|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien
Jan 1 2016, 7:26pm
Post #1 of 53
(2312 views)
Shortcut
|
Would you like an ultra-faithful Hobbit movie?
|
Can't Post
|
|
If some director came along and made an adaptation of the Hobbit that kept the plot almost exactly it was in the book, kept the book's tone and stayed very faithful with the dialogue, would you enjoy it? I imagine it would be two films, since even without additions like Dol Guldur there is so much in the book that one film would be extremely rushed.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 1 2016, 7:36pm
Post #2 of 53
(2164 views)
Shortcut
|
Even Professor Tolkien was not completely happy with the book in the long run, feeling that the tone was a bit too precious and patronizing in places. And there are still certain cinematic realities, such as: Is it really a good idea to have one of your three major characters disappear for an extended period of time with only the most cursory of explanations tacked on near the end. And I would not mind little easter eggs like Bilbo befriending a young boy called Estel while the company is in Rivendell.
"Things need not to have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot." - Dream of the Endless
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2016, 7:47pm
Post #3 of 53
(2160 views)
Shortcut
|
Ultra faithful? Not sure. More faithful? Yes.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not saying this to rail against PJ's take on things, since I very much liked the movies overall. However, I would like an adaptation of The Hobbit that was faithful in the way that The Lord of the Rings was faithful to its source - which is to say it made changes for the sake of streamlining the story, upping dramatic stakes for certain story beats, etc. - yet retained the spirit of the original tale. I would also very much like it to be one film. The Hobbit, as an adaptation solely of the novel, definitely doesn't need to be more than one film. I don't know who I would like to direct it. I have many favorite directors who I think are extremely talented, but I wouldn't want to discount a less famous, or even unknown, director. After all, I didn't know who Peter Jackson was before he was announced to direct The Lord of the Rings.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Jan 1 2016, 7:50pm)
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Jan 1 2016, 7:56pm
Post #4 of 53
(2141 views)
Shortcut
|
...I love The Hobbit the way it is written (whereas Tolkien himself came to feel differently), and have always appreciated it more as a standalone fairy tale rather than LOTR prequel, so I would certainly be interested if a more faithful adaptation were to happen. But I'm not really convinced the structure and tone of the story would translate well to modern cinema-its quite twee/patronizing at points, with uneven pacing, largely underdeveloped supporting characters, and a rather unconventional climax, Jackson was more interested in making a LOTR prequel for the masses than adapting the book i.m.o, but even so I do think some changes would be necessary no matter the target audience the filmmaker in question was aiming for, although the Rankin Bass version covered most of the key plots points of the novel, it felt very rushed, and even a three hour film might struggle to tell the story completely in the cinematic medium. With the more child friendly, fairytale tone a hypothetical faithful adaptation would probably be better suited to an animated miniseries, or TV Movie anyway. I wasn't overly fond of Jackson's adaptations, and the graphic novel by David Wenzel remains for me the better adaptation: http://www.amazon.co.uk/...id=1451678104&sr=1-2
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jan 1 2016, 8:50pm
Post #5 of 53
(2117 views)
Shortcut
|
but then again, I wasn't a big fan of the book. Besides, the cast was so PERFECT - especially Richard, Martin & Ian McKellan - that I can't imagine ANY new adaptation being as good as Jackson's version.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
(This post was edited by Kilidoescartwheels on Jan 1 2016, 8:52pm)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2016, 9:05pm
Post #6 of 53
(2103 views)
Shortcut
|
...with a focus on balancing older special effects techniques (miniatures, prosthetics, stunts, etc.) with newer digital effects work. And shot on film. And obey the laws of physics.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Jan 1 2016, 9:07pm)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jan 1 2016, 10:51pm
Post #7 of 53
(2071 views)
Shortcut
|
I enjoy Tolkien's work and love his Lord of the Rings, but I am more or less indifferent to his first novel. It is a fine story but I've never been enamored with it the same way as many on these boards seem to be and I feel Jackson's adaptation is a better piece of art overall. I also prefer Jackson's LotR to the original as well, though I know it's not very popular to feel this way, but I have my reasons and they are, in my view, very good ones. I also do not think any adaptation ever should be made 100% faithful to the source as such a directive robs the new artist of being allowed to create his or her own personal work with his or her own unique style. It is in this slavish manner that we were given the first two Harry Potter's and they make awfully boring cinema (especially so if one has read the novels first, as I had).
