|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 4:33pm
Post #1 of 15
(970 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thought experiment
|
Can't Post
|
|
Imagine if in an alternate universe JRR Tolkiens books din not exist and that Peter Jacksons Hobbit films came out as original works without being based on any book and without any LOTR films preceding them.
Now as often is the case with popular films that isn't based on a novel, a book is written based on PJ's films and scripts.
How would you feel about the eight or so hours of film of mature storytelling of a Dwarf reclaiming his kingdom with the unwanted help of an unlikely hero in the shape of a hobbit, if it was reduced to a 300 pages short novel about an old Dwarf in a childrens fairytale adventure with talking animals trying to get some treasure from the mountain? Some characters like Tauriel and Alfrid would be completely omitted, while others like Thranduil would not even be mentioned by name.
Would you think that the book disrespected everything about the films and was horrible? Or would you think it was OK as a childrens adaptation of the films? Or would you think that it was a valid artistic interpretation and would love the novel for the great literary work that it was regardless of how it separated from the films?
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 14 2015, 5:00pm
Post #2 of 15
(894 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The originality is what gives it its quality...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Obviously if Tolkien's great creation was nothing but a poor adaptation of someone else's work it wouldn't be as interesting, regardless of how well it's written. And yes, fans of the movie would probably be rather confused.
Here's a question: What if Tolkien had written The Hobbit as an epic "mature" trilogy and PJ adapted it into a single children's movie?
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 14 2015, 5:01pm)
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 5:17pm
Post #3 of 15
(859 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Poor adaptation was your choice of words
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't think that the Hobbit would be a poor novel regardless if it was an original novel or an adaptation. My opinion is based only on what is written in the book. Your opinion on the other hand seems to be based on wheter a story is adapted from another story or not. The text and story is the same, but your opinion differs whether it is an original text or an adaptation. A strange way to look at fiction if you ask me.
A good book is a good book.
A good film is a good film.
It is not important which is an adaptation of what unless you have royalty claims.
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 14 2015, 5:51pm
Post #4 of 15
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Those who like literal adaptation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Would still prize literal adaptation. I don't think the subject matter makes a difference.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 14 2015, 5:59pm
Post #5 of 15
(822 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it's a strange way to look at fiction at all...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I said, the originality is what gives it its quality. When reading The Hobbit I am not blandly following Bilbo as if he were a real character, but appreciating the creativity and imagination of the author. And admiring Tolkien's ability to build such an intricate and detailed world.
As an adaptation, the creativity and imagination becomes limited and all that's left to admire is the wording.
If someone (as I'm sure they probably have) turned Star Wars into a children's novel it wouldn't receive the same appreciation as the movies, purely on the basis that it's the same enjoyable story. People would know and recognize that the majority of material is taken from another person's work.
Is the writer of Shakespear's Star Wars a genius, or did he just create a successful novelty?
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Aug 14 2015, 6:04pm)
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 6:11pm
Post #6 of 15
(796 views)
Shortcut
|
A good book is a good book.
A good film is a good film.
The achievement of making the film or book might differ. But the work is the work. Or the ART is the ART.
If we learned that the LOTR was not written by Tolkien but it was copied and adapted from somwhere else, it might change my thoughts about him as a writer. But the work LOTR would still be intact as a masterpiece in my mind.
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 14 2015, 6:15pm
Post #7 of 15
(794 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The reason adaptations work for movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The reason adaptations work for movies is because there's much more than wording to appreciate. Movie language, by comparison, is much more diverse.
For example, if the book says "Bilbo opened the door" there are a thousand ways you could shoot someone opening a door, cutting to different angles, close-ups, different lenses, even the camera you use makes a difference. There are different ways to light it, different sounds, different music. All of this is worth appreciating. You could give a million directors the same sentence and they'd all give you a unique piece. But ask a million writers to describe someone opening a door, the results will be much less diverse.
This is why I'm a fan of more faithful adaptations. Just because you know what happens, doesn't mean you know how it will look on screen.
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 6:33pm
Post #9 of 15
(776 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It works the same way when adapting a film to the page
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Cheers for the link. But I still think my comment about how Shakespear copies just about everything at time is valid to the discussion.
Shakespear is known for his genius, but a lot of his works are adaptations. His WORK is still genius regardless of who wrote it.
If a film shows Bilbo opening a door there are a thousand ways you could describe someone opening a door, descriptions of the room, descriptions of close-ups, seeing things from other angles, even the language you use makes a difference. There are different ways to word it, different expresions, different nuances. All of this is worth appreciating. You could give a million writers the same movie scene and they'd all give you a unique piece. But ask a million film directors to describe someone opening a door, the results will be much less diverse.
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
(This post was edited by Goblin Mutant on Aug 14 2015, 6:35pm)
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
Aug 14 2015, 6:59pm
Post #10 of 15
(747 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd probably think of it similarly to how I think of PJ's LOTR films, which also cut out lots of characters and storylines, and dramatically simplified much of the story. If the Hobbit book was marketed as a children's book, I'd think it was a fine summary of the films, and I'd appreciate the charming tone.
Also, if the films were the original material, I'd think it was a little weird that the movies kept acting as if we were supposed to be familiar with characters and references we've never heard of.
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 7:10pm
Post #11 of 15
(733 views)
Shortcut
|
|
which characters in particular?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Which characters do you feel we should be familiar with before watching the Hobbit films?
Old Bilbo and Frodo? Yes I'll give you them, but apart from that I don't see your point at all.
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
Aug 14 2015, 7:29pm
Post #12 of 15
(715 views)
Shortcut
|
The way they were introduced felt as if the viewer should already know them. Also, the bit about Strider would feel completely random if one wasn't already familiar with LOTR. And the reference to Gimli is funny as it is, but I'm not sure if it would be without LOTR.
|
|
|
Susan
Bree
Aug 14 2015, 8:24pm
Post #13 of 15
(679 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That would not turn out well...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as an epic and PJ compressed it, I think people would respond to that the same way they would respond to the LOTR trilogy being made into a single children's movie (not well at all would be the understatement of the century  ).
(This post was edited by Susan on Aug 14 2015, 8:25pm)
|
|
|
Goblin Mutant
The Shire
Aug 14 2015, 8:50pm
Post #14 of 15
(647 views)
Shortcut
|
If PJ made the films as an epic trilogy and Tolkien later compressed it into a childrens novel, that was the question.
Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.
|
|
|
Susan
Bree
Aug 15 2015, 12:51am
Post #15 of 15
(587 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah, I think I replied to the wrong post
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was actually replying to QuackingTroll's question in the second post about what if Tolkien had written The Hobbit as an epic mature trilogy. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
