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:
When will someone put an honest version of "The Hobbit" on film?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 1:26am

Post #1 of 26 (1544 views)
Shortcut
When will someone put an honest version of "The Hobbit" on film? Can't Post

The cartoon was too short and altered many things unnecessarily. Peter Jackson's triple-header is a fair adaptation of the "Unfinished Tales" version of the background story that Tolkien invented to explain the connection between "The Hobbit" and 'The Lord of the Rings" This set of movies als contains a number of additions and alterations that were conceived by the creative team (some of which may have been nudged into existence by the studio). 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.
Photobucket



MechaGodzilla
Rivendell


Jan 29 2015, 2:28am

Post #2 of 26 (1124 views)
Shortcut
I predict the next major attempt at Hobbit/LotR adaptations... [In reply to] Can't Post

Would happen in 20 or 30 some years at the very earliest. At 26 years old I like to think of myself as fairly young, and I'd be in my 40's or 50's by then. That's if it even happened that early, it could very well - and I think this is more likely - be much longer. Many times when what is widely considered the "definitive" adaptation of a popular novel has been made, no one wants to touch that for many, many decades. I wouldn't recommend anyone to sit around and wait for it, it'd be such a waste of one's life.

And then all this aside, if another adaptation happens, in say 50 years or whatever, there's no guarantee it'll be any more faithful or honest or what you want to call it. Maybe so much time will have passed that there's even less interest in making very faithful adaptations. Maybe they'd be remakes of Jackson's films more than they'd be fresh takes on the books, something that also happens frequently with new versions. Look at how most takes on Dracula in film and other pop culture tend to have much more in common with the 1931 film than they do the novel.


Bishop
Gondor


Jan 29 2015, 4:25am

Post #3 of 26 (993 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

What do you mean by honest?


moreorless
Gondor

Jan 29 2015, 6:56am

Post #4 of 26 (962 views)
Shortcut
I wouldnt underestimate hollywoods desperation... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Would happen in 20 or 30 some years at the very earliest. At 26 years old I like to think of myself as fairly young, and I'd be in my 40's or 50's by then. That's if it even happened that early, it could very well - and I think this is more likely - be much longer. Many times when what is widely considered the "definitive" adaptation of a popular novel has been made, no one wants to touch that for many, many decades. I wouldn't recommend anyone to sit around and wait for it, it'd be such a waste of one's life.

And then all this aside, if another adaptation happens, in say 50 years or whatever, there's no guarantee it'll be any more faithful or honest or what you want to call it. Maybe so much time will have passed that there's even less interest in making very faithful adaptations. Maybe they'd be remakes of Jackson's films more than they'd be fresh takes on the books, something that also happens frequently with new versions. Look at how most takes on Dracula in film and other pop culture tend to have much more in common with the 1931 film than they do the novel.


The climate were in today with the major studios/media corps is really an obsession to go after something/anything that has a built in fan base. Given that I could well seem them returning to Tolkien a lot sooner than 20-30 years.

I actually think that despite the films being newer the Hobbit would probably be easier to make another version sooner. For one thing Jacksons version simply isn't s loved as LOTR and for another I think you can argue theres more room to get closer to the book.

Jacksons Hobbit by its very nature as a "prequel" to his LOTR took on a lot of the tone of that story as well as adding a lot of new material. A new stand alone Hobbit would likely have an easier time moving away from that and focusing more on the tone of the book.

With LOTR I think Jackson nails the tone of the book much more closely meaning a new version would likely need to move away from that more to present something original. Indeed if it was remade in the near future I think a TV series would actually be more suitable for LOTR, at least then you could add in more detail to differentiate it from Jacksons films even if the tone were rather similar.


dormouse
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 9:03am

Post #5 of 26 (966 views)
Shortcut
An honest version of "The Hobbit" exists already, Kangi - two versions.... [In reply to] Can't Post

..in fact. If you mean a literal, page-to-screen version it's possible that someone might attempt that one day, taking The Hobbit alone without reference to Lord of the Rings. Even so, I suspect that there are elements of the story they'd have to expand or change. As to when, who knows...

But Kangi, there's nothing dishonest about Peter Jackson's films. He seems a very straightforward, honest sort of man, and his adaptation was intended from the outset to expand the story he embarked on in his previous films. That's what he set out to do, that's what he did.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 29 2015, 11:54am

Post #6 of 26 (914 views)
Shortcut
We already have an 'honest' adaptation [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ is not a 'dishonest' man, but is passionate about his work and believes in it – that is obvious.

I shouldn't think anyone would try to produce another version of the Hobbit for a very long time.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 3:07pm

Post #7 of 26 (862 views)
Shortcut
I would not question Peter Jackson's sincerity (honesty) [In reply to] Can't Post

and the three movies he made from "The Hobbit" are sincerely his. But I would argue that Peter was distracted by two things. The first being the advancement of technology and the second being his own "Lord of the Rings Trilogy".

