|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
calisuri
PTB
Aug 23 2012, 8:26pm
Post #1 of 282
(13175 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Discuss Ostadan's 'Jackson Hobbit: Too Much?'
|
Can't Post
|
|
The following is an editorial by long-time staffer and original Green Books contributor Ostadan and does not necessarily represent the opinion of our entire staff:
Most people agree that Jackson’s film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings was both an artistic and commercial success. For many fans of the book, it was as good an adaptation as they had any reasonable right to expect (although with some questionable choices); for those who did not know the books or did not remember them well, it served as an introduction to Tolkien’s work. For my part, although there were numerous scenes and bits of dialogue that were distracting — whether because they strayed unnecessarily far from Tolkien’s text (Denethor), or because it simply didn’t ring true to the story at hand (the very over-the-top Hollywood treatment of the Army of the Dead) — there was much more that did feel like reading The Lord of the Rings for the first time. This is very important to me in watching a cinematic book adaptation, even if it is not fully "faithful", whether the work in question is The Lord of the Rings or Watership Down. In some undefinable way, the film should remind me of the experience of reading the book so that I feel that I am reading a translation of a sort, rather than a new work "inspired" by the original.
When the first teaser trailer for Jackson’s The Hobbit appeared, I had a mixed reaction. While it was nice to see Rivendell and Gandalf again, and the casting of Martin Freeman is inspired — not even Jackson’s harshest critics could find much wrong with his casting in The Lord of the Rings — the only time it invoked the feeling of reading The Hobbit was the portrayal of the Dwarves singing at that unexpected party. The rest of the trailer felt more to me like "More The Lord of the Rings Footage" (in 3D, as the incongruous solid block letters proudly announced). It seemed that Jackson wanted to make The Hobbit over into the image of The Lord of the Rings, which is a troubling idea. Since then, we have learned a fair bit of what Jackson has been adding to the story of The Hobbit, and with the decision to go to a three-film adaptation, one might infer with some justification that Jackson (who, it will be remembered, did not originally intend to direct these films) does not really like The Hobbit very much as a book, and considers it to be a kind of simple-minded early attempt by Tolkien before settling down to the more weighty and serious matters of The Lord of the Rings. A book suitable only for children, and not sufficiently epic in scope for a feature film.
As the director, he is entitled to this opinion of the book, and indeed it is one shared by some Tolkien fans as well. No justification or defense is needed, although one can well criticize the decision from a filmmaking or storytelling standpoint (about which more later). What is far more troubling is that Jackson has attempted to justify this by hinting that he’s just doing what Tolkien himself would have done, and has made statements bordering on misleading and self-serving revisionism, to put it politely. Consider the interview reported by Mike Fleming of deadline.com from the San Diego Comic-Con:
"That goes back to JRR Tolkien writing The Hobbit first, for children, and only after did he develop his mythology much more over the 16 or 17 years later when The Lord of the Rings came out, which is way more epic and mythic and serious."
Here already, Jackson is glossing over the context in which The Hobbit was written: as most Tolkien fans know, the "mythology" had been developed for more than 16 years before the writing of The Hobbit. Elrond, the Necromancer Sauron (or Thû), the tale of Gondolin, the ancient quarrel of the Dwarves and Thingol … these were all established parts of Tolkien’s mythology; as he wrote (Letters, #19, 1937), The Hobbit began as, "a comic tale among conventional and inconsistent Grimm’s fairy-tale dwarves, and got drawn into the edge of [the mythology] – so that even Sauron the terrible peeped over the edge." The mythology impinged itself on The Hobbit as it was written, not as a new idea resulting from the writing of The Lord of the Rings. But of course, Jackson has no rights to The Silmarillion; perhaps this is why he chooses to omit this information. But more likely, it would lend less credence to his assumption that The Hobbit is just a sketchy first attempt at The Lord of the Rings.
Jackson continues,
"What people have to realize is we’ve adapted The Hobbit, plus taken this additional 125 pages of notes, that’s what you’d call them. Because Tolkien himself was planning the rewrite The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings, to make it speak to the story of The Lord of the Rings much more."