Bilbo: These are dark days. Bofur: Dark days indeed.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jan 1 2016, 10:59pm
Post #8 of 53
(2064 views)
Shortcut
|
Just thought I'd get it in there before somebody else did. As it happens, I don't agree with you on your book vs. movie evaluation, but I respect your right to feel that way nonetheless. I will echo your sentiments on the first two Harry Potter movies, though. I haven't even read the first two books (sacrilege on my own), and I found them extremely underwhelming. By contrast, Alfonso Cuaron's imaginitive The Prisoner of Azkaban is still my favorite of the series (and my favorite film overall of 2004).
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that." - Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Jan 1 2016, 11:00pm)
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Jan 1 2016, 11:04pm
Post #9 of 53
(2058 views)
Shortcut
|
I think keeping the tone of the book would be very difficult
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The narrator's voice in the book, with it's dry humor and commentary, is one of my favorite aspects of The Hobbit and I'm not sure how that would translate to film. Somehow that attitude would have to be converted into dialogue, but if a writer and director found a way to do it, I think it would be fun to see.
__________________ Gold is the strife of kinsmen, and fire of the flood-tide, and the path of the serpent. (Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Jan 1 2016, 11:24pm
Post #10 of 53
(2040 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, I'm glad it was you - at least you're polite about it!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have about twenty reasons or so in feeling the way I do about these specific novels and their respective adaptations by P.J., but I think the largest, most relevant one is that Tolkien (true to his myth-making, world-building form) spent too much time on lengthy descriptions of places and of cultures and allusions to other characters or events that in no tangible way figure into the story at hand - at least not to the extent in which they're delved into. I fully understand and appreciate his intentions and, for the written word and in context of the other novels that inform his myth, these things do work part and have a certain charm to them. Unfortunately, however, I feel they consistently threaten to overthrow the purity and strength of his actual storytelling. It wouldn't matter so much if the plot weren't amazing, but his talent as a teller of tales is considerable and my heart always lies with the story itself, the subtext and meaning, and also the characters. On film, there doesn't need to be an inordinate amount of time to describe the window dressing around the heart of the tale because... well, because there it plainly is. Minas Tirith established in one shot with Gandalf and Pippin riding in the foreground, the enormity of the White City in about 20 seconds of galloping up to its summit, a lone, pale, feminine figure atop Edoras looking off into the wind, the Shire in all its glory, understood clearly with just a few sweeping wide shots of film, etc. This is all to say, with cinema's 'show don't tell' quality, the story and characters are always on the front burner - and I prefer experiencing these great tales in this way. As far as Cuaron's Azkaban, I could not agree more. It was like a shot of unadulterated creativity and adrenaline in a franchise that, up until then, was in dire need of a heartbeat. It would also be my favorite film of '04, but unfortunately for Alfonso's inspired adaptation, The Aviator, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Spider-Man 2 (what I still consider the best superhero film of all time), and of course, the extended edition of RotK all appeared that same year.
Bilbo: These are dark days. Bofur: Dark days indeed.
|
|
|
LSF
Gondor
Jan 1 2016, 11:36pm
Post #11 of 53
(2033 views)
Shortcut
|
Nice to know I'm not the only one who prefers the movies over the books. I couldn't even get through the books (quit halfway into Two Towers). Completely agree with you on adaptations. I want to see what the director's take on the story and world is, not a perfect recreation of the book. If I want that, I'll read the book.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 2 2016, 12:01am
Post #12 of 53
(2033 views)
Shortcut
|
It would depend on so many things. Like who the director was - his or her style, interpretation of the book, attitude to the background information we know from Tolkien's other writing and not from The Hobbit itself. Would he/she imagine the characters and locations in the way I do? (The answer to that's inevitably no, by the way..) And that's only the beginning. Next ask who would the concept artists be and how would their vision compare with that of John Howe and Alan Lee and the others who've worked on these films (for me, I fear, they wouldn't). And what about the writers? Who would write the screenplay and how sensitive would they be to Tolkien's language - it's all very well to talk about staying faithful to the dialogue but a film needs dialogue in places a book doesn't, and how will the new dialogue blend with the original? Now think about the adaptation itself: is it to take on the tone of the first part of the book with all its whimsical, childlike elements - talking purse, dogs and sheep serving food at Beorn's table, tra-la-la-lally elves - or the darker tone of the latter part of the book, or both? Then there's the cast - who would they be? I've seen actors suggested here that I would run a mile rather than see as Tolkien characters, but the people who suggested them must have thought they were a good idea. And who would write the music? Design the costumes? I don't believe there is any such thing as an ultra-faithful adaptation. Faithful to what? The only person who could make a film of the Hobbit that was absolutely faithful to the film that plays in my head when I read the book is me, and I couldn't make a film to save my life. When someone adapts a book for the cinema they HAVE to make changes. That's what adaptation is all about - telling the story effectively in another medium. Filling in details that an author can safely leave to the imagination. Another director might not make as many changes as Peter Jackson did but that in itself wouldn't make for a good film. It's all the other stuff that makes the film enjoyable.
