There are computer packages that can do that?

But then Renaissance artists often had students finish their paintings or work on small areas, if I am not mistaken, so I suppose there have always been apps for artists. :D

On a fairly related note. There are companies that do "between work" for cartoons that is the animators of the show make image a and e which are the main poses then they outsource the actual animation bits to another studio. King of the hill had theirs done in korea(yay for dvd commentary.

Also I think "non original" drawings are great ways to practice then you can expand into doing your own stuff.

[Nerwen]

On a fairly related note. There are companies that do "between work" for cartoons that is the animators of the show make image a and e which are the main poses then they outsource the actual animation bits to another studio. King of the hill had theirs done in korea(yay for dvd commentary.
But it has always been the practice for lead animators to draw the key frames only while juniors do the "tweening"- sounds like you're describing a variant on that.

[Suldaledhel]

I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

[Inziladun]

I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

Do my eyes deceive me? Talk about a blast from the past. :eek:

That's interesting about Dwarves in general being popular. What would be the cause, if that's the case?

[Kuruharan]

After seeing the movie, my wife is now reading The Hobbit for the first time in many years.

Her first comment after starting her re-read, "I'd forgotten how many things were different between the movie and the book."

[Suldaledhel]

Do my eyes deceive me? Talk about a blast from the past. :eek:

That's interesting about Dwarves in general being popular. What would be the cause, if that's the case?

'It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,' he used to say. 'You step onto the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.'

Turns out Bilbo was right. :rolleyes:

As for Dwarves, I am tempted to note the stout fellows' surge in popularity amongst the video game community over the past several years, including the antics of a particular bunch of (immensely popular) video game commentators. However, I do not believe this to be the cause of the trend.

I do think a (statistically) significant measure of their uptick in recent years comes as a reaction inspired by the present social climate in many Western nations. However, this is certainly not the thread - or the forum - for such musings, and I hope our esteemed moderators will pardon this brief foray into the thickets of Off-Topic.

To return On-Topic, I think there's something to the phrase that all press is good press. In my humble, anecdotal experience, the movie has served to entice those with a fleeting interest in Fantasy to actually pick up the book, while those with no interest remain unaffected. For what it's worth, I've yet to hear of anyone refusing to read the book as a direct result of watching the film.

[Aiwendil]

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

As far as I could see, though, there weren't many Dwarves in the movie at all - unless you mean those nearly-beardless, hoodless, too-handsome young men with their Hollywood-trope of a leader who so rudely ransacked Bilbo's pantries. But, having read the memoirs of this Mr. Baggins myself (translated into the English by a certain professor Tolkien - perhaps you've heard of him?), which deal extensively with Dwarves, I feel reasonably confident in asserting that those persons in the film were not Dwarves.

(Sorry. I didn't care for the film - can you tell?)

[Mithalwen]

I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

Well my younger cousins who borrowed Lotr from me haven't bothered to see the hobbit despite still being in the supposed target demographic. The elder said I 've heard its a bit.. and pulled a face.....

[Nerwen]

Well my younger cousins who borrowed Lotr from me haven't bothered to see the hobbit despite still being in the supposed target demographic. The elder said I 've heard its a bit.. and pulled a face.....
I can't say I've exactly had a steady stream of people beating my door down to get at my copy of The Hobbit since the film opened. Or indeed, so far, heard anyone talk about being inspired to read the book for the first time. However. I'm not sure how far you can extrapolate from personal experience in this case.

[Mithalwen]

Well quite which is why I posted my contrary one... personal experience can be deceptive while of course still being true. It happens that after graduating i got a job as an English language tutor at a university near paris and made a flying visit in the intervening summer. Now I was literally there just one day going on one overnight ferry and back on the next but mt ticket was checked on every last train, bus, light rail and metro journey at least once and so I got home with th e impression that they were super obsessed about catching fare dodgers since there were already a lot of automated barriers. Then iwent to live there and I doubt anyone checked my ticket so many times in the year. I had clearly happened on some sort of crackdown on my daytrip.
!

[Lotrelf]

I'm one of those who first saw movies (both LotR & The Hobbit) and then read the books(haven't finished the Hobbit yet). I felt disappointed from the movie's part. Movies actually dragged a lot in Hobbit. I felt disappointed about LotR too, but the movies are good and PJ proves himself to be true to Tolkien's world, if not his story, completely. The Hobbit book is simple and sweet. A Children's Tale. But I didn't see that simplicity in the first movie (haven't seen the second one).

