Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

. . . .

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

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.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

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.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Facebook page

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:

Originally Posted by Facebook replier

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.