|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOBBITFAN13
Lorien
Feb 5 2016, 1:39pm
Post #1 of 67
(1659 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What would Tolkien think of the Hobbit films?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I saw another kinda thread like this about the 1978 LOTR adaption so I'm going to do it for the Hobbit.
Do you think Tolkien would be terrified by the fact of the three film adaption?
Do you think he would rolling in his grave because of the Kili and Tauriel storyline?
But if he like the movies which one would be his favorite?
|
|
|
Fereth
Rivendell
Feb 5 2016, 2:03pm
Post #2 of 67
(1573 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Possibly.
2. Tolkien wrote plenty of romances into his stories, so I can't imagine him being too bothered by Kili/Tauriel.
3. No idea.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 5 2016, 2:12pm
Post #3 of 67
(1569 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That no one knows, that no one knows, and no one ever will....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But here are a few lame guesses on my part:
Terrified? No, I can't see any reason at all why he'd be frightened of it. For what it's worth, I can't see why any writer would mind more time being allotted to an adaptation of his book. If anything, that's a compliment. It's not the length of the adaptation the writer would mind it's how good the adaptation is and what goes into it and how much it reflects his own ideas. And on that count I think he would have had huge reservations about any adaptation, because his work was so personal to him and was still evolving when he died. I'm sure he would have objected to a lot of things in Peter Jackson's adaptation. I hope (but don't know) that there are other things he would have liked - in particular, the immense dedication and sheer hard work that went into crafting the films.
Rolling in his grave? No, of course not. Three decades on from the time he died I'm sure he has left Niggle's parish and gone on into the mountains, and on... wherever that is, and is not worrying at all about what happens here. Besides, Tolkien understood love, doomed love, unrequited love, misplaced love and gave all of them a place in his stories. He knew these were powerful things - and he gave us the particular angst and anguish of love between the divided races of Middle Earth. I daresay he would have raised an eyebrow (or several eyebrows) at PJ & co's reasons for adding a love story just there - or that love story - and he probably would have had a myriad of other objections to aspects of the adaptation none of us have even thought of. But he died over thirty years ago and the world today is not the world he knew - and if he could possibly still be alive (he couldn't) his ideas would have changed - subtly perhaps, but they would have changed in response to the changes in the world around him. The man he was could not have reacted to these films because so much about them would have seemed almost like magic to him.
It was one story to him so I'm betting it would be one film to him too - one film in three parts, each one necessary to the whole.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 5 2016, 2:26pm
Post #4 of 67
(1569 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien would be terrified by the fact of the three film adaption?
Definitely. With just one film it’s over and done, but with three films that’s years of phone calls at two in the morning asking silly questions, and busloads of fans and reporters showing up at his house and trampling his petunias.
Do you think he would rolling in his grave because of the Kili and Tauriel storyline?
I think he’d be rolling in his grave at people abusing each other over it.
But if he like the movies which one would be his favorite.
BotFA, because it meant all the furor was finally near to being over and he and his family was at last going to have some peace.
******************************************
Fimbrethil, Warrior Entwife
Sez: "Why don't we terraform Earth? It's closer."
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Feb 5 2016, 2:27pm
Post #5 of 67
(1566 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It doesn't really matter; I'll bite anyhow
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. I think he'd be intrigued as to how his original tale would be expanded in the beginning. Overall, though, I think he'd appreciate that it was done, allowing the story the chance to breathe and the chance to gel better with the size/scope of "LotR" as he retroactively tried to do in his medium.
2. No. In fact, while I think he would enjoy some things about the adaptation as well as disagree with others, on this addition I get the suspicion he would be pleasantly surprised and very pleased. He was a romantic after all, and it's very much done in the spirit of the romances that often appeared in his work.
3. "An Unexpected Journey," probably. It best encapsulates the atmosphere and intent of his novel.
In any case, they would all be great cinema with or without his approval and, as he understood the importance of myths getting added to and growing beyond their beginnings (indeed, encouraging this with his Middle-earth), I believe he better than most would realize his own thoughts were beside the point
Bilbo: These are dark days.