[Morthoron]

I'm one of those who first saw movies (both LotR & The Hobbit) and then read the books(haven't finished the Hobbit yet). I felt disappointed from the movie's part. Movies actually dragged a lot in Hobbit. I felt disappointed about LotR too, but the movies are good and PJ proves himself to be true to Tolkien's world, if not his story, completely. The Hobbit book is simple and sweet. A Children's Tale. But I didn't see that simplicity in the first movie (haven't seen the second one).

The most damning critique of Peter Jackson came from Christopher Tolkien himself:

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

The full interview from Le Monde can be read here:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.UyjGfKhdXTp

I don't agree with apologists who make the imbecilic claim that film is a different medium than books, and therefore license must be allowed for offering the story as a visual presentation. This half-hearted defense for making a mockery of a movie does not stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

Time compression is a necessary fact of movie adaptations; one can't expect to cram all the minutiae from a book into a series of films (even with films bloated to 3+ hours). However, Jackson does not remove elements of the original story merely to offer a tighter plot, he adds inane fan-fiction in place of what was edited out, he amps up gratuitous violence and CGI effects to ludicrous levels, and, worst of all, demeans characters and dumbs down significant elements of the story so that only the oblivious would appreciate the obvious.

[Zigûr]

I don't agree with apologists who make the imbecilic claim that film is a different medium than books, and therefore license must be allowed for offering the story as a visual presentation. This half-hearted defense for making a mockery of a movie does not stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
The apologism I've noticed most prominently in recent months is that The Hobbit is too light/short/whimsical/childish/delete-where-applicable to be rendered successfully on screen, but I think that entirely depends on how the responder treats the material, in their own imagination or on film. Peter Jackson and the faceless executives at Warner Bros. seem to me to have a similar perception of the books, however, and the means by which they can most profitably be exploited. I once saw someone outraged at the suggestion that these were "Hollywood" films, despite the fact that this means produced by Hollywood companies and funded with Hollywood money, because the films were made in New Zealand by a New Zealand director. So in my experience people often simply don't know what they're talking about, but shared public ignorance has its own impact. In this case it is seemingly a belief that Jackson's way is the best and only way that Tolkien could be realised onscreen. The intrusion of the films into our culture has, I would argue, exposed the books to a certain potential degree of damage in terms of how their content is perceived as certain fans of the films resort to attacking the book to justify the changes.

One might also consider the Facebook pages of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the books, the books mind you, which are currently asking fans trivia questions to advertise some smartphone app, and after a while the questions shifted to entirely being film-based questions, sometimes in complete contradiction of the books, e.g. what instrument does Bofur play? The clarinet of course, but the only correct answer is 'the flute' because that's what he plays in the films. This is on the book page, and there is no disclaimer that this is film material. The film adaptation in the minds of the mainstream audience pastes over the top of the book. It is a palimpsest effect.

To return to the matter of the tone of the book versus the tone of the films, the idea which strikes me considering The Hobbit is the presentation of the narrative and design. I think that in the film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, for all their numerous failings, we might just barely glimpse, through a glass, darkly, as it were, an image of the high seriousness of the original text. This is perhaps only something I feel in hindsight in contrast to the film adaptations of The Hobbit, which replace the arguably childish tone of the book with a bizarre sense of the grotesque. Everything in The Hobbit is overtly, whether pleasant or ugly, strange: the Dwarves (especially their bizarre attire and weapons), Radagast, Goblin-town, Dol Guldur, and Esgaroth come to mind. The narrative does the same thing, of course, with additions like Ringwraith-tombs and Orc hunts and stories of 'forbidden love'. Yet I think in the book that seriousness is there, and increases as the tale progresses. The films, to me, feel out of place in regards to both the book and Peter Jackson's earlier films.

[Bêthberry]

. . . .

One might also consider the Facebook pages of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the books, the books mind you, which are currently asking fans trivia questions to advertise some smartphone app, and after a while the questions shifted to entirely being film-based questions, sometimes in complete contradiction of the books, e.g. what instrument does Bofur play? The clarinet of course, but the only correct answer is 'the flute' because that's what he plays in the films. This is on the book page, and there is no disclaimer that this is film material. The film adaptation in the minds of the mainstream audience pastes over the top of the book. It is a palimpsest effect.

Zigûr, good metaphor about the palimpsest effect.


btw, do you know there is a Barrow Downs group of our dead wights on FB? Care to join?

