Adaptation by Vague Recollection

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

Did the 'forgotten' details include an Wood-elf called Tauriel, and a 'romance' between her and Kili?

Apologies for making something serious out of this joke, but this gives me impetus to perhaps add to what I said; I should have said that I:

look back on these sequences in the films as a "retelling" of events that might be elaborated upon in the mind of someone who remembered the episodes in broad strokes but had forgotten the details and thus assumed that no such details existed, and therefore it was up to them to fill them in.

While Tauriel is a deliberate inclusion, I can't help but wonder if a lot of the "changes" exist simply because they couldn't be bothered to read the book closely and see the details that were already there, perhaps because they assumed that, as ostensibly a children's novel, there couldn't be any detail (when in fact there was plenty, but they had simply forgotten that it existed or never noticed in the first place).

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I can't help but wonder if a lot of the "changes" exist simply because they couldn't be bothered to read the book closely and see the details that were already there, perhaps because they assumed that, as ostensibly a children's novel, there couldn't be any detail (when in fact there was plenty, but they had simply forgotten that it existed or never noticed in the first place).

I am in complete agreement with that.

[Faramir Jones]

Zigûr, like Kuruharan, I was interested in what you said here:

While Tauriel is a deliberate inclusion, I can't help but wonder if a lot of the "changes" exist simply because they couldn't be bothered to read the book closely and see the details that were already there, perhaps because they assumed that, as ostensibly a children's novel, there couldn't be any detail (when in fact there was plenty, but they had simply forgotten that it existed or never noticed in the first place).

My opinion is that many of the 'changes' were perhaps due to decisions on how to fill the gap resulting from the decision to have a third film...

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

My opinion is that many of the 'changes' were perhaps due to decisions on how to fill the gap resulting from the decision to have a third film...

The additions certainly are. Supposedly the ludicrous and utterly pointless chase sequence around the interior of the Mountain at the end of the second film was invented purely to pad the running time once the "trilogy" decision had been made.

This of course completely and openly contradicts the reasons Peter Jackson and his team expressed when the trilogy announcement was first made. At that time they claimed the change to a trilogy was to accommodate the presentation of material they had already filmed and were loath to lose.

I suppose they could hardly come out and say "We've been forced to cut it as a trilogy so that it will make more money for greedy, shameless studio executives in Hollywood" but it almost seems crass to effectively admit that the excuses they originally gave were fiction.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

The additions certainly are. Supposedly the ludicrous and utterly pointless chase sequence around the interior of the Mountain at the end of the second film was invented purely to pad the running time once the "trilogy" decision had been made. [...]

You are partially right. This sequence was a result of the idea to turn the story into a trilogy. And yes, it was a dull and boring sequence. However, I don't think the chase sequence at the end of the second film was 'purely' there to pad out the running time. It had a function in the context of the movies. It was invented so that the end of the second film wouldn't feel as anticlimactic as it would have otherwise. It's questionable if it did the job well, but it had a purpose.

[Faramir Jones]

Leaf, I've read what you said here:

However, I don't think the chase sequence at the end of the second film was 'purely' there to pad out the running time. It had a function in the context of the movies. It was invented so that the end of the second film wouldn't feel as anticlimactic as it would have otherwise. It's questionable if it did the job well, but it had a purpose.

You're probably right about the function of the chase sequence. However, it was, in my view, a complete failure. It would have been best to have ended the second film with the death of Smaug; the third film would then have nicely opened with dealing with the consequences of his death, showing that this did not automatically lead to a 'happily ever after'. This struck me when I first read the book, and still does; but Jackson and others couldn't get that right...

[Leaf]

I think the general problem is a kind of incompatibility between typical fantasy-action film motifs and Tolkien's style of writing. The Hobbit novel subverts a lot of expectations.

To name a few:

1. The main antagonist (Smaug) only appears briefly in the story and his demise doesn't accompany the end of the story.

2. It isn't the protagonist who resolves this situation; This is accomplished by a minor character (Bard) who appears very late in the story and is just barely fleshed out.

3. There's no brave hero-character in shining armor, who's struggling against opposition and eventually overcomes his enemies by force and skill. Instead, the protagonist is a Hobbit, which is virtually the opposite of this concept.


Those things weren't seen as a charming detour from the usual fairy tale-route, but as risks which could potentially alienate a general audience from the movies. So they decided to play it safe. That's the reason why we got this mess of subplots and extra stuff (i.e. the Bard back-story) and a complete shift in perspective towards Thorin's story arc. From this viewpoint you can deduce a lot of changes, I think. Especially Bilbo's involvement (or the lack of) and his role in the story.

We have to keep in mind that those movies had a combined budged of about $600 million! And I can understand that, with that kind of investment, you decide to play it safe and just reproduce those well known and proved concepts. It's a shame, really. We won't even ever be able to tell if a general audience is really so petty-minded and resistening to change as this thinking makes them out to be.

Addendum:

I think it's wrong to pin this problem (and the blame) on some supposedly mean-spirited and greedy individuals. It's just the consequence and the logic of an industry that primarily creates content, not as works of art, but as products. That doesn't mean that this duality can't produce some very movies, which are a compromise between art and profit, but as movies are getting more and more expensive to make, innovation and progress seems to cease.