Bofur: Dark days indeed.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 5 2016, 3:35pm
Post #6 of 67
(1546 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that Professor Tolkien would have been pleased that his story was given room to breathe instead of forced into the structure of a single film. It seems very possible that he might have thought this trilogy to be excessive, but perhaps more because of the additions and alterations that just because of the sheer length.
If nothing else, we would get a definitive answer as to how Tolkien would have felt about the possibility of a Dwarf/Elf romance. He did tend to have his characters fall in love at first sight or at least very quickly so that element might not have bothered him.
Tolkien's favorite out of the three movies we got? I'll also go with An Unexpected Journey for capturing the feel of the book better than the other two.
"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
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Feb 5 2016, 3:52pm
Post #7 of 67
(1536 views)
Shortcut
|
1. I think Tolkien would like the expansions, but maybe not three films, just two.
2. He'd probably support this one, as he's had couples fall in love at first sight and not under the best of circumstances, Beren and Luthien being a case in point.
3. Probably An Unexpected Journey, since it was closest to his original work
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Feb 5 2016, 4:52pm
Post #8 of 67
(1524 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you think Tolkien would be terrified by the fact of the three film adaption? I don't think he would be terrified, but I think he will be surprised of three films, but I don't think he will hate it right away.
Do you think he would rolling in his grave because of the Kili and Tauriel storyline? Don't know, he maybe likes it or he will hate it. But if Tolken is okay with an Elf and a Man falling in love, I don't see any reason for him not to be okay with an Elf and a Dwarf falling in love.
But if he like the movies which one would be his favorite? An Unexpected journey, because it is the closest one to the book.
|
|
|
HeadingSouth
Bree
Feb 5 2016, 10:01pm
Post #9 of 67
(1440 views)
Shortcut
|
1. Not terrified, but I think he wouldn't have been keen on much of the additions, as well as some fine moments being left out.
2. I can't say for sure, but I suspect he may have had his doubts.
3. An Unexpected Journey, though I don't think he would have appreciated some of the vulgar humour.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Feb 6 2016, 1:29am
Post #10 of 67
(1410 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien would be appalled. Just as his son is appalled.
I would refer you to comments made by JRR Tolkien during his life about an aborted screenplay of his work. The withering complaints from Tolkien were not about what was left out of the film from the books in the interest of time compression, but the bad additions thrown in, and I think Tolkien would be appalled at what Jackson threw in. Christopher's assessment of the films in 2012 sounds much like what his father might say: “They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25.”
One doesn't use the word "eviscerated" lightly.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Feb 6 2016, 1:29am)
|
|
|
HeadingSouth
Bree
Feb 6 2016, 1:44am
Post #11 of 67
(1402 views)
Shortcut
|
I think you are spot on, but I was trying to say it in a more polite manner.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Feb 6 2016, 2:01am
Post #12 of 67
(1402 views)
Shortcut
|
He would have been offered the position of artistic consultant, as Christopher was offered it. If he had taken it, he would have had a say in the final product, and either been involved in any changes/cuts from the beginning or at least have given his input before, not after, the fact. End result: Different choices, different movies.
If he had refused the offer, as Christopher did, then he would likely have refrained from giving his opinion publicly, as Christopher has tried to do (with the result that people extrapolate a great deal from the very little he has actually said). End result: Similar movies, similar speculation, similar lack of answers.
Silverlode
Roads go ever ever on
Under cloud and under star
Yet feet that wandering have gone
Turn at last to home afar.
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 6 2016, 9:39am
Post #13 of 67
(1346 views)
Shortcut
|
They added content.
- A story of bondships between a female elf and the outer world, including one of the dwarves more opened to elves than the others
- Some stunts by Legolas, involving a bat (he's the only one to actually use and fight a bat in that movie, without him, bats would have been nobodies)
- Some action with trolls and ogres, all of them over-the-top but funny as it can be to please young audiences, which is the audience of th Hobbit Book
- A close-up on the three dwarves who have been killed when Bilbo was asleep in Tolkien book
Many, many, many exact citations throughout the three movies, where a single movie would have cut, cut, cut, cut.
is that what you call 'evisceration' ?