[Zigûr]

btw, do you know there is a Barrow Downs group of our dead wights on FB? Care to join?
I wasn't aware. I'll check it out. Thanks!

I feel like I ought to emphasise in light of my comments that while I think the films are potentially damaging to the books, especially the long struggle to have Professor Tolkien taken seriously as one of the major authors of the twentieth century, my issue is largely not with appreciation of the film per se but rather that attitude which attacks the books to defend the films.

[Lotrelf]

You guys are way too harsh on Jackson. One day on Facebook, I asked a question: What would have been Tolkien's reaction after watching the LOTR movies?
My thoughts were that he won't be much happy. If I'm not wrong, Tolkien did not want to make movies based on his books. I don't bash PJ, perhaps, because I'm grateful. Had it not been for his movies, I'd missed these books too. None of my friends read books, of any kind (they think it's a time waste!). CT is right about the books and the movies. I'd have acted the same way, if I had read the books first. In Thorin's case, I feel, PJ exaggerated his "bad-guy" side.

[Inziladun]

You guys are way too harsh on Jackson.

I disagree. If they had to adapt the books to film, it could have been done without alienating so many long term print devotees.

My thoughts were that he won't be much happy. If I'm not wrong, Tolkien did not want to make movies based on his books.

Tolkien said in a letter that he thought the books "unsuitable for dramatisation". Seeing how he castigated a proposed animated adaptation for doing things like having the Eagles carry the Fellowship early in the Quest, and describing Lórien as in line with "the gimcrack of modern fairy tales", I do think he would have been severely unimpressed; though not necessarily with the omissions in the films, but the outright alterations, some of which, like Faramir trying to take Frodo to Minas Tirith, are downright obscene.

Had it not been for his movies, I'd missed these books too. None of my friends read books, of any kind (they think it's a time waste!). CT is right about the books and the movies. I'd have acted the same way, if I had read the books first.

The inducement into reading the books is the sole benefit to the movies, in my opinion. I only wish you were not in the minority, as I fear.

[Lotrelf]

I disagree. If they had to adapt the books to film, it could have been done without alienating so many long term print devotees.



Tolkien said in a letter that he thought the books "unsuitable for dramatisation". Seeing how he castigated a proposed animated adaptation for doing things like having the Eagles carry the Fellowship early in the Quest, and describing L¨®rien as in line with "the gimcrack of modern fairy tales", I do think he would have been severely unimpressed; though not necessarily with the omissions in the films, but the outright alterations, some of which, like Faramir trying to take Frodo to Minas Tirith, are downright obscene.



The inducement into reading the books is the sole benefit to the movies, in my opinion. I only wish you were not in the minority, as I fear.

Yes, I am in minority of those who read books after watching the films. Reading the books decreased my enthusiasm for the movies. I dislike PJ for spoiling Frodo & Faramir like he did. Tolkien said Faramir was the character that Tollie identified most with, and Jackson spoiled him! I know, he'd say that he did this all to make movies more interesting. His representation of the characters gave them a bad name. Frodo is known as whimp. Though I never heard Faramir hatred thing. But I had disliked him in the movies, but he became my favorite in the books. Hobbit movies have repeated the History, if I'm not wrong.




Movies' plus point has always been its starcast. In LotR & The Hobbit, actors are brilliant, and I guess their performances cannot be shrugged off.

[Zigûr]

Here's the latest bewildering "The Hobbit Official Visual Companion App" question as presented on the Facebook page for The Hobbit. Note that this Facebook page specifically labels itself in the category 'Book' and claims to be "The Hobbit fan page, managed by the publishers." Behold the question.

Which Dwarve is nicknamed ‘the Apothecary’?

'Dwarve.'

"Dwarve."

Singular.

Putting aside the fact that this is a characteristic the filmmakers gave to Óin with no basis in the book, which the page fails to disclaim, they make an error which can only derive from a fundamental disregard for the very product they are supporting. Additionally, they reposted this link because (according to the comments, I of course did not click it) the first time the link didn't work, but they did not correct 'Dwarve.'

Accidentally writing 'Dwarfs' instead of 'Dwarves' is common (if tiresome): but 'Dwarve'? Seriously?

