Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Stephen Fry has 'never read The Hobbit'
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Jun 15 2013, 11:30pm

Post #26 of 38 (299 views)
Shortcut
Agree! [In reply to] Can't Post

I can totally hear him in the story! He's perfect!

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


shadowdog
Rohan

Jun 16 2013, 4:34am

Post #27 of 38 (267 views)
Shortcut
I think [In reply to] Can't Post

Sir Ian read the books during filming and was seen on site clutching a copy. Didn't Peter mention Ian bringing up points from the books?


Yngwulff
Gondor


Jun 16 2013, 6:11am

Post #28 of 38 (269 views)
Shortcut
Sir Christopher Lee [In reply to] Can't Post

Contrarily, has been reading Tolkien since the inception almost, and is quite the Tolkien nerd


Take this Brother May it Serve you Well
Vote for Pedro!


Radagast-Aiwendil
Gondor


Jun 16 2013, 11:43am

Post #29 of 38 (223 views)
Shortcut
Ian McKellen had never read LotR when he was cast as Gandalf [In reply to] Can't Post

And yet his performance is easily the best of the series, in my opinion. So there's nothing to worry about.

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."-Gandalf


ShireHorse
Rohan

Jun 16 2013, 12:14pm

Post #30 of 38 (212 views)
Shortcut
Perhaps "excuses" is the wrong word, demnation, [In reply to] Can't Post

and "reasons" is a better one. My training means that I cannot, sadly, read a book without analysing it. If I feel that a book has "problems" and the author is one whom I respect, like Tolkien, rather than just dismissing it as bad writing, I try to find reasons to explain why he wrote that way.

An example would be the way that TH reaches a climax with the death of Smaug - and then continues - not in a small, tidying up way, but for chapters. It startled me the first time I read the book and many of the children I read it with yawned and questioned the structure. For myself and for my pupils, I had to find a reason - and I found quite a few in the end that satisfied all concerned and provided us with some good discussion material about the different ways in which to write a story.

One reason, I felt, was Tolkien's Anglo-Saxon background and I think that the structure of Beowulf is influencing him here where the climax at first seems to be the deaths of Grendel and his mother; but, like TH, the story drifts on further into Beowulf's old age where his final downfall is brought about by pride. The author was saying something more about the heroic ideal just as Tolkien, I decided, was saying more about war and conflict, even if many (not all, I know) children, reading this children's book, found it tiresome. You'll be pleased to know, now that I feel I understand, I now love this part of the book. Jackson, however, will have a tough time convincing his audience, just as I did mine, that they shouldn't lose interest once Smaug is dead.

In the same way as I found reasons to explain what appeared to be bad writing in TH, so I quite easily found reasons to explain why PJ, as a film-maker, telling the story in a different medium, had to make changes in AUJ. Once I understood his reasons, I have come to love the film.

On an added note: after my son had seen the film of Beowulf, he phoned me to assure me that I wouldn't like it since he knew that I had read it in the original Anglo-Saxon and they had messed around with the story-line. (A naked Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother, anyone?) But, I thought the changes were very clever, helped to tie in various disparate ideas from the original poem and reached out to a modern audience. Loved it. Jackson is doing similar things, but without the nudity, LOL!

Thank you for asking that question, demnation. It made me think a bit.


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Jun 16 2013, 2:06pm

Post #31 of 38 (185 views)
Shortcut
Good Post SH [In reply to] Can't Post

Agree entirely. For one thing a movie is not a book. The stories are conveyed to the audience differently. A book has many pages to set up a scene. A movie only has a short period of time due to the confines of a running time. This is why, for instance, Bombadil was not in FOTR. Many people railed on the fact that he was not included but honestly, he would not have fit in the overall context of the film. He was great in Tolkien's story, but in film he would not have worked. Also a movie is played to a very varied audience. Young, old, people who like fantasy, those who do not, people familiar with the source, those who are new to it etc. It has to appeal visually to both. In this respect a movie depends on visuals to get the point across.

Changes have to be made to a story to adapt it to film. That's why it's called an "adapted screenplay". I think you kind of have to keep an open mind about the source. I felt the same way about Girl with the Dragon Tatoo. The books and film were different in many respects but I really enjoyed both and same with The Hobbit.