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Jan 2 2016, 2:53am
Post #13 of 53
(1976 views)
Shortcut
|
its seems clear to me that alot of people that like the tolkine films dont actually like the hobbit book, but whatever issues tolkien himself had with it in regards to his wider work, the book is basically a standalone work that has its own charm, for example minor characters dont have a story arc or development, but heck its the type of story where a dwarf is sometimes just a dwarf in a hooded cloak and thats all you need! its a modern fairytale with a n episodic narrative that has its own thing going on, so yes i would like to see a much more faithfull adaption in all its full splendour, talking purse and all. and if you think thats not good enough for you to watch then maybe your not too much of a hobbit fan after all. becuase that is what it is.
|
|
|
Starling
Half-elven
Jan 2 2016, 3:47am
Post #14 of 53
(1965 views)
Shortcut
|
Quote: and if you think thats not good enough for you to watch then maybe your not too much of a hobbit fan after all. becuase that is what it is. I am Not a Real Fan...
|
|
|
Sarahbor
Lorien
Jan 2 2016, 4:22am
Post #15 of 53
(1956 views)
Shortcut
|
It was the Rankin-Bass adaptation. Which would you rather see on the big screen or enjoy in your living room: PJ's Smaug, even if he's doused in molten gold in an overlong action sequence, or the R-B whiskered cat-dragon? It's certainly possible to make a more faithful film (I should say films, because there's no way you could put everything into one live-action film without it being absurdly rushed), but I think an ultra-faithful movie would not work. Bard would come out of nowhere, Gandalf would disappear and reappear inexplicably, and the dwarves would look far too similar to one another. If the tone is too light and whimsical it would jar too much with LOTR. This is OK in a children's book, but not on the big screen. Books and film are different media and changes are inevitable. This is not to say I agree with everything PJ did (I don't, there are definitely flaws here and there), but his films are decent enough for me. And I liked the book.
Hobbit/LOTR cartoons & humor: http://www.sarahbor.com/
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Jan 2 2016, 9:20am
Post #16 of 53
(1912 views)
Shortcut
|
I have no idea of how much I'd like it or not without seeing it obviously. I like the book, but it lacks a lot of depth. What can be excused to a children's book, but not so much for a movie. I would probably not be so very invested to it as a less true to the book movie. I need to care about the characters. PJ made me care about the characters. BUT, tru'er' i can do. Without all the hoppla about Legolas and Tauriel in favor of Beorn and such. WIth focus on where it should be instead of these elves... Now that I would have liked.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 2 2016, 10:27am
Post #17 of 53
(1905 views)
Shortcut
|
I think animation would actually be the best route to go...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It was the Rankin-Bass adaptation. Which would you rather see on the big screen or enjoy in your living room: PJ's Smaug, even if he's doused in molten gold in an overlong action sequence, or the R-B whiskered cat-dragon? It's certainly possible to make a more faithful film (I should say films, because there's no way you could put everything into one live-action film without it being absurdly rushed), but I think an ultra-faithful movie would not work. Bard would come out of nowhere, Gandalf would disappear and reappear inexplicably, and the dwarves would look far too similar to one another. If the tone is too light and whimsical it would jar too much with LOTR. This is OK in a children's book, but not on the big screen. Books and film are different media and changes are inevitable. This is not to say I agree with everything PJ did (I don't, there are definitely flaws here and there), but his films are decent enough for me. And I liked the book. Mentioning the Rankin bass version I actually think an animated Hobbit would make the most sense if you want to stick closer to the book. Many of the literary affectations such as the plot shifting around so quickly and varying in tone are IMHO much better suited to animation. The main difference I would like to see would be art design.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 2 2016, 10:32am
Post #18 of 53
(1907 views)
Shortcut
|
I would actually like to see a Lee/Howe style animation..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And that's only the beginning. Next ask who would the concept artists be and how would their vision compare with that of John Howe and Alan Lee and the others who've worked on these films (for me, I fear, they wouldn't). And what about the writers? Who would write the screenplay and how sensitive would they be to Tolkien's language - it's all very well to talk about staying faithful to the dialogue but a film needs dialogue in places a book doesn't, and how will the new dialogue blend with the original? Speaking of animation below I would actually love to see an animated Tolkien project that uses there kind of style, especially Lee's. The question I spose becomes is the Hobbit suitable for that? perhaps not with another version of LOTR maybe making more sense.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 2 2016, 11:18am
Post #19 of 53
(1893 views)
Shortcut
|
I would go a long way to see that, and I think any of Tolkien's stories would be suitable for their style, just as the books work so well with their illustrations. I doubt if it will ever happen, but I'd love it.
