The Hobbit in July 2007?

[davem]

Well, Tolkien regretted the worst excesses of the childish tone. but I don't think he ever regretted the fact that TH is a children's story, & his attempt at revision was not to make TH more 'adult' as such, merely to try & make it fit more closely with the developed mythology. That's what he couldn't do, because TH was written before the Mythology was developed (at least as far as the Third Age went).

What Tolkien would have done, had he finished his revision, would have been to turn TH from a wonderful children's fairy story, a tale that can stand on its own, into a mere prequel to LotR. TH would have been diminished into nothing but a 'set up', & put in the service of something else.

TH is in many ways the best introduction to Tolkien's mythological world - even though it doesn't 'fit' properly, & its certainly the best introduction for children. The idea of taking that introduction away from them in order to please the Leggy-boppers & the teenage boys who want to see Orc blood splattering the screen is a sad one to me. In the book the 'horror' & violence is distanced, only referred to, & the last battle is not described. In any movie it would all be there, graphically depicted. Bilbo stabbing the spiders in Mirkwood would be there on screen, Beorn rending apart Goblins would be there, Fili & Kili would fall (like Haldir) in slo-mo before Thorin recieived his mortal wounding, etc.

Now, any reader who saw that kind of movie would never be able to read TH in the same way again. You'd have to avoid the movie altogether if you wanted to retain the simple charm of 'In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.....in the morning of the world, when there was less noise & more green'.

Can you make the Hobbit movie that movie fans & producers want without trashing the innocent, light-hearted, 'high adventure' mood of the book? No. Adding in to TH the kind of violence & brutality that fans of the LotR movies expect & removing the silliness, the innocence, is effectively pornographising (yes, its a real word apparently!) the story. Its taking something which belongs by right to children & making it harsher & darker purely in order to sate the jaded palates of 'adults' who have fed to long & too deeply on the Hostels & Die Hards, & require darkness & brutality & ugliness in their movies. Remove the songs & the silly jokes that child readers love purely in order that the teenagers don't feel 'embarrassed' & start throwing their popcorn at the screen.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... since popping up here a bit ago I have read many of your posts. You certainly have a great deal of knowledge about JRRT and his writings and I respect that. You have probably forgotten more about JRRT than I could ever hope to learn. But - in my humble opinion as an outsider - I do think you weaken your own positions by throwing in heavy handed judgments and value laden terms that attempt to strengthen your own position while they denigrate others. In your post above you talk about "TRASHING" the HOBBIT if certain changes are made. You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

American Heritage Dictionary
por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

.

[Sauron the White]

Perhaps I should grab a handy dictionary and define the word ABSURD?

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem ... since popping up here a bit ago I have read many of your posts. You certainly have a great deal of knowledge about JRRT and his writings and I respect that. You have probably forgotten more about JRRT than I could ever hope to learn. But - in my humble opinion as an outsider - I do think you weaken your own positions by throwing in heavy handed judgments and value laden terms that attempt to strengthen your own position while they denigrate others. In your post above you talk about "TRASHING" the HOBBIT if certain changes are made. You then compare this to PORNOGRAPHY which is utter nonsense and ridiculous.

How do these flights of bloated verbage further this discussion?

I have to agree here. Criticising PJ's vision of Middle-Earth is one thing. Comparing it to pornography is quite another, and is stupid, inappropriate and downright offensive.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I have to agree here. Criticising PJ's vision of Middle-Earth is one thing. Comparing it to pornography is quite another, and is stupid, inappropriate and downright offensive.

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

And I think its best to avoid calling other people's posts 'stupid'. I offered a reasoned argument & offered a justification for the points I made. I even managed to demonstrate that a word may have more meanings than the usual one. I don't think I threw around insulting comments like 'stupid' & 'absurd'. I tend to avoid such, being that I am able to argue rationally.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

The Jackson films also had moments of sheer beauty, kindness and emotional strength, tenderness and a sense of wonder. A term like 'bathetic' is an opinion which you certainly are entitled to. It is obvious that the larger part of the fim going world thought otherwise and thought so very clearly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from davem

PJ's version revelled in ugliness, brutality, gore & bad jokes. Apart from that it was embarrassingly bathetic.

The Jackson films also had moments of sheer beauty, kindness and emotional strength, tenderness and a sense of wonder. A term like 'bathetic' is an opinion which you certainly are entitled to. It is obvious that the larger part of the fim going world thought otherwise and thought so very clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of the larger part of the film going world's opinion on anything, given the trash that Hollywood turns out. They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare. Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.

In my opinion at least. There was more depth & profundity & beauty in any five minutes of Pan's Labyrinth than in the whole 12 + hours of the LotR movies.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare.

So yes indeed, everyone marching in the large parade is out of step but Johnny.