I think a great movie could be made from the book by using mostly practical effects combined with real sets. I personally find actors in makeup more believable than most digital creations. I say most because the time and effort and money put into the digital character can produce a "Gollem" but the process can also produce an Azog which I find less than satisfactory. If it has to be in 3-D (and I do not think that it needs to be) then it should be shot in 70 mm Imax and processed by them. (At the Hobbit Trilogy screening there was a marked improvement in view-ability between first two movies and the last dew to the time Imax had to reprocess "An Unexpected Journey" & "The Desolation of Smaug".

The story of "The Hobbit" needs to be told without hinting at what is to follow. It needs to be its own tale about a Hobbit that gets hooked up with thirteen Dwarves and a rather mysterious Wizard on a quest to reclaim the Dwarves treasure. One of the biggest problems with PJ's Hobbit is the scale of action. The battles are too big with far too much happening. The book is much more a personal story about Bilbo's transformation. 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.
Photobucket



(This post was edited by Kangi Ska on Jan 29 2015, 3:07pm)


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 29 2015, 3:28pm

Post #8 of 26 (825 views)
Shortcut
I would say [In reply to] Can't Post

That I think it would have been incredibly difficult for 'a man in a suit' to have played Azog in a convincing way for a prolonged period without appearing stiff – and it would have been torture for an actor. The Orcs in the LotR trilogy all appeared for very brief periods by comparison to, say, Azog in the Hobbit, and didn't really need to show expression. I actually thought that Azog was brilliantly done, and the most menacing of all the Orcs in any of the films. I also didn't see anything wrong with the way the films were shot – on the contrary, I thought they were absolutely breathtaking visually.

I tend to agree that the hinting of what was to follow was unnecessary (especially because of the effect it had on DoS). There would have been enough anyway which was part of Tolkien's original book that would have provided such links. As far as the fighting is concerned, I did get a bit bored with all the Orc fights. However, I know that PJ loves that sort of thing (as well as the gross elements), so can live with it.

In fact, I find MUCH more to like than dislike about the films.


Elessar
Valinor


Jan 29 2015, 3:29pm

Post #9 of 26 (812 views)
Shortcut
Indeed [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile



dormouse
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 3:31pm

Post #10 of 26 (824 views)
Shortcut
Well, taking your second point first... [In reply to] Can't Post

.. I don't think he was distracted by his previous film trilogy. I'd say that the continuity between the two adaptations was intended from the outset, even when Guillermo del Toro was directing. I think that's what everyone involved in the production envisaged and, to be fair, most of the people who were involved in the campaign to 'make the Hobbit happen'. We asked them to take us back to Middle Earth and that's just what they did.

On the technology I can see your point. I don't think 3D was necessary: I'd have been happy with a 2D film same as before. Equally, I'm not going to let the fact that they did use 3D get between me and enjoying the film - especially now I've seen the HFR 3D and really appreciated it. Technology changes and I can understand why people in the industry want to push the boundaries and experiment.

The story of The Hobbit can be told in many ways. Peter Jackson chose one valid way. The film you dream of is another - and I hope for your sake that someday someone will make it.


BlackFox
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 3:40pm

Post #11 of 26 (839 views)
Shortcut
Those interested in a different take... [In reply to] Can't Post

... may want to have a look at this fun little project: http://www.cosmiccreations.nl/thehobbit.



Brandybuckled
Lorien


Jan 29 2015, 5:12pm

Post #12 of 26 (785 views)
Shortcut
Technically/literally speaking... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
That I think it would have been incredibly difficult for 'a man in a suit' to have played Azog in a convincing way for a prolonged period without appearing stiff – and it would have been torture for an actor.


Azog's dead in The Hobbit, so no worries about depicting him at all.Wink

NAArP: Not An Ardent purist since Arda was dented



Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 29 2015, 6:14pm

Post #13 of 26 (759 views)
Shortcut
One Orc is the same as any other to me [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't remember any of them from the books, so the Azog/Bolg 'issues' go right over my head. All I can say is that I like the way Azog is portrayed a lot – he is a creature of nightmares for me, which none of the other Orcs of the two trilogies are.

Tongue


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 6:15pm

Post #14 of 26 (762 views)
Shortcut
But Azog was only important to Pete's version of the Hobbit. [In reply to] Can't Post

By all rights he was dead long before the story takes place. By the way I did think that the rendering of Azog in the last film was superior to the earlier versions. However he still did not look real. 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.
Photobucket



Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Jan 29 2015, 9:35pm

Post #15 of 26 (718 views)
Shortcut
Well yes and no. [In reply to] Can't Post

Azog is probably a bad example. Surely, it is very hard to imagine why he would have been added to the Hobbit book, if we weren't supposed to read and know his story from LOTR's appendices. I think it's difficult to say he is important only in the films (though of course I agree that his importance is different).


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 30 2015, 12:05am

Post #16 of 26 (700 views)
Shortcut
Not in PJ's adaptation [In reply to] Can't Post

You see this is the thing – and it's an argument I applied to the LotR books and films, too, and stated to many of the detractors of the LotR films back in the day. The books are the books and the films are the films. To me, the LotR books were completely different in terms of how I imagined them before I saw the films. For me the LotR films are very unlike the books, in terms of characterisation, visuals, general atmosphere and many other things. They are loosely connected by a strand that runs through the story, but there are many differences between the books and the films. Gandalf and old Bilbo are just about the only things that are similar to the LotR books for me.

