|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Mar 29 2016, 1:32am
Post #1 of 45
(1897 views)
Shortcut
|
|
An interesting fact I didn't know about The Hobbit film adaptation
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was having a look at the wikipedia entry, and learned that the animation studio hired by Rankin Bass would later go on to become Studio Ghibli! Not only that, but the adaptation got a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes...that's higher than Unexpected Journey and Five Armies. Desolation somehow beat it by 6 points.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 29 2016, 8:04am
Post #2 of 45
(1747 views)
Shortcut
|
|
By being a better film, perhaps?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Though having said that, I'm about to contradict myself completely by saying that if the Rankin Bass Hobbit was rated more highly on Rotten Tomatoes than Peter Jackson's adaptation then it simply confirms my view that rankings like these are meaningless as an objective guide to how good or bad a film might be. All they tell us is that some people liked it, some didn't, and we all tend to seize on the results that tone in with our particular view.
Sorry, but I think the Rankin Bass animation is hideous. I've never heard of Studio Ghibli and having just looked them up I can see why. Not my sort of thing at all, I'm afraid.
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Elanor of Rohan
Lorien
Mar 29 2016, 9:04am
Post #3 of 45
(1732 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't like the Rankin Bass adaptation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I saw some stills and it's not my cup of tea. Of course I should see the film first to give an opinion but it surely isn't better than Peter Jackson's version!
I don't like the trend about criticising the Hobbit trilogy. True, they have flaws, and I know them, but saying that Rankin Bass is better...
|
|
|
StingingFly
Lorien
Mar 29 2016, 11:02am
Post #4 of 45
(1726 views)
Shortcut
|
though the animation is awkward and simplistic, the Bass Rankin cartoon more accurately follows the story in Tolkien's book. To me the tenor and feel of the cartoon is generally appropriate. For example, the slaying of Smaug, one of my favorite scenes from the book is satisfactorily brought to life. The music and voice acting are good (Black Arrow speech!) and the animation doesn't get in the way, whereas the film gives us the convoluted mess of Bard using an impossibility improvised version of an invented weapon that is being launched off of his son's back at a dragon who will not stop monologueing. Also better was the cartoon's encounter with the goblins, while not animated well, it conveys the right tone. It is actually dark and frightening, the impression you would get from reading the book. Gandalf dramatically saves the day by bringing down the 'hammer' on the Goblin king! The film gives us 'goblin town' as silly and comical, with no tension and slapstick violence.i will say the cartoon's "battle" of the five armies looks like it was re-enacted by a flea circus and the elves looked like frogs, but overall I would give the cartoon a "B-" as a worthwhile effort and a way to introduce children to the works of JRR Tolkien.
(This post was edited by StingingFly on Mar 29 2016, 11:10am)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Mar 29 2016, 7:04pm
Post #5 of 45
(1577 views)
Shortcut
|
and I can barely remember it. I have looked up some of it on YouTube, and, well, I don't agree that it's a "better adaptation" of the book. Half the Company died in the battle. I liked the Goblin tunnels in the movie, yeah you're right it was silly & didn't feel dangerous, but that didn't bother me at all. I will agree that movie Bard's improvised arrow was not, IMO, very well thought out, but others on TORn think the scene was great! To each his own, I guess. As for Rotten Tomatoes, well, I guess it's an okay site for getting movie reviews. They sure aren't loving the "Batman v. Superman" movie very much, and from what my friends told me the Rotten Tomatoes score is probably pretty accurate, at least for that movie.
Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Mar 29 2016, 11:29pm
Post #6 of 45
(1513 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not too sure a quick look at a few film still is enough to give a final judgement. But whether or not it is better than PJ's version depends on how faithful an adaptation of the book you want. Rankin Bass's version changes a few things and leaves some things out, but takes nowhere near as many liberties as PJ did. All the dwarves have beards, and there aren't any crude references to their genitals. Like the book it was intended to be a story for children. But if troll boogers, nude dwarves and cheesy fanfic romance is your thing, PJ delivers the goods!
