Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[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.

[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.