The same applies to the Hobbit for me. I DON'T CARE whether Azog was dead or not according to the book, because I don't even remember him (or any other Orcs) from any of the books. All I know is that he works logically, and well, within the context of PJ's adaptation of the story – better in fact than any Orc in any of the ME films.


In Reply To
By all rights he was dead long before the story takes place. By the way I did think that the rendering of Azog in the last film was superior to the earlier versions. However he still did not look real. KS



Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Jan 31 2015, 12:39am

Post #17 of 26 (613 views)
Shortcut
But for some of us who do remember Tolkien's Azog... [In reply to] Can't Post

...it's quite jarring to see a character playing the role of "main villain" in a story that he doesn't even appear in. Never mind the fact that he was supposed to have been dead for 150 years. Every time I see this foolish anachronism onscreen, all I can think is "You're dead, go away already". Seriously, Bolg would have sufficed as an adversary for Thorin, but then Legolas (another "main" character who had nothing to do with the original story) wouldn't have gotten his big kill.


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Jan 31 2015, 12:47am

Post #18 of 26 (613 views)
Shortcut
I wouldn't even consider it a fair adaptation of "The Quest of Erebor"... [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe if there were no Azog, no Elf/Dwarf love triangle, no pointless High Fells, no pointless forges/golden statue, then maybe. Whether you want to call it an adaptation of The Hobbit or an adaptation of The Quest of Erebor, there's still a massive amount of non-Tolkien material littered throughout. Much more so than there was with the LotR trilogy.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jan 31 2015, 1:46am

Post #19 of 26 (602 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien's Azog is much more interesting that Tolkien's Bolg [In reply to] Can't Post

I could see why the filmmakers would be more inspired by Tolkien's Azog than by Bolg. Azog drips malevolent personality; Bolg has none at all.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Salmacis81
Tol Eressea


Jan 31 2015, 1:54am

Post #20 of 26 (598 views)
Shortcut
Maybe so... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but seeing as Bolg was actually alive and played an active (even if small) role in the story, I would have found the expansion of his character much more palatable. I have a lot of trouble trying to get past the fact that the main villain in Jackson's films isn't even supposed to be alive.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jan 31 2015, 2:02am

Post #21 of 26 (603 views)
Shortcut
Depends on what is important to you [In reply to] Can't Post

There is nothing about keeping Azog alive that fundamentally changes anything important about Tolkien's story, in the same way that something like Frodo sending Sam home does. I was against the Azog resurrection after the first film, because it didn't make sense to me, and I didn't particularly find him to be an interesting character in that film. But by the end of the final film I had changed my mind, because I felt that he made a compelling villain and foil for Thorin.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


skyofcoffeebeans
Rohan

Jan 31 2015, 8:00am

Post #22 of 26 (594 views)
Shortcut
What in [In reply to] Can't Post

the later films colored your understanding of Azog? As far as I can tell, all he does in the second film is move to Dol Guldor (with the caption "2 to 3 film shift demanded it" practically painted on the screen) and hit Gandalf with a mace. In the third film, he attacks the mountain, kills Fili, and dies. He doesn't exactly grow or change himself, nor is his dichotomy against Thorin or his relationship with his son explored in any meaningful way.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Jan 31 2015, 12:26pm

Post #23 of 26 (571 views)
Shortcut
Maybe so [In reply to] Can't Post

But since I don't remember him or any other Orc (no Orcs are personalities in Tolkien's story, as far as I can remember; they are all much the same), for me and many others it matters not a whit that his name is used in the Hobbit films.

For me, if an Orc called Bolg, with the same visual characteristics and role as film Azog, had been used as the adversary instead of an Orc called Azog, that would have worked equally well, but no better, than an Orc called Azog.


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Jan 31 2015, 1:35pm

Post #24 of 26 (575 views)
Shortcut
His trapping and killing of Fili [In reply to] Can't Post

And just his genera bearing, is very evil. I don't particularly care about developing his relationship with his son (in fact I think it would very odd), but he reflects something of the arrogant evil that Tolkien captures so well in his depiction of the character in Appendix A of LOTR.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


arithmancer
Grey Havens


Jan 31 2015, 3:57pm

Post #25 of 26 (561 views)
Shortcut
He also... [In reply to] Can't Post

...has a discussion with Sauron, in which we learn he (as we may have already suspected) serves Sauron, in exchange for which he expects to receive certain considerations. I don't know about you, but for me this raised his stature and differentiated him from all previous Orc baddies in Jackson's films.

And, not to take anything away from the physical performances of the guys who played Gothmog and Lurtz, but CGI-ing Azog was a great move. He has facial expressions! I loved that. Yes, they are mostly cruel, angry, and gloating facial expressions but this is appropriate to the character and adds to the sense of his evil.


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.