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Mar 29 2016, 11:46pm
Post #7 of 45
(1509 views)
Shortcut
|
And you're right, the battle of five armies does look like a flea circus performance.  But I think the way this adaptation doesn't fixate on every detail of the violence and battle sequences (like PJ) but rather spends more time on Bilbo, is one of the reasons this version is superior over PJ's. PJ's action scenes go on for so long they became tiresome. It's like, jeeze we get it, you have a green screen and a bunch of fancy technology...whoopiee!
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Mar 30 2016, 2:10am
Post #8 of 45
(1488 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Still weird, with the froglike elves and enemies whirling out of sight when they get killed
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Mar 30 2016, 5:27am
Post #9 of 45
(1462 views)
Shortcut
|
All the dwarves have beards, Yes but they are really boring and not interesting, PJ dwarves looks great, are fun to watch, are interesting and have personalities. So while Rankin Bass was more faithful with the dwarves, PJ dwarves was better.
But if troll boogers, nude dwarves and cheesy fanfic romance is your thing Nude dwarves was in the book.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 30 2016, 9:02am
Post #10 of 45
(1452 views)
Shortcut
|
But whether or not it is better than PJ's version depends on how faithful an adaptation of the book you want. Rankin Bass's version changes a few things and leaves some things out, but takes nowhere near as many liberties as PJ did. All the dwarves have beards, and there aren't any crude references to their genitals. Like the book it was intended to be a story for children. But if troll boogers, nude dwarves and cheesy fanfic romance is your thing, PJ delivers the goods!
That's a very crude caracterisation of why anyone might prefer Peter Jackson's adaptation as I'm sure you well know. For sure, Rankin Bass gave all their dwarves beards (is that really what matters most to you in The Hobbit?) but they also gave Elrond a beard! Why give bonus points for one and a complete pass to the other? Why is it OK for one adaptation to make changes and not the other?
For what it's worth, I've loved Tolkien's books virtually all my life and approach any adaptation with a degree of trepidation. Rankin Bass is a spectacular failure for me because though it follows some of the broad outline of the story it completely misses the magic, the beauty and the depth of the original. Those elements are more apparent in Lord of the Rings, of course, but they are present in The Hobbit too and they matter far more too me than how long anybody's beard is. The animated figures in the cartoon are hideous. I can't look at them and see any connection with Tolkien (and if I'd seen it as a child I would probably have avoided the book. Thankfully the book came first). I think it would be possible to produce a really good animated version of the book but it would need a very different style. Visually, for me, Peter Jackson wins hands down.
Then there's the music. Matter of taste, of course, but set 'Far over the Misty Mountains' and Howard Shore's 'Beyond the Forest', 'Thrice Welcome', 'Feast of Starlight', 'Sons of Durin' et al against the songs in the cartoon and I know which I prefer.
And on the adaptation, it simply isn't true to say that RB is more faithful. Partly on the grounds of those deeper aspects of the story. To preserve the shell and lose the meaning seems to me to be a definition of a very bad adaptation. But also looking at the changes that were made. All adaptations make changes and some are superficial. Some are inevitable in condensing a book to a short film. But no Beorn? No ravens? (Something of the magic and wildness of the story was lost with them - at least, for me it was.) And the one thing I couldn't have forgiven in any adaptation - the omission of the Arkenstone. Cut that out and you lose what is for me one of the most important parts of Bilbo's story.
I know there are people here who have a lot of affection for the RB version and that's fine. We don't all like the same things and there's no reason why we should. But for me, I celebrate the years of creativity and sheer hard work that went into Peter Jackson's films and delight in watching them. For all the changes and the niggles and the things I wouldn't have done, they capture that essential something that drew me to Tolkien's books in the first place and holds me to them still. So you might care to broaden your definition of the people who like the films - or not, just as you wish! 
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Mar 30 2016, 12:02pm
Post #11 of 45
(1421 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As usual I agree with dormouse
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"To preserve the shell and lose the meaning seems to me to be a definition of a very bad adaptation." is spot on. For me that applies to the RB Hobbit.
I don't remember every detail of the RB version because I loathed it and haven't watched it for a long time. From what I recall, Bilbo's personal journey is covered but there is still stuff left out and the movie is just ugly in so many ways.
Bilbo's story is still there, pretty well in it's entirety, in Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies but it is one thread, a major thread, in the multi-plot tapestry that is TH trilogy. For me that made the story more complex and interesting. Also, these movies are beautiful.