A good example ironically of adaptation is Gatiss and Moffit's Sherlock. They took ACD's stories and characters, set them in the modern era, updated the characters and set them in a context I think that people can related to. It has added an entire breath of fresh air to ACD's original stories as well as invigorated people to read the originals as well as enjoy the modern adaptation. Freeman and Cumberbatch completely relaunched that entire canon with their performances and the writing, although based on the source material, is not a slave to it.

Thank you for your questions, now go sod off and do something useful - Martin Freeman Twitter chat 3/1/13


Elenorflower
Gondor


Jun 17 2013, 4:02pm

Post #32 of 38 (130 views)
Shortcut
LOL [In reply to] Can't Post

that made me giggle Wink


Elenorflower
Gondor


Jun 17 2013, 4:05pm

Post #33 of 38 (138 views)
Shortcut
I shouldnt have thought [In reply to] Can't Post

it would make much difference, PJs Master is going to be very different from the book. The Master in the book was a selfish greedy egotist but he wasnt gross neither did he eat testicles, so I dont think the book would have been any help.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jun 17 2013, 10:54pm

Post #34 of 38 (110 views)
Shortcut
Testicles are considered a delicacy in France (in the category offal) [In reply to] Can't Post

I once ate them at a cookery photo shoot involving one of the world's best cooks (of the last few decades), who learned all of his culinary skills in France and was very much respected there.


In Reply To
it would make much difference, PJs Master is going to be very different from the book. The Master in the book was a selfish greedy egotist but he wasnt gross neither did he eat testicles, so I dont think the book would have been any help.



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Jun 17 2013, 10:55pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Jun 17 2013, 11:52pm

Post #35 of 38 (106 views)
Shortcut
I have eaten testicles before as well [In reply to] Can't Post

though...i wont say where they came from...Angelic

Vous commencez ŕ m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jun 18 2013, 8:53am

Post #36 of 38 (90 views)
Shortcut
Congratulations! [In reply to] Can't Post

They are certainly tasty…


In Reply To
though...i wont say where they came from...Angelic



aarondirebear
Bree

Jul 26 2013, 2:50pm

Post #37 of 38 (63 views)
Shortcut
no [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
it is probably a good thing Mr. Fry ha not read the book.


No, it is not.
And there ought to be a law.
Actors, directors, crewmen, writers, everyone involved in an adaptation should be required by law to read the source material.

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien


aarondirebear
Bree

Jul 26 2013, 2:55pm

Post #38 of 38 (68 views)
Shortcut
tired cliche [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Agree entirely. For one thing a movie is not a book. The stories are conveyed to the audience differently. A book has many pages to set up a scene. A movie only has a short period of time due to the confines of a running time. This is why, for instance, Bombadil was not in FOTR. Many people railed on the fact that he was not included but honestly, he would not have fit in the overall context of the film. He was great in Tolkien's story, but in film he would not have worked. Also a movie is played to a very varied audience. Young, old, people who like fantasy, those who do not, people familiar with the source, those who are new to it etc. It has to appeal visually to both. In this respect a movie depends on visuals to get the point across.

Changes have to be made to a story to adapt it to film. That's why it's called an "adapted screenplay". I think you kind of have to keep an open mind about the source. I felt the same way about Girl with the Dragon Tatoo. The books and film were different in many respects but I really enjoyed both and same with The Hobbit.

A good example ironically of adaptation is Gatiss and Moffit's Sherlock. They took ACD's stories and characters, set them in the modern era, updated the characters and set them in a context I think that people can related to. It has added an entire breath of fresh air to ACD's original stories as well as invigorated people to read the originals as well as enjoy the modern adaptation. Freeman and Cumberbatch completely relaunched that entire canon with their performances and the writing, although based on the source material, is not a slave to it.


You do not HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES! There is no law nor any obligation to conform to some HOllywood standard. A movie adaptation can be failthul, accurate, and good at the same time.
I am sick and tired of the cliche argument of "movies and books tell stories differently" because it holds no water. What part of "movies have to be different" justifies the Bunny Sled?

"Others are inclined to say that any two stories that are built round the same folk-lore motive, or are made up of a generally similar combination of such motives, are "the same stories." Statements of that kind are not true, they are not true in art or literature. It is precisely the colouring, the atmosphere, the unclassifiable individual details of a story, and above all the general purport that informs with life the undissected bones of the plot, that really count." J.R.R. Tolkien

(This post was edited by Hengist on Jul 26 2013, 3:14pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.