Peter Producing Poetic Pictures - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Zigûr · 10-27-2015, 09:10 AM

This more fits on an adaptational level, but one thing which has occurred to me is that both texts were changed in order to shift the general tone and focus. Allow me to explain.

Some (excuse the weasel words) critics, reductively in my opinion, and usually deriving in some respects from the works of Northrop Frye, define a 'novel' and a 'romance' more or less as follows:
A 'novel' is character-driven and its narrative is the story of a character's development.
A 'romance' is plot-driven and its narrative is the story of a series of grand events: a journey, quest, war, etc.

That's over-simplified, but enough to get my point across.

In that sense, The Hobbit is, while in many respects heavily romantic, at a fundamental level a 'novelistic' text, as its primary focus, I would argue, is Bilbo's character development.

The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, is more overtly romantic, as it deals with the efforts of both individuals and whole societies to resist the Shadow. It is, of course, to an extent 'novelistic' according to the above definition as characters do change, but its focus is arguably different.

Turning to the films:
The films of "The Lord of the Rings" make the 'romantic' text more 'novelistic' by focusing more on character development: Aragorn, particularly, has to overcome self-doubt and embrace his responsibilities. (In hindsight, however, in Jackson's films many characters actually develop less than they do in the source material, if I think about it - Merry and Frodo stand out as characters who actually seem to develop less in the film)

The films of "The Hobbit", by contrast, make the 'novelistic' text more 'romantic' by focusing on the grandiose: grand strategies of war drawn up by Sauron, Thorin's desire not just for revenge and gold but a re-established homeland, etc. Bilbo's personal character arc falls seriously by the wayside because this film broadens its focus.

In that way, I would argue, it's possible that as adaptations both sets of films try to hybridise the source material with a different "mode" of text. I admit it's not the most robust argument ever formulated but I think it has something.

Faramir Jones · 11-03-2015, 08:42 AM

Zigûr, this sentence of yours summed up my main dislike of Jackson's Hobbit adaptations: 'Bilbo's personal character arc falls seriously by the wayside because this film broadens its focus'. The Hobbit was supposed to be Tolkien's 'edition' of Bilbo's memoirs, which as memoirs do revolved around himself, the 'author'. What Jackson and others did was to turn it into something completely different...

William Cloud Hicklin · 11-05-2015, 09:18 PM

Actually, the real "rhyming" is between Lucas' and Jackson's careers. Both start as talked-about directors of low-budget, cult-hit genre pictures (THX-1138, Brain Dead) who then hit the mainstream with a critical and commercial success (American Graffiti, Heavenly Creatures), then really explode with a trilogy which is a gigantic pop-culture capital-E Event that makes bazillions, follow that up with a bloated, high-budget bomb (Howard the Duck, King Kong) and a failed attempt at a high-profile genre picture (Willow, The Lovely Bones), then finally attempt to relive past glories with a really poor "prequel" trilogy which in many ways is just an inferior but overwrought remake.

OTOH, Jackson never co-produced an Indiana Jones...

Zigûr · 11-06-2015, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

OTOH, Jackson never co-produced an Indiana Jones...

He is, however, producer of the (in my opinion dreadful) modern Tintin adaptation, apparently to eventually be a series, the first of which was directed by Spielberg, who also directed Indiana Jones, and who was introduced to Tintin when French journalists compared "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to it.

So the parallels are pretty striking.

Speaking of Jackson's King Kong, apparently it received good reviews. I remember thinking as a 16 year old that it was CGI-ridden rubbish.

William Cloud Hicklin · 11-06-2015, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Speaking of Jackson's King Kong, apparently it received good reviews. I remember thinking as a 16 year old that it was CGI-ridden rubbish.

I remember thinking as a 44 year old that it was CGI-ridden rubbish.

10-27-2015, 09:10 AM	#1
Zigûr Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 785	This more fits on an adaptational level, but one thing which has occurred to me is that both texts were changed in order to shift the general tone and focus. Allow me to explain. Some (excuse the weasel words) critics, reductively in my opinion, and usually deriving in some respects from the works of Northrop Frye, define a 'novel' and a 'romance' more or less as follows: A 'novel' is character-driven and its narrative is the story of a character's development. A 'romance' is plot-driven and its narrative is the story of a series of grand events: a journey, quest, war, etc. That's over-simplified, but enough to get my point across. In that sense, The Hobbit is, while in many respects heavily romantic, at a fundamental level a 'novelistic' text, as its primary focus, I would argue, is Bilbo's character development. The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, is more overtly romantic, as it deals with the efforts of both individuals and whole societies to resist the Shadow. It is, of course, to an extent 'novelistic' according to the above definition as characters do change, but its focus is arguably different. Turning to the films: The films of "The Lord of the Rings" make the 'romantic' text more 'novelistic' by focusing more on character development: Aragorn, particularly, has to overcome self-doubt and embrace his responsibilities. (In hindsight, however, in Jackson's films many characters actually develop less than they do in the source material, if I think about it - Merry and Frodo stand out as characters who actually seem to develop less in the film) The films of "The Hobbit", by contrast, make the 'novelistic' text more 'romantic' by focusing on the grandiose: grand strategies of war drawn up by Sauron, Thorin's desire not just for revenge and gold but a re-established homeland, etc. Bilbo's personal character arc falls seriously by the wayside because this film broadens its focus. In that way, I would argue, it's possible that as adaptations both sets of films try to hybridise the source material with a different "mode" of text. I admit it's not the most robust argument ever formulated but I think it has something. __________________ "Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried Éomer.

11-03-2015, 08:42 AM	#2
Faramir Jones Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Lonely Isle Posts: 706	Well said Zigûr, this sentence of yours summed up my main dislike of Jackson's Hobbit adaptations: 'Bilbo's personal character arc falls seriously by the wayside because this film broadens its focus'. The Hobbit was supposed to be Tolkien's 'edition' of Bilbo's memoirs, which as memoirs do revolved around himself, the 'author'. What Jackson and others did was to turn it into something completely different...

11-05-2015, 09:18 PM	#3
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	Actually, the real "rhyming" is between Lucas' and Jackson's careers. Both start as talked-about directors of low-budget, cult-hit genre pictures (THX-1138, Brain Dead) who then hit the mainstream with a critical and commercial success (American Graffiti, Heavenly Creatures), then really explode with a trilogy which is a gigantic pop-culture capital-E Event that makes bazillions, follow that up with a bloated, high-budget bomb (Howard the Duck, King Kong) and a failed attempt at a high-profile genre picture (Willow, The Lovely Bones), then finally attempt to relive past glories with a really poor "prequel" trilogy which in many ways is just an inferior but overwrought remake. OTOH, Jackson never co-produced an Indiana Jones... __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.