Mmmh I may feel abrasive reading that 
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Feb 6 2016, 10:51am
Post #14 of 67
(1338 views)
Shortcut
|
They also added loads of vulgar humour, things that bear no true relation to the plot, and an identity crisis (the movies themselves). The movies didn't know what to do. I am growing tired of the old argument, "They're supposed to be aimed at young audiences", because these films are clearly not. To begin with, the third film's extended edition is rated R. The films have vulgar humour that would not be found in a children's story. They are very violent at times and show brutal decapitations and corpses, frequently. Then at other times, they try to make it more lighthearted, and at other moments they attempt to make it comedic again. There's no balance. I think Tolkien would rather have had one movie that captured the soul and essence of his novel, regardless of cutting certain things out (but also not really adding anything big), than three movies that expand too much beyond his own work while also losing the spirit of the book.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on Feb 6 2016, 10:51am)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 6 2016, 11:34am
Post #15 of 67
(1331 views)
Shortcut
|
- Call funny 'vulgar'
- Call a robust storyline 'identity crisis'
- Call a diverse and subtile intention a lack of intention
- Call the yawns in rescue, where your own arguments are old and depleted
- Call the quotation marks to dismiss obvious and reasonable arguments as if they were pretexts
- Call denials of evidence as if they were clear evidences
- Call facts that went last as if they went first (The Theater/TV edition hasn't been rated R and the R rate is more than dubious)
- Call fictions as if they were proved
- Call oversights of the original material (aren't Tolkien wars violent ? Don't they show decapitations, even torture ?) in rescue of criticism of their adaptation
- Call the artistic choices done as if they were just 'attempts'
- Call the obvious balances in tone lack of balance
And so and so.
Maybe you believe you're speaking about the actual movies, but what I read i a methodic and systematic deconstruction of those movies
If Tolkien would have rather 'one movie', so why did he chose three books (LOTR) to write a sequel of The Hobbit instead of only one ?
Would he feel the constant need to re-write The Hobbit according to LOTR spirit, who was a three-books telling ?
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 6 2016, 11:50am
Post #16 of 67
(1325 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien probably would have mixed views.
Wonders about the visuals, honour about the faithfulness of many many scenes, interest for many of the adds, kind indulgence for some others.
He may have been terrified by the boredomness of the backlash sent against that excellent adaptation of his Hobbit book
he would be rolling in his grave grumbling the desire to express his positive view for the Kili/Tauriel addition
I think his favorite movie would have been BOTFA, that succeeded in extracting a sensational en sensitive threat out of the very risqué adaptation of the depressing and sad end of the book.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Feb 6 2016, 11:51am)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 6 2016, 1:30pm
Post #17 of 67
(1301 views)
Shortcut
|
Actually, it was Christopher Tolkien who used the word eviscerated in his reaction to Peter Jackson's LotR films. You'll have to take it up with him.
"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
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 6 2016, 1:31pm)
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Feb 6 2016, 2:42pm
Post #19 of 67
(1284 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It appears you are unwaware...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If Tolkien would have rather 'one movie', so why did he chose three books (LOTR) to write a sequel of The Hobbit instead of only one ?
Tolkien did write The Lord of the Rings as one book. It was his publisher who requested it be divided into three, due to paper shortages after WWII and in an effort to keep the cost of each book down.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 6 2016, 2:43pm
Post #20 of 67
(1282 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If credit is to put where credit is due
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Remember that like any other adaptations, the movie transcriptions have never pretended to substitute themselves to anything which was written
Since the death of his father, who sold in person the rights for a movie adaptation, Christopher Tolkien lives happily with the benefit of the copyright, including the sensational promotion that PJ's movies (6 billions of audience in a row) gave to his father's books.
And as far as I remember, CT never campaigned publicly against LOTR, nor he expressed himself publicly against The Hobbit. CT's own son is very happy of the movies and has even a cameo there.