Riddles in the Dark, by David Wenzel
Well, no, that is not what I would call them. The Appendices for The Lord of the Rings were certainly not notes or jottings to make The Hobbit speak to the later story more; they were an intrinsic part of the writing of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien did, famously, rewrite the Riddles in the Dark chapter (as he was completing The Lord of the Rings) to bring that critical matter of plot in line with the narrative – the newly established facts, if you will – of the later book, but as he wrote to Stanley Unwin in 1947 (Letters, #109), "Talking about revising The Hobbit. Any alteration of any radical kind is of course impossible, and unnecessary." Where, then, does Jackson get the idea that he was planning a rewrite? Even though, as Tolkien reports, readers wanted to know more about Gandalf, the Necromancer, and so on, it was not his intent to alter the narrative of The Hobbit to provide those answers; that was done quite well by the later book. Indeed, that is one of the reasons it was begun!
"In the novel, Gandalf disappears for various patches of time. In 1936, when Tolkien was writing that book, he didn’t have a clue what Gandalf was doing."
Since Gandalf does tell us what he was doing, though without unnecessary details, this is an extremely odd thing to say. The storytelling purpose of Gandalf’s absence, of course, is explained by Tolkien in a letter (Letters, #257, 1964): "[The Necromancer’s function] … was hardly more than to provide a reason for Gandalf going away and laving Bilbo and the Dwarves to fend for themselves, which was necessary for the tale." Tolkien had a good sense of what was necessary in his story.
But now Jackson really leaves the track:
"But later on, when he did The Lord of the Rings and he’d hit on this whole epic story, he was going to go back and revise The Hobbit and he wrote all these notes about how Gandalf disappears and was really investigating the possible return of Sauron, the villain from The Lord of the Rings. Sauron doesn’t appear at all in The Hobbit. Tolkien was retrospectively fitting The Hobbit to embrace that mythology. He never wrote that book, but there are 125 pages of notes published at the back of Return of the King in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially his expanded Hobbit notes."
I am surprised that Tolkien fans, no matter how much they may love Jackson’s films so far, have been quiet and let him get away with this revisionist (to put it politely) history. If such a thing had been written by, say, George Lucas, everyone would be loudly calling him out for promulgating such claptrap; but — so far — Jackson has not squandered the fans’ goodwill as Lucas did.
Again, the Appendices are certainly by no stretch of the imagination a collection of notes for a revised version of The Hobbit: they were published with the first edition of The Return of the King, not thrown in as an afterthought "in one of the later editions." The history of the Appendices, including early drafts and some material that was evidently omitted in haste to get the finished volume to the publisher in time, can be found in Christopher Tolkien’s History of Middle-earth series. And as the 1937 letter quoted earlier demonstrates, Tolkien certainly knew that the Necromancer was indeed Sauron the terrible when he wrote The Hobbit.
"So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them.… We haven’t just adapted The Hobbit; we’ve adapted that book plus great chunks of his appendices and woven it all together. The movie explains where Gandalf goes; the book never does. We’ve explained it using Tolkien’s own notes. That helped inform the tone of the movie, because it allowed us to pull in material he wrote in The Lord of the Rings era and incorporate it with The Hobbit."
Tolkien did, around 1960, undertake to revise The Hobbit substantially to bring the narrative more in line with The Lord of the Rings. From the manuscripts of the chapters he completed (which can be found in John D. Rateliff’s The Story of The Hobbit (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2007)), he altered the narrative style (omitting the first- and second-person asides) and tried, without success, to get the geography, times, and distances (including moon phases) to be consistent with the maps and text that had been published. He did not, notably, significantly alter the names nor dialogue of the Trolls, as an example of the sort of revision that he did not feel was productive; nor is there any basis in this material for inferring that he would have digressed into extensive details of the off-stage action involving the Necromancer.
In Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings, even when the adaptation diverged greatly from the text (lack of Bombadil, Arwen filling in for Glorfindel), it was not hard to see why Jackson made these decisions from a storytelling standpoint (story pacing in the case of Bombadil, and introducing Aragorn’s love story more visibly at an early stage). In the case of The Hobbit, the book as it stands presents far fewer difficulties for a screenwriter. It has a straightforward story-line, in an almost perfectly standard Hollywood three-act pattern rising to a climactic battle and a swift denouement. And it is first and foremost Bilbo’s story. The title of the book is not The Quest for Erebor; it is The Hobbit, and almost every page of the story is from Bilbo’s point of view. In fact, bringing in the whole White Council B-plot creates story problems that must be solved. If it is simply a side matter to explain Gandalf’s absence, then it serves no purpose to the main story (rather like the unnecessary excursion to Osgiliath in Jackson’s The Two Towers). On the other hand, if it does affect the main story, then the result must be major changes to the last few chapters of the book. And so we have speculation about whether Radagast will be at the Battle of Five Armies, the sort of question which makes me cringe. And for what? To create unneeded connections between this film and The Lord of the Rings.
Jackson has decided to make The Hobbit into a "prequel", and this itself creates problems. Prequels can be well done, but too often they fall into the trap of going through a lot of narrative complexity just to retroactively set up the story. Lewis’s The Magician’s Nephew, a prequel written after The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in his Narnia series, isn’t a bad story, but goes through some absurd machinations to explain the mysterious appearance of a lamp-post in the middle of a snowy woodland in the earlier volume. If this book is read first, it spoils the earlier volume: Narnia is no longer a mysterious land to be discovered, with the magical lamp-post improbably burning in the wood; it is a familiar land, and one might well wonder why so much effort is being spent to re-introduce it, and Aslan. In the case of The Hobbit, the book is not a prequel, and can (and should) be read first as an introduction to Tolkien’s world. But by being framed as a prequel, the film can never serve as an introduction to Middle-earth to viewers five or twenty-five years from now, for it will be filled with unnecessary and confusing characters ("My dear Frodo …") and events that depend entirely upon the earlier films for comprehension. Nor will it encourage people to read the book as The Lord of the Rings did in its time, for prospective readers will quickly recognize the difference in tone and subject matter between the film and book, and will likely (as Jackson seemingly does) consider the book to be far inferior and not worth their time. Nor can I easily imagine what a child who has just read The Hobbit for the first time, and decides to watch this film before reading The Lord of the Rings will make of it. Nothing good, I think.
Let me be clear here: I am not arguing for a pure-and-faithful verbatim rendering of The Hobbit. I do not expect nor want the film to attempt to represent the chatty narration of the book, nor to give us childlike Elves in Rivendell who sing "fa-la-li-lolly." (although having them sing Sindarin that Bilbo, ignorant of Elvish, thinks sounds like that would be marvelous). But there is likewise no compelling reason to add Frodo, Galadriel, Radagast, Saruman, and (perhaps most alarmingly from a certain standpoint) a speaking role for Sauron, nor a fan-fiction account of the Nazgûl and the battle of Dol Guldur, no matter how well-executed.
It should be remembered, after all, that in 1960, Tolkien abandoned the attempt to rewrite The Hobbit, partly because it was impractical, and partly because a friend who read what he had written told him that it was wonderful but, "it’s not The Hobbit." He settled for minor revisions to the text (e.g., the mention of mithril) for the 1965 edition. Peter Jackson, it seems, does not trust Tolkien’s judgment in this matter. One can only hope that he can somehow make something coherent out of all this material so that, if it isn’t The Hobbit, it will at any rate be an entertaining film trilogy. But it does seem a shame that Jackson missed his opportunity to make the definitive film adaptation of the book that Tolkien wrote:
The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a "fairy-story", for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting — and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit’s development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return.
— J.R.R. Tolkien (Letter to Milton Waldman)
=======================================
Ostadan is a long time contributor to TheOneRing.net and an original member of the Green Books team. He can be reached via email at ostadan@theonering.net.
(This post was edited by Silverlode on Aug 24 2012, 3:06am)
|
|
|
acheron
Gondor
Aug 23 2012, 8:43pm
Post #2 of 282
(9241 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you for writing this... I agree with just about all of it, and I think stretching the story out to three films will just exacerbate the problem. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Sinister71
Tol Eressea
Aug 23 2012, 8:59pm
Post #3 of 282
(9202 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree with everything said in here!!!!!!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
 bout time someone in he media said what many people are thinking. I agree 100% with what was said here.