When someone corrected it as 'Dwarf' in the comments for the identical post on the corresponding page for The Lord of the Rings someone in all seriousness replied with this:
Its not *Dwarf, because Tolkien specifically used that spelling to highlight that he meant Dwarve not Dwarf and these two things are different in folk and Tolkien lore.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: the lazy, ignorant, corporate (neoliberal) exploitation of our culture which spreads misinformation that people actually believe and are willing to defend, and so erases and writes over that culture. Note that when someone asks for proof from the abover commenter, another replied "appendices of LOTR." I pray they were mocking the filmmakers' "it's all in the Appendices" attitude but somehow I doubt it.

[Morthoron]

Philologically-speaking, "apothecary" would be an incorrect term for Óin the "Dwarf", and I don't believe Tolkien would use it. The word first arose in Middle-English (see Chaucer), and derives from the Old French "apotecaire" (which would be strike one), and the Old French variant derived in turn from the Latin apothecarius, which means "shopkeeper", and that came from the Greek ἀποθήκη (apothēkē, “a repository, storehouse”).

Tolkien used his words carefully, and even a Khuzdul or Icelandic translation would not come to this ill-conceived title, for what essentially would be termed an "herbalist".

[Zigûr]

To touch upon a recurring issue of mine, once again the Facebook pages for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings give damning evidence of how the films are bulldozing the books in the popular consciousness. Both pages, which are for the books and run by the very publishers of those books, posted in accompaniment to Professor Tolkien's illustration of Rivendell:
"There is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."
-J.R.R. Tolkien
Balderdash. As some right-thinking commenters have pointed out in the comments section, this line is only from the film script. I might tolerate that, barely (although it would still be frustrating to see it from the Facebook page for the books) but the fact that it is misattributed to Professor Tolkien is firstly a disservice to the man, who would not have written such a cliché or in such a trite idiom, and secondly is evidence of how incompetently handled his life's work is by its very publishers. This is not the first time they have posted this film quote and attributed it to the Professor either.

Interestingly in the comments it is mentioned that according to certain DVD special features this was a line the filmmakers deliberated over at length and included, allegedly, even though they considered it to be hackneyed and cliché, which adds insult to injury when it's misattributed to the Professor himself in my opinion. This may seem like an overreaction but I think this kind of thing is both appallingly unprofessional and genuine evidence of the adverse affect the films have had by corrupting knowledge about the books.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Big, big thumb up for Zigur. :D

And Morthoron not only is entirely correct on the linguistic point, but there is also the cultural issue as to whether any Dwarf would be versed in herb-lore. Dwarves on the whole were unconcerned with growing things, as befitted troglodytes, and never farmed if they could possibly buy foodstuffs via trade in manufactured goods or products of mining, or even manual labor of the sort thwey preferred, masonry and roadbuilding etc.

[Inziladun]

Interestingly in the comments it is mentioned that according to certain DVD special features this was a line the filmmakers deliberated over at length and included, allegedly, even though they considered it to be hackneyed and cliché, which adds insult to injury when it's misattributed to the Professor himself in my opinion. This may seem like an overreaction but I think this kind of thing is both appallingly unprofessional and genuine evidence of the adverse affect the films have had by corrupting knowledge about the books.

Hackneyed and clichéd are attributes that to me the LOTR films struggle mightily to avoid in general. Where they succeed, it is in spite of the filmmakers' best efforts otherwise.
I was always irked by that "even the smallest person can change the future", that sounded more apt for a Disney cartoon. :rolleyes:

And Morthoron not only is entirely correct on the linguistic point, but there is also the cultural issue as to whether any Dwarf would be versed in herb-lore. Dwarves on the whole were unconcerned with growing things, as befitted troglodytes, and never farmed if they could possibly buy foodstuffs via trade in manufactured goods or products of mining, or even manual labor of the sort thwey preferred, masonry and roadbuilding etc.

Well, there were Mîm and his sons foraging for their "root bread", which it was claimed even the Green-Elves were unaware of. That sort of behavior does indeed seem to be lacking among Third Age Dwarves in the west of Middle-earth, though.

[littlemanpoet]

Maybe this is not harsh enough, but after viewing Hobbit 2 by PJ, my sense was "hyper Baroque". Plastered thick. So dense with extra stuff, none of it needed, that you can barely see the architectural design underneath. A pity, since the architecture is of such high quality.

[Morthoron]

Maybe this is not harsh enough, but after viewing Hobbit 2 by PJ, my sense was "hyper Baroque". Plastered thick. So dense with extra stuff, none of it needed, that you can barely see the architectural design underneath. A pity, since the architecture is of such high quality.