But even if that so-called 'evisceration' in fact feed the viscera of Christopher Tolkien and family for 15 years now, some anonyms still don't hesitate to borrow those words ad nauseam extracting them from any context.
It's certainly by now a disservice that Christopher Tolkien himself would condemn if he knew about.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 6 2016, 2:50pm
Post #21 of 67
(1276 views)
Shortcut
|
.. that if editors call for a division into three books, the reason may be because there was stuff for three books instead of one.
It may be not because of the rarity of the paper (3 books make three covers instead of one), but because of marketing objectives : selling a serial instead of one single heavy book.
What I point out is that JRR Tolkien wrote a heavy saga thrice the the weight of The Hobbit
|
|
|
Morthoron
Gondor
Feb 6 2016, 3:11pm
Post #22 of 67
(1265 views)
Shortcut
|
.. that if editors call for a division into three books, the reason may be because there was stuff for three books instead of one.
It may be not because of the rarity of the paper (3 books make three covers instead of one), but because of marketing objectives : selling a serial instead of one single heavy book.
What I point out is that JRR Tolkien wrote a heavy saga thrice the the weight of The Hobbit.
You claimed Tolkien wrote three books, you were wrong. The point of your post regarded Tolkien writing three books instead of The Hobbit's one book. That was not the case, ergo your point failed. The paper shortage after WWII was a main factor in splitting the book. Please do some research and not just guess.
The Lord of the Rings has approximately 473,000 words, while Tolstoy's War and Peace has over 587,000 words and Les Miserables by Victor Hugo has 655,478 words. If War and Peace or Les Miserables were published in the modern era they too may have been cut up into three or four books due to publisher's interference.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
(This post was edited by Morthoron on Feb 6 2016, 3:12pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
Feb 6 2016, 3:35pm
Post #23 of 67
(1257 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not about fact-checking here, but more about... guess-checking :
Guess if Tolkien would have put an approval on a three-movies production.
Nobody can fact-check that, for the decision has been taken decades after Tolkien's death.
The closer we can get is to recognize that LOTR is a more detailed book than The Hobbit, that Tolkien sold the rights for both TH and LOTR, and that Tolkien expressed he would have liked to re-write The Hobbit in accordance with LOTR. So we can expect he would have expanded Beorn, The Elves of Mirkwood, Rivendell, Laketown, Dale, Erebor and people inside.
On which scale and with which content, we'll never know.
But I see no reason why he would have put a veto on a three movies division (for commercial reasons : 3 billions audience instead of 1) since he put no veto on a three-books division... for commercial reasons (small books were easier to sell than heavy ones)
PS - in french, 'editeur' most frequently extends to the 'imprimeur' process - we never use 'publieur')
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on Feb 6 2016, 3:37pm)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 6 2016, 8:44pm
Post #24 of 67
(1201 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In fact, LotR consists of six books.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Six books that are usually broken down into either three volumes or one single volume.
"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
|
|
|
hamlet
Rivendell
Feb 6 2016, 8:48pm
Post #25 of 67
(1195 views)
Shortcut
|
Speaking as someone who is both an avid book lover and an enthusiastic fan of the films, I hate to say it -- but you are spot on. Tolkien would not have been pleased with any of the additions to the story. It simply was not in his nature to embrace change (the changing of Middle Earth, after all, is referred to as the "long defeat" by Galadriel). So --
1) Yes - he would have been distressed by the format of the films.
2) No - he would not have approved of the Tauriel romance.
and 3) Of the 3 Hobbit films I suspect that AUJ would have been his favorite (in fact, I think he would have preferred AUJ to any of the LOTR films as well, with the possible exception of Fellowship).
Having said all that, I still have to tip my hat to Peter Jackson and company. I am currently re-reading the Hobbit and LOTR for the first time since the films began coming out. For about 20 years, I read the books annually, and then in 2001 I stopped. Returning to the books with a new perspective, I am amazed at how much of Tolkien is in these films; much more than I thought, actually.
|
|
|
|
|
1