|
|
|
Thrain II
Lorien
Jan 2 2016, 3:22pm
Post #20 of 53
(1840 views)
Shortcut
|
I am very surprised how many people here doesn't like the book, I guess I can understand now why did they like the movies so much.
|
|
|
Gianna
Rohan
Jan 2 2016, 3:58pm
Post #21 of 53
(1829 views)
Shortcut
|
Speaking from my own experience...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I did a Hobbit fanfilm a couple years ago and stayed almost exactly true to the book. I did remove a few things, like the warg chase, that weren't feasible for a no-budget fanfilm, and added an Elf in Mirkwood who was Thranduil's wife and a storyline in Lake-town where the Master wasn't going to let the Dwarves go. I like to think I did keep the book's tone, the Dwarves' bickering is certainly intact and the script is very faithful with the book's dialogue and so on. And yes, this was very enjoyable to watch. Not just for me, but for everyone at the premiere. Now that we have the Hobbit trilogy for the masses, I really do think someone should do one for the fans that keeps true to the book. Fwiw, my film is two hours long (stretched over two discs).
~There's some good left in this world. And it's worth fighting for.~ ------ My website My LOTR-inspired fantasy novel is on Amazon
|
|
|
Gianna
Rohan
Jan 2 2016, 4:03pm
Post #22 of 53
(1815 views)
Shortcut
|
...how many posters here didn't like the book. I feel like maybe they wanted another Lord of the Rings, which it isn't. It's a children's book. And that's a good thing, because that's the story that The Hobbit has. It's no epic quest, and it doesn't need to be. "A children's story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children's story in the slightest." ~C.S. Lewis
~There's some good left in this world. And it's worth fighting for.~ ------ My website My LOTR-inspired fantasy novel is on Amazon
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jan 2 2016, 6:03pm
Post #23 of 53
(1778 views)
Shortcut
|
It would depend upon what the adaptation was like in every way. Though I loathe the Rankin Bass version. For better or worse and whatever it originally was, The Hobbit novel has for decades been part of Tolkien’s larger world, the world of LotR etc. It is no longer a separate “fairy tale”. Now any adaptation would be compared to PJ’s LotR movies (and Narnia) so what might have worked before 2001 is more iffy now. I can’t see how any modern movie version could get away with Gandalf disappearing and reappearing as he does and I’m not sure that even kids today would buy the talking purse and animals. Some things are better read about than seen. I am fond of the novel as a children’s book with deeper meaning than most, but the tone drives me crazy on occasion and many details and events are pretty well skipped over. I much prefer LotR, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and so on. So I was glad to see a movie version of The Hobbit that was expanded, embellished and enhanced, more part of Tolkien’s larger world and in many ways more adult. IMO the story of the original Hobbit is still there, so I am satisfied.
|
|
|
Sarahbor
Lorien
Jan 2 2016, 6:21pm
Post #24 of 53
(1768 views)
Shortcut
|
If you're going to stay 100% true to the book, including the whimsy and one-film structure, animation works better. Talking wallets, serving dogs, and tra-la-lallies just don't work in live action. But I would take them over the elf-dwarf love triangle any day. Saying that an ultra-faithful adaption would not work as well is not a critique of the book but a statement on the nature of film. The book does things that film can't, and trying to replicate it on the screen (at least in live action) diminishes and can't match the original charm.