Yes, if it aint Baroque, don't fix it.

[Galin]

Yes, if it aint Baroque, don't fix it.

:D

Still, I rather wish Arthur Nouveau had directed these films, although that's just my impressionism from seeing the trailers.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Would it really have been too much to ask, or to expect, that when somebody finally made a serious attempt to film Tolkien the goal would have been cinema that fell into the category which might be roughly defined as "cerebral epic" or "big-budget art film," a category which would include, say, 2001, Apocalypse Now and Ran?

[littlemanpoet]

Would it really have been too much to ask, or to expect, that when somebody finally made a serious attempt to film Tolkien the goal would have been cinema that fell into the category which might be roughly defined as "cerebral epic" or "big-budget art film," a category which would include, say, 2001, Apocalypse Now and Ran?

Your query resonates with me. It would require the right kind of director. I just can't imagine those who do art film being interested in LotR. :(

[Mithalwen]

How about Ang Lee?

[Inziladun]

Yes, if it aint Baroque, don't fix it.

And if you do, at least don't make a hobbit of it!

Would it really have been too much to ask, or to expect, that when somebody finally made a serious attempt to film Tolkien the goal would have been cinema that fell into the category which might be roughly defined as "cerebral epic" or "big-budget art film," a category which would include, say, 2001, Apocalypse Now and Ran?

I never wanted these big time PJ blockbusters made because it was clear from the start, with all the merchandising buzz even before filming was complete, that giving the movies the feel of the books was not in the least a goal. It was about "translation" and "adaptation", and to this day I feel that those who have only seen the films have no inkling of the deep meaning and real resonance of the books, infused by the author.
I fervently hope they never get the rights for Beren and Lúthien, or anything else to do with Middle-earth or Tolkien.

[littlemanpoet]

How about Ang Lee?
Want to ask him if he'll do it in about twenty years? Or will he be dead by then?

[Morthoron]

How about Ang Lee?

How about Spike Lee? I can see it now:

The Lord of the Rings: Do the Wight Thing

[FerniesApple]

will the Hobbit movies do damage to the books? yep I think they will. All this cheap merchandising, lacklustre publicity, cash grabbing worthless EE versions, the garbage coming from Jackson and Boyens as regards the appendices, 'female energy' clap trap coming from E. Lilly, the actual movies themselves, that abysmal travesty, it all adds up to a pile of steaming poo.

Pity the poor fool who first watches those films and then buys the book thinking its about a Dwarve called Thorin and his dreary quest to reclaim his homeland. Why on earth did Tolkien call it the Hobbit? I hear him/her ask. Theres hardly any Hobbit in the movies. :rolleyes:

[Belegorn]

How about Spike Lee? I can see it now:

The Lord of the Rings: Do the Wight Thing

Funny.

[Smug the Fabulous]

In answer to the question, if the way people are responding to these films are right, then yes. And when I say people, I mean the people I've seen commenting on Peter Jackson's Facebook page. And possibly TORN. Not that I look on that website often, if at all (but the stuff I've read on here). But I'm think The Hobbit will just be one of those one time phenomenons. Once it's been and gone, that will be it. People will simply walk away. And in several years, what we'll have left is a charming little book from the late 1930s about a hobbit who joined a wizard and a band of dwarves on a grand adventure and discovered a wider world beyond his little home.
At least, that's what I'm thinking optimistically.

On the subject of directors, I just wondered what The Lord of the Rings would be like if Werner Herzog did it? Well, since we're talking the director of Aguirre, the Wrath of God and Fitzcarraldo, I like to imagine it using practical effects and locations, long uninterrupted takes, an ambient score with some classical music, and I imagine Herzog would cast actual actors with dwarfism as hobbits and dwarves and have the actors playing Frodo and Sam going up an actual volcano.

[FerniesApple]

I would like to see The Hobbit directed by Lech Majewski, The Mill and the Cross was mind blowing, a painting come to life, haunting, faerie.

[Inziladun]

I ran across this brief review of DOS, penned by someone who's apparently not much of a Tolkien fan, so no 'purist' prejudice intrudes (though she seems to be familiar with the book).

