Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[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]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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

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

[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.
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?"