Hobbit/LOTR cartoons & humor: http://www.sarahbor.com/
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Jan 2 2016, 6:53pm
Post #25 of 53
(1755 views)
Shortcut
|
Originally wasn't the slightest bit interested in the Hobbit, as I thought PJ was taking a break of sorts and making a kiddie movie, when I first learned of the Hobbit being planned *shrug*. For me, although I enjoy good animated features, for whatever reason - I suspect because for me Tolkien's imagery triggered some very vivid and powerful pictures in my own mind - the Elven King comes to mind, and Thorin's funeral, and the barrels on the river, for me I would want "reality". And a such, I don't think a "faithful" version of the Hobbit could possibly be done in one film, and two is stretching it. All the things that PJ already altered or left out. Agree with:
I don't believe there is any such thing as an ultra-faithful adaptation. Faithful to what? For me, just hearing that Tolkien was urged to complete the Hobbit, and that the book takes a noticeably darker, more serious turn - and then Tolkien was considering re-writes - IMO the only possibility would be to have Tolkien on set as a film consultant. Obviously impossible *sigh*. Even if PJ had decided to *rigidly* adapt the book, and include the talking purse, say - so how did Tolkien see a talking purse in his own mind? What did it look like? Did it have sort of a mouth, or did a voice just echo out from a pouch? What was it made of? Here's a couple of fans discussing:
Bert and Tom went off to the barrel. William was having another drink. Then Bilbo plucked up courage and put his little hand in William's enormous pocket. There was a purse in it, as big as a bag to Bilbo. "Ha!"thought he warming to his new work as he lifted it carefully out, "this is a beginning!" It was! Trolls' purses are the mischief, and this was no exception. "Ere, 'oo are you?" it squeaked, as it left the pocket; and William turned round at once and grabbed Bilbo by the neck, before he could duck behind the tree. "Enchanted items like that are common things for trolls to have in Norse stories. Magic strength potion, giant swords, twelve heads, talking purses...stuff like that. There doesn't need to be an in-context explanation because I don't think Tolkien had one in mind when he was writing The Hobbit." "I got interested and started looking at my copy of the History of the Hobbit, specifically the 1960 fifth phase draft revision. It looks like this is not something that was going to be changed, the "mischief" is still referenced earlier in the chapter, though the new draft of text cuts off just before the pocket picking takes place. I've always seen it as one of the childish anachronisms from the bedtime stories, along with the trolls' names that don't really fit into the middle earth of the lord of the rings." https://www.reddit.com/...r_the_talking_purse/ Point being, these are just fans discussing one small item from the Hobbit - and we still don't really know what the purse looks like, etc. E.g., how can you be "faithful" when the original author isn't around to ask, and evidently did not think that kind of detail was critical? As Peter Jackson has pointed out, things that work in a book are not going to work on screen, because "they're there, they have to do something [re the dwarves]". What about the dwarves?
Bilbo plumped down the beer and the cake in front of them, when loud came a ring at the bell again, and then another ring. "Gandalf for certain this time," he thought as he puffed along the passage. But it was not. It was two more dwarves, both with blue hoods, silver belts, and yellow beards; and each of them carried a bag of tools and a spade. In they hopped, as soon as the door began to open-Bilbo was hardly surprised at all. LOL, personally I completely love PJ's adaptation of the scene, and Martin Freeman's disgruntled Bilbo, and Fili and Kili are adorable. I wouldn't change a thing. Finally, IMO, there seems to be some suggestions with some people that if PJ HAD remained more "book faithful" that the films would have been "better" (and there ARE things I wish PJ had interpreted differently) but I am happy that I was enthralled with these characters and this adaptation. Because a director can slavishly follow material as best they can and it just doesn't work on screen, possibly becoming ponderous and dull, or silly - would Thorin's descent work so well if we are watching a "short hairy square" argue ostensibly to Gandalf's belt, because of the height difference, or would it just come off like a cranky terrier, visually, and be unintentionally comic? Look at how often Gimli was employed as a comic figure. (You know, just thinking about all this kind of detail has me respecting PJ all the more, for the number of decisions that had to be made with these films!)
|
|
|
|
|