I think I understand why some Hobbit fans dislike PJ's movies: they wanted more of the same as LotR or they wanted a direct adaptation of the children's books as well as other reasons in between those extremes such as disliking the use of CGI. Fine. What I don't get is why some can't understand or accept that many of us Tolkien booklovers do genuinely love these movies for what they are, even while we perceive flaws in them. That doesn't make us blind PJ fangirls and boys or stupid or undiscerning. We just see things differently.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Mar 30 2016, 10:52pm
Post #12 of 45
(1345 views)
Shortcut
|
The dwarves beards are not the only thing I care about, but it is sort of an important feature of the dwarves culture. And call me crazy, but I like the songs in the RB film. I like to sing the elves barrel song while doing housework, and while jumping angrily up and down on an 8"10 of PJ's face.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Mar 31 2016, 8:31am
Post #13 of 45
(1305 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think it's crazy at all to like the songs if you do....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... but reserve judgement on your last comment!
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Mar 31 2016, 5:21pm
Post #14 of 45
(1249 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Most accurate version is still the PC video game...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Pretty much nailed everything. It even includes Tauriel, although in the game she's called Lianna.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Mar 31 2016, 10:39pm
Post #15 of 45
(1198 views)
Shortcut
|
But what happened to Legolas?
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Apr 1 2016, 1:41pm
Post #16 of 45
(1156 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Have you read the Graphic Novel?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
[urlhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Hobbit-Graphic-J-R-Tolkien/dp/0261102664/]
It's more an abridgment than adaptation i.m.o (from memory there may be one or two tiny embellishments or changes, but it's based purely on the novel no appendices material), very faithful to the story and tone of the novel, with a huge amount of dialogue carried over, the artwork is fantastic, full colour throughout and very faithful to Tolkien's descriptions.
It's certainly the most accurate adaptation of Tolkien's work I've come across, and a great graphic novel in its own right...
|
|
|
KW
Rivendell
Apr 1 2016, 2:00pm
Post #17 of 45
(1151 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have not seen the RB version
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and I was unaware of the Ghibli connection. Now I admit that any Miyazaki connection is tenuous at best and this is largely not directly relevant to the RB version but I was thinking that based on Spirited Away and Mononoke and others Miyazaki clearly gets a work like The Hobbit in a way that Jackson by contrast does not. I was curious to know if he'd ever commented on Tolkien and discovered that he had staged an exhibition of his favorite children's books and The Hobbit was included. Anyway, while digging around I came across this http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lookingcloser/2012/12/what-if-hayao-miyazaki-and-studio-ghibli-made-the-hobbit/
I'm not actually one who pines for film adaptations of Tolkien's books. I admit that I'd be interested to see a comics anthology/tribute to Tolkien that included comics by Miyazaki. Dylan Horrocks who is a cartoonist and critic who I like who also seems pretty insightful regarding Tolkien , along with Mike Mignola and others.
Anyway, that blog also turned up this person's review of AUJ that I figured you might appreciate:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodletters/2012/12/the-hobbit-on-steroids/
Tolkien was better than this. The Hobbit never stooped to mere smack-down storytelling. Bilbo was heroic precisely because he saw typical warlike behaviors as madness.
“Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check,” says Gandalf to Galadriel. “But that is not what I’ve found. I’ve found that it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love.”
Jackson seems unconvinced. He’s too fond of muscular power, drawn to show characters dueling instead of developing. He’ll seize any mention of strife in the story and exaggerate it into absurdity. (The dwarves’ escape from goblin captivity is a suspense-free amplification of Fellowship’s Moria sequence.)
Make no mistake—when it comes to proving himself the world’s greatest producer of fantasy spectacle, Jackson is four-for-four.
But where Tolkien served the head and the heart, Jackson serves the appetite for adrenalin rush. In this sense, he’s Bilbo’s opposite. He’s only comfortable doing what is outrageous and chaotic. For him, it would be a real adventure to delve into quieter moments, soul-searching, and a thoughtful sense of pacing and progress. But every time he takes one step forward, he stumbles two steps back into the familiar.