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Aug 23 2012, 11:43pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 23 2012, 9:02pm
Post #4 of 282
(9389 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Interesting read - can't say I agree with all of it though.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For instance:
I am surprised that Tolkien fans, no matter how much they may love Jackson’s films so far, have been quiet and let him get away with this revisionist (to put it politely) history. If such a thing had been written by, say, George Lucas, everyone would be loudly calling him out for promulgating such claptrap; but — so far — Jackson has not squandered the fans’ goodwill as Lucas did.
Aren't we all taught not to judge a book by it's cover? I'll wait until I see the finished product before signing the "let's bring PJ down" petition.
All in all, it's a very cynical way of looking at the trilogy. I didn't pick out any positives, which there certainly are.
|
|
|
NottaSackville
Valinor
Aug 23 2012, 9:06pm
Post #5 of 282
(9226 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I will go and almost certainly love the Hobbit movie, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with every word you've written here. I truly wish Jackson had chosen differently. And worse, I fear he has ruined any future remake as well - if this one is a commercial success, who will dare in the future to NOT include the Dull Gelder (yes, that is a reference to doing this for the money) storyline.
Notta
How will you get to the Lonely Mountain?
Help TORn log enough miles to get us to Smaug's home by Dec. 2013: Walk to Rivendell - Thursdays on Main (image courtesy of Arwen's daughter)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Aug 23 2012, 9:08pm
Post #6 of 282
(9317 views)
Shortcut
|
I haven't read the article yet. I will. I will probably agree with some things and disagree with others. But I predict that regardless of my ratio, even if it's 100% in agreement, I'll be happy to purchase and have and so many hours of high production value Middle Earth content. Some people see that attitude as compromising the artistic integrity of the book itself. And while I might entirely agree, I rather enjoy living in the story that much longer.
|
|
|
TomthePilgrim
Rohan
Aug 23 2012, 9:26pm
Post #7 of 282
(9121 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you for posting this . . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
. . . very informative in some areas . . . I knew there were modifications to the Hobbit (I've read both versions) but was unaware a major rewrite was considered by Prof. Tolkien.
I agree with much of what was said . . . although I do not concur on his opinion about the casting choices in the LOTR (IMO, there were a few glaring miscastings), and I do believe that PJ likes the Hobbit.
I now understand why PJ didn't want to direct. He believed GDT was more able to direct the Hobbit in a more innocent way, one not effected by the way that PJ directed the trilogy. PJ wasn'r sure he could do justice to the Hobbit (at least, do justice to the spirit of the Hobbit) . . . and I'm afraid he may be right.
We will soon see . . . hopefully PJ resists the need to justify his treatment of the LOTR by making the Hobbit . . . unrecognizable in sprit, even if the story itself remains.
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
"Thorin sat up with a start. 'Something is not right,' he muttered to himself as he stood up and
looked towards the mirror . . . . . . . . . 'Durin's bones', he gasped, 'what's happened to my beard?'"
|
|
|
thirdeblue
The Shire
Aug 23 2012, 9:39pm
Post #8 of 282
(9310 views)
Shortcut
|
Have you ever heard a cover of a Beatles song and thought the cover was better than the original? I hear that all the time. The Beatles were great songwriters, possibly second to none, but I don't think the Beatles created the best versions of their own songs.
I view The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings the same way. For what they are, they are great, but the versions as written, I don't believe are the best versions of the stories that could be told.
I don't want The Hobbit as written, with children as the target audience. The Hobbit, in comparison to The Lord of the Rings feels trite and a little bit silly. The skeleton of a great, epic fantasy story, however, is apparent throughout.
What I want, and I'm glad to know is what I'll be getting, is The Hobbit in the mold of the Lord of the Rings - serious, fantasy war films, or as Randy Cook once described The Lord of the Rings, "Ray Harryhausen meets David Lean." Granted, it's not The Hobbit.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Aug 23 2012, 9:39pm
Post #9 of 282
(9183 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Unless they add a green tint ... then you won't purchase it ;-) /
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Aug 23 2012, 9:45pm
Post #10 of 282
(9103 views)
Shortcut
|
And that's why, the more I hear about what Jackson is planning to do to these movies, my enthusiasm continues to wane.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Aug 23 2012, 9:45pm
Post #11 of 282
(9212 views)
Shortcut
|
No. I've never heard a Beatles cover I liked better. Not once. Not ever.