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013 - DVD)

Many critics didn't like the first Hobbit movie, and I was one of the dissenters, but this one hit my breaking point rather early on. The dwarves go down white water rapids in barrels, fighting orcs along the way, and at no point does any barrel overturn or fill with water. Defenses I've seen of this scene are usually along the lines of, "But it's based on a children's book". Yeah, but the barrels were sealed shut in the book, and they weren't popping out of them and fighting orcs, then jumping back into the rapids just in time to land in a magically-appearing open barrel.

And then it's just, Legolas, Legolas, Legolas... I keep seeing people praising his inclusion here because it explains why he hated dwarves in the Lord of the Rings. Did I miss something? I thought it was Gimli who hated elves for no explained reason, not the other way around.

I feel like if I tried to describe the scene where they attempt to use a giant golden statue to kill Smaug, it would come across like Killdozer describing Bridget Jones's Diary, but I'm serious - that actually happens!

Really, Peter Jackson had enough time to add that ridiculously drawn out and pointless scene, but not enough to actually show the desolation caused by Smaug in a movie called "The Desolation of Smaug"??
Rating: 2.5/5

The author of that isn't always family-friendly about language on their site, so I didn't link to it.
Still, I think it's interesting what she notes as her gripes.

[Galadriel55]

Still, I think it's interesting what she notes as her gripes.

Well, I guess common sense is a common thing... usually. :p

[Tar-Jêx]

I'm pretty sure that it won't cause people to go out and buy the book like the Lord of the Rings trilogy did, because the Hobbit is simply not nearly as good.

I'm really wondering why Jackson wanted to insult the source material with these discrepancies and squeeze out a 3rd movie for nothing to happen in, when you could easily fit it into 2 excellent, and accurate, movies.

[Lotrelf]

I saw the film- not finished- and was convinced with whatever has been said here. The movie has caused the damaged to the original material. The movies failed to create the curiosity in mind of the viewer. The book is simply amazing- the innocence, the beauty, the magic is undeniable while the second movie, to me, seemed like any other action film you can watch in Hollywood. It lacked the essence of the original story. AUJ was better- I'd liked Bilbo and Gollum's interaction and Gandalf's presence was enough for me to watch the film. :D
Rest, the movie is good as a "film" but kinda-okay as an adaptation.

[Mister Underhill]

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.

[Inziladun]

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.

I guess the answer there depends upon how closely the adaptation is associated (by the consumer) with its source material.
For those who were already familiar with The Hobbit book, I think the association is likely to be less. For one who first experiences the movies, the greater.

[Tar-Jêx]

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.

If the adaptation is 100% accurate, then it can harm, and help, the book. It can harm it, because the movie is exactly the same, and takes less time, and can help it, by people thinking, 'What an amazing movie' and buying the book.

A bad adaptation is similar. People may want to read the book to see if it's better, or they may want to just ignore it entirely because the movies weren't very good. Overall, I think this is worse, because it doesn't do justice to the book, and people will think the book is bad.

I'd be really excited to watch a movie that was 100% accurate to the book, because it would be so awesome. People who haven't read the book would also be excited, because it would be a really good movie. More people are happy this way, and non-readers would be able to talk to the book worms and not feel like they're at a disadvantage.

[Mister Underhill]

My usual reaction to this question used to be, "Damage the book? How could it? It's right there on my shelf, same as it ever was."

I think that mindset comes from the pre-internet days. As a young Tolkien fan I read and re-read TH and LotR, but I didn't really have anybody to talk about them with. Whatever I thought of a particular movie adaptation really only affected me. Fandom was a much more personal experience.

Along comes the internet, suddenly there's a virtual community -- well, actually more like a number of (sometimes) overlapping communities. And I think really the question now is about how movie adaptations affect the conversation about a particular story, and along what kind of timeline. Right now, today, if you are talking to someone and you both declare that you are fans of The Hobbit, some clarification is in order. You might be fans of two fairly radically different things.

Probably at some point there were (still are?) Hobbit fans who despaired over revisions that altered their favorite story, and for whom the Lord of the Rings sequels were unwanted and unnecessary. "Middle-earth is so dark and depressing and mundane now!" Some of us original Star Wars fans have undergone such a sea-change within our lifetimes.

The real questions, for me, are, "How are the movies affecting the conversations I am having about Tolkien right now?" and with thoughts of my son in mind, "How will they affect those conversations going forward?"

[Inziladun]

The real questions, for me, are, "How are the movies affecting the conversations I am having about Tolkien right now?" and with thoughts of my son in mind, "How will they affect those conversations going forward?"