“All good stories deserve embellishment,” Gandalf tells Bilbo. That’s not true if embellishment contradicts (and even crushes) what made a story good in the first place. Presented in 3D—at the much-hyped forty-eight frames per second—An Unexpected Journey has more in common with amusement parks than literature.
Actually, since I am posting links, here's some of Horrocks commentary, too:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/330613898
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 1 2016, 5:03pm
Post #18 of 45
(1126 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm also not too big on adaptations either, but a Studio Ghibli Hobbit would definitely interest me. And I am in complete agreement with that review.
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Apr 2 2016, 12:17pm
Post #19 of 45
(1079 views)
Shortcut
|
ve never heard of Studio Ghibli and having just looked them up I can see why. Not my sort of thing at all, I'm afraid.
this to me is one of the most saddest thing ive ever read for anyone with an interest in truly great stories, animation or fantasy.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 2 2016, 3:43pm
Post #20 of 45
(1059 views)
Shortcut
|
I'd never heard the name so I looked it up (rather than simply dismissing it). I found a style of animation which didn't appeal to me. That's not to say that it's bad - technically, artistically I'm sure it's very good, but it isn't for me. It doesn't catch my imagination or make me want to see more.
Am I interested in truly great stories? Yes, but my truly great stories may not be the same as yours (though I'm assuming we both place Tolkien in that bracket). Fantasy? Yes, to an extent, though not just any old fantasy. Myth, folklore and (traditional) fairy tale is where I start. With 'new' fantasy books or films there has to be something that captures my imagination in the story itself and the way it's written or scripted. Animation? Not so much. I'm passionately interested in illustration and always have been. Animation doesn't always work for me as a form of storytelling because I find it easier to relate to live actors on screen than to animated characters (if you can overcome your sadness for a minute you might reflect that this was one of the revelations for me in Peter Jackson's films - Gollum and Smaug took the art of animation to a whole new level).
So please try not to be sad on my account. Some things I like, some I don't - doesn't sound that revolutionary to me....
*Passes box of tissues
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Apr 2 2016, 3:59pm
Post #21 of 45
(1046 views)
Shortcut
|
ve never heard of Studio Ghibli and having just looked them up I can see why. Not my sort of thing at all, I'm afraid. this to me is one of the most saddest thing ive ever read for anyone with an interest in truly great stories, animation or fantasy.
I have no interest in anime probably because I am not of the generation that is into that and everything else Japanese. Nothing against Japan or its people; I’m just not a japanophile.
Also, from the little I’ve seen of it and a few things I’ve read about it, there seem to be issues about infantilization, sexualization and objectification of women, gender stereotyping and worse in the genre which makes it even of less interest to me.
I love great stories and great fantasy but there are many of both in the world and one can’t follow everything.
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Apr 2 2016, 5:29pm
Post #22 of 45
(1039 views)
Shortcut
|
a lot of these films are completely all about traditional myth folklore and fairytales. Ghibli has some of the best animation and story tellling going, ever! period. i think you should look a little harder.
most of the hobbit is animated dont forget!
|
|
|
balbo biggins
Rohan
Apr 2 2016, 5:36pm
Post #23 of 45
(1031 views)
Shortcut
|
ve never heard of Studio Ghibli and having just looked them up I can see why. Not my sort of thing at all, I'm afraid. this to me is one of the most saddest thing ive ever read for anyone with an interest in truly great stories, animation or fantasy. Also, from the little I’ve seen of it and a few things I’ve read about it, there seem to be issues about infantilization, sexualization and objectification of women, gender stereotyping and worse in the genre which makes it even of less interest to me.
this is totaly wrong, and naive. sure there are manga style media that go into dodgy territory, but thats like saying you wont watch western american films because they also make porn. crazy.
japanese animation is not made by one studio or person!
im actually shocked this is how you percieve it.
|
|
|
ange1e4e5
Gondor
Apr 2 2016, 5:38pm
Post #24 of 45
(1028 views)
Shortcut
|
Anyway, you don't have to be an anime fan to like fantasy.
I always follow my job through.
|
|
|
wizzardly
Rohan
Apr 2 2016, 5:41pm
Post #25 of 45
(1024 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not a anime fan, but the Studio Ghibli stuff really stands out for me. Just the detail in the scenery alone is amazing to look at.
|
|
|
|
|
1