The only cover that comes to mind as truly superior than the original is Manfred Mann's cover of Springsteen's "Blinded By The Light."
I agree with the sentiment though. Imagine if no one was ever allowed to remake a Shakespeare play.
|
|
|
Carne
Tol Eressea
Aug 23 2012, 9:52pm
Post #12 of 282
(9166 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I honestly don't mind most of these additions
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some people seem to get very worked up by Jackson adding additional material (like what Gandalf does in between), but I'm happy they include this. Tauriel I don't mind either, nor the three movies, at all.
I definitely do not get the comparisons between Jackson and Lucas. The SW prequels at horrible acting, writing, full of plot holes and so on. The Hobbit is based on existing material so I'm not worried.
I don't know, people go in to panic mode every time a change is mentioned.
(This post was edited by Carne on Aug 23 2012, 9:53pm)
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Aug 23 2012, 9:53pm
Post #13 of 282
(9170 views)
Shortcut
|
I will purchase The Hobbit trilogy with The Green Tint if and only if Jackson meets with fans in a live dialogue about The Green Tint to confirm in person that the static blanket of green from the titles through the credits was an intentional choice above and beyond beyond the color grading. But I don't think it will be there.
|
|
|
Pipe Dream
Gondor
Aug 23 2012, 10:07pm
Post #14 of 282
(9087 views)
Shortcut
|
There is no compelling reason to add Frodo, Galadriel, Radagast, Saruman, and (perhaps most alarmingly from a certain standpoint) a speaking role for Sauron, nor a fan-fiction account of the Nazgûl and the battle of Dol Guldur, no matter how well-executed.
Why not? It's Middle-earth on film. That should be reason enough. We will never see it at this level of production ever again in our lifetime, probably ever. Too much Hobbit? That's an oxymoron, how can one ever have too much Tolkien? It's a completely impossible absurdity, embellishment or not.
"There is a long road yet," said Gandalf. "But it is the last road," said Bilbo.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Aug 23 2012, 10:16pm
Post #16 of 282
(9212 views)
Shortcut
|
Though it's a little late, as we knew we were getting the Hobbit plus Dol Guldur over a year ago.
Having accepted that we are getting a prequel, I think three films is a better vehicle than two. IMO, two films would have resulted in the main hobbit story being crowded out by the other invented material. Three films will give Bilbo more time to breathe amidst all the extra non-hobbit Gandalf and friends stuff.
We shall see.
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Aug 23 2012, 10:23pm
Post #17 of 282
(9028 views)
Shortcut
|
I think i will reserve judgement til after i see at least the first film on whether this was right or not.
I can see this thread creating a few arguments, lol.
|
|
|
DesiringDragons
Lorien
Aug 23 2012, 10:33pm
Post #18 of 282
(9132 views)
Shortcut
|
could people PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop using the phrase "Peter Jackson's Hobbit"? It's Tolkien's Hobbit, no one else's. Maybe "Peter Jackson's film of Tolkien's Hobbit" instead?
I'm sorry, but this really grates on me a lot. Am I the only one?
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said here.
Edit: That doesn't mean I won't see the films and probably enjoy them, no matter how contradictory that sounds! But still. Well said.
(This post was edited by DesiringDragons on Aug 23 2012, 10:36pm)
|
|
|
burgahobbit
Rohan
Aug 23 2012, 10:43pm
Post #19 of 282
(9081 views)
Shortcut
|
Has been my favorite book since I was a young kid, but PJ's changes will not ruin the story for me. This is part of the reason I named myself on TORn as "burgahobbit" rather than "burrahobbit": I love the original book so much but I am not a purist and I will take what I'm given even if I don't particularly like it. There's nothing I can do to change what is filmed anyway so I might as well enjoy what is get.
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Aug 23 2012, 10:50pm
Post #20 of 282
(9079 views)
Shortcut
|
Peter chose to turn the Hobbit into a trilogy to precede and follow his own Lord of the Rings Films. This is as I feared and expected. It might have happened with Guillermo del Toro at the movie's helm. There were vast pressures applied to Peter to expand the story and huge amounts of cash forthcoming to make that possible. It is going to be a spectacular set of movies and a great adventure (perhaps the Greatest adventure). I can only hope that all of the additions and expansions do not overwhelm the story of Bilbo Baggins. KS
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 23 2012, 11:01pm
Post #21 of 282
(9072 views)
Shortcut
|
... with the 'no' finally coming out on top.