My own observation is that in this world, with its relentless drive for 'efficiency' and technology, reading is fast becoming an anachronism.
Of course, there are still those who enjoy quiet time with a book (and I daresay this forum is rife with them), but especially with the millennial generation and beyond, my fear is that PJ's films will in time become what the majority thinks of when they hear 'hobbit'.
Those of us who would like to put on the brakes a bit, at least in our own lives, can do what we can to transmit our love of reading to our offspring. I think I've made some progress with mine, though I've yet to convince her to read any Tolkien. Then again, she's just 10, so there's hope. ;)

At the core of it, I don't think it's the movies themselves I deplore, but the seeming idea that they and boring, old-fashioned, CGI-less books simply cannot share a stage indefinitely, and that one or the other will fall by the wayside. My money is not on the books to win out. But as Gandalf said, ours isn't to master the tides of the world, but to do our part in our own small way.

[Kuruharan]

My own observation is that in this world, with its relentless drive for 'efficiency' and technology, reading is fast becoming an anachronism.
Of course, there are still those who enjoy quiet time with a book (and I daresay this forum is rife with them), but especially with the millennial generation and beyond, my fear is that PJ's films will in time become what the majority thinks of when they hear 'hobbit'.
Those of us who would like to put on the brakes a bit, at least in our own lives, can do what we can to transmit our love of reading to our offspring. I think I've made some progress with mine, though I've yet to convince her to read any Tolkien. Then again, she's just 10, so there's hope. ;)

At the core of it, I don't think it's the movies themselves I deplore, but the seeming idea that they and boring, old-fashioned, CGI-less books simply cannot share a stage indefinitely, and that one or the other will fall by the wayside. My money is not on the books to win out. But as Gandalf said, ours isn't to master the tides of the world, but to do our part in our own small way.

As much as I hate to cite this as an example, but I think the frenzy surrounding George R.R. Martin's books might provide something of a rebuttal to your point about the ultimate fate of books.

Yes, we are adrift in a sea of idiots, but in many respects we always have been.

[Inziladun]

As much as I hate to cite this as an example, but I think the frenzy surrounding George R.R. Martin's books might provide something of a rebuttal to your point about the ultimate fate of books.

Yes, we are adrift in a sea of idiots, but in many respects we always have been.

Well, I hope you're right.

I don't know anyone personally outside this forum who is into the Martin books, and few who are even generally as avid a reader as I.

You do see fandoms around book series like Twilight and The Hunger Games, but those seem more like purpose-designed commercial products rather than enduring works of literature. It's just hard to see a future in which books hold their own against high-tech, instant gratification entertainment.

[Tar-Jêx]

You do see fandoms around book series like Twilight and The Hunger Games, but those seem more like purpose-designed commercial products rather than enduring works of literature. It's just hard to see a future in which books hold their own against high-tech, instant gratification entertainment.

I have kept myself out of pop-culture, but it seems like books are being used being used to make money, rather than to be amazing. This is evident when considering fanfiction being turned into a book, and then a movie (50 Shades of Grey). This sort of mindless rubbish should never be written, because there are very few things a 'book' of that genre can do that visual representations can't.

I do despise these sort of things, where people do it to make money, rather than doing it out of personal enjoyment, or because they want to write high quality novels.


The Hobbit movies are already giving a bad representation of the book, and although people are buying the book, a lot of potential customers have been put of by the money-grab-ness of the movies. If the movies were better, and concise, the books would sell a lot more. I guess it just comes down to how the media is treating literature, and they aren't treating it respectfully.

[Inziladun]

The Hobbit movies are already giving a bad representation of the book, and although people are buying the book, a lot of potential customers have been put of by the money-grab-ness of the movies. If the movies were better, and concise, the books would sell a lot more. I guess it just comes down to how the media is treating literature, and they aren't treating it respectfully.

To me, one of the main problems with books today is that it seems potential for movie development instantly supersedes any consideration of the books themselves as stand-alone works. And that isn't good enough, either: it's required to mine well-loved books from the past that are well-written and moving, and subject them to the same treatment.

What really saps my hope for the future status of Tolkien's books in the mainstream is uselessness like this:

http://www.pez.com/images/Hobbit_GiftSet_pv.jpg

But hey, if it sells, go for it! :rolleyes:

[Kuruharan]

You do see fandoms around book series like Twilight.

There are still Twilight fans around..?

What really saps my hope for the future status of Tolkien's books in the mainstream

The mainstream is an icky place to be anyway. All the sewage ends up there.

