A 'darker' Hobbit

[Sauron the White]

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

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

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

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

[Elladan and Elrohir]

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

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

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

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

[Sauron the White]

as far as I'm concerned

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

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

[Sauron the White]

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

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

[Sauron the White]

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

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

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

[Sir Kohran]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sauron the White]

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

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

[Sir Kohran]

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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

Yes, but he made good changes in the main, & for good reasons.

[Sauron the White]

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

I have read LOTR at least six times cover to cover and have reread many passages more times than that. That does not make me an expert or anything close. But in my humble opinion, it was a very good adaption that in many ways was far better than I had ever hoped. Was it perfect. Of course not. But then what is?
Korhan has hit upon something. JRRT himself understand that when he sold the book as a film there would be changes. He understood that as an important part of the process of turning a book into a film. And good reasons for those changes abounded and were explained regardless of how anyone accepted them or rejected them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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

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