I think the article misses an essential point in analysing Peter Jackson's comments on the Appendices and their relationship to 'The Hobbit'. Jackson wasn't writing a scholarly analysis of the development of Tolkien's mythology. He was offering a soundbite version of Tolkien's published fiction suitable for a media interviewer to grasp, in the context of the hoped-for enlargement of his adaptation from two to three films. For this purpose his argument runs:
Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit'. Then his publishers wanted a sequel so he started work on 'Lord of the Rings'. In the process of writing the whole story became deeper and more serious and developed a lot more backstory, much of which could only be explained by the addition of a section of notes at the end of the book. LotR is a sequel, the Appendices develop the sequel, it all grows out of 'The Hobbit'.
It's in this sense that the Appendices become a gloss on 'The Hobbit' - or at least on the world of 'The Hobbit'. It's a simplification, of course. No point in mentioning 'The Silmarillion' or the long background to Tolkien's myth because the interviewer doesn't have time for that. The media like to keep things simple. In any case, the Sil wasn't relevant to the matter in hand; all Peter Jackson was doing here was preparing the ground for the announcement of three films. (I wouldn't mind betting he used a similar line of argument in persuading Warners that he needed a third film).
As for the rest, well, the writer is making a lot of assumptions about what the film is going to be. He doesn't know - none of us do. The test will be the film itself, all three parts of it. I'd say that what Peter Jackson is trying to do here is a whole lot riskier than simply sticking within the covers of The Hobbit, but if it comes off it will be exciting to watch. I'm looking forward to seeing how they will manage to bring in the Appendix material without losing the focus on Bilbo. 'Cos that's the thing, really. However long the films are, whatever material they introduce and however it's done, at the heart of it all needs to be (pinching the quotation from Tolkien)
"a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting — and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit’s development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return."
If they can pull that off, then no one will talk about missed opportunities any more...
|
|
|
Snowghost77
Lorien
Aug 23 2012, 11:04pm
Post #22 of 282
(9093 views)
Shortcut
|
Some people work themselves up for no reason, I dont understand the point of whining and complaining about what Jackson is doing or not doing...it's not going to change anything. Jackson will make the movies the way he wants. Who cares about all the changes and additions, as long as the movies in themselves are awesome, that should be all that matters. Nobody is forcing anyone to watch them, and the books will always be waiting for us. Griping and nitpicking doesn't solve anything....it's not even good debate material. If people want a different adaptation of the hobbit, then go make your hobbit and quit crying about it
The path of the Warrior is paved in blood, sweat, tears and ultimately death. He weeps for the fallen, bleeds for the cause, and sweats till he dies.
In memory of operation FALLEN ANGEL and the mighty heroes of seal team 6, the PJ, and the civies who fell in Tangi
- Task force Warrior will not forget you
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Aug 23 2012, 11:07pm
Post #23 of 282
(9032 views)
Shortcut
|
Folks like to express themselves in a group, or on a forum. Including you.
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Aug 23 2012, 11:08pm
Post #24 of 282
(8983 views)
Shortcut
|
...negative opinions are just as acceptable here as positive ones.
If we're allowed only to pat Peter Jackson on the back and praise everything he does, then there's no point calling this a "discussion" forum.
"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
Snowghost77
Lorien
Aug 23 2012, 11:26pm
Post #25 of 282
(8987 views)
Shortcut
|
Complaining never makes for good discussion...nobody likes a Debbie downer...I like discussing potential scenarios, or speculation on how things will unfold ...who's this dwarf?...who is that?....how will they approach this...ect. Discussing what's already in the works, or what we might see are things we all talk about, but why fuel your anger by talking about the things you wish were done differently. it will just upset you, and won't change s@&t.
But whatever...I guess some people just like to voice their complaints to everyone.
The path of the Warrior is paved in blood, sweat, tears and ultimately death. He weeps for the fallen, bleeds for the cause, and sweats till he dies.
In memory of operation FALLEN ANGEL and the mighty heroes of seal team 6, the PJ, and the civies who fell in Tangi
- Task force Warrior will not forget you
|
|
|
|
|
1