[Morthoron]

http://www.pez.com/images/Hobbit_GiftSet_pv.jpg

But it does answer the question "What do they eat when they can't get hobbits?"

[Inziladun]

But it does answer the question "What do they eat when they can't get hobbits?"

Could be that was Galadriels' secret lembas ingredient. Frodo and Sam were running on a sugar high. ;)

[Mister Underhill]

Yes, we are adrift in a sea of idiots, but in many respects we always have been.
Optimism! ;)

Faces fell, forlorn
Words of doom, green and eerie
Y'all should google cats

*pops a few tabs of Pez of Westernesse*

*tosses a dwarf*

[Kuruharan]

*tosses a dwarf*


Hey! :eek:

[Mister Underhill]

Hey! :eek:
Only in the name of profit! You can't argue the mass appeal of Dwarf-tossing. Also belching.

*belches*

[Zigûr]

Frustrated to see a post from the "J.R.R. Tolkien" official Facebook page come up today on my Facebook news feed. I don't follow the page myself because it's essentially just a promotional/marketing page for the publishers. A Facebook friend had liked this post so it came up.

It was Gandalf's quote to Pippin from the films, "The Return of the King" specifically, about death; the one that repurposes Frodo's arrival in Valinor, with "all is turned to silver glass" and so forth, and misleadingly uses it to describe some kind of pleasant "afterlife" (as opposed to quiet contemplation in the halls of Mandos).

This was posted with "-J.R.R. Tolkien" below it, as if this film quotation, which repurposes some language from the books, was an exact quote from the man himself.

Absolutely pathetic on the part of the publishers and another piece of evidence for how the films actually do distort the public perception of the author, even if they don't "damage" it.

Some comments pointed this out, fortunately, but it turned into the usual useless "book vs film" argument of the calibre typical of Facebook comments sections.

The palimpsest is in full effect, it would seem.

[Inziladun]

It was Gandalf's quote to Pippin from the films, "The Return of the King" specifically, about death; the one that repurposes Frodo's arrival in Valinor, with "all is turned to silver glass" and so forth, and misleadingly uses it to describe some kind of pleasant "afterlife" (as opposed to quiet contemplation in the halls of Mandos).

Unfortunately, a lack of distinction between books and films was an inevitable consequence of the movies' popularity.

To those who haven't read the books, or are only familiar with them through a single reading, it would seem the films are the definitive version of the story.

To me, that line of Blanchett-Galadriel's along the lines of "even the smallest person can change the world", has stuck in my craw because it wants to put itself forward as the "inner meaning" of LOTR. :rolleyes:

[Zigûr]

Unfortunately, a lack of distinction between books and films was an inevitable consequence of the movies' popularity.
Quite so; it's the official representatives (or at least the publishers) getting in on it that rankles me.

[Nerwen]

Quite so; it's the official representatives (or at least the publishers) getting in on it that rankles me.
Are you sure it's not just a mistake by a lowly intern? I mean, instead of being a directive from higher up?

However, the fact that there apparently wasn't a crackdown on this kind of thing after the much worse example (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=690714&postcount=92) you gave earlier does suggest the publishers are unconcerned about the issue- at the very least.

[Zigûr]

Are you sure it's not just a mistake by a lowly intern? I mean, instead of being a directive from higher up?

However, the fact that there apparently wasn't a crackdown on this kind of thing after the much worse example (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=690714&postcount=92) you gave earlier does suggest the publishers are unconcerned about the issue- at the very least.
I daresay it was just someone from their social media team, but yes I still think it's very poor form that something "official" can be involved in perpetuating this kind of misinformation and misrepresentation.

The thing that irks me (that no one in the comments on the page appears to have grasped) is that attributing a line of film dialogue (albeit one derived from the books) to Professor Tolkien himself is simply sloppy and unprofessional. Of course, it appears that anyone taking objection is simply told "well the movies were inspired by the books so it doesn't matter." It doesn't make it any less misleading, however.

EDIT: Actually I notice that the post doesn't specifically say "-J.R.R. Tolkien" underneath, it just says "J.R.R. Tolkien" and his dates, so it's technically not presenting it as a quote, and I'm making more of a deal out of this than I should. I still think it's peculiar to quote the films (and an idea from the films, which implies that mortal death is like going to some kind of paradise, which isn't what Professor Tolkien actually wrote) in relation to an author who had absolutely nothing to do with the films.