Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Do the Hobbit movies capture the "spirit" of the book?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next page Last page  View All

Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 20 2016, 10:09pm

Post #1 of 275 (7061 views)
Shortcut
Do the Hobbit movies capture the "spirit" of the book? Can't Post

So, how 'bout another hornet's nest? On my last post, a few of the (for lack of better term) naysayers stated that the Hobbit movies didn't capture the "spirit" of the book. Now, in all honesty I would like for one or more of the naysayers to explain their position here. I may not be the best judge of this topic, since I personally wasn't crazy about the book. Maybe if I'd read it as a child I'd feel differently, but then I know of a few TORnsibs who did and still manage to like/love the movie, so feel free to join in. First of all, what do you think the "spirit" of the book is - a whimsical tale? A lesson about greed? Here's what I think the book was about:


First, it was an adventure. Now that's something that I think most children dream of, but as adults we can certainly become complacent and resistant to change. Stepping outside of our comfort zone can be difficult, whether it's a cross-country trip or just trying something new closer to home. I think this was expressed in the book by Bilbo's comparison of his Baggins and Took side. The movie started with his Baggins side, but then the Took side took over and he went off on an adventure!


Second, it was the idea that the smallest person that the least is expected from can be just the right person after all. Bilbo struggled with the task, certainly felt inadequate at times, but was able to rise to the challenge and help those Dwarves who he'd grown to care about.


And finally, the book does take a darker turn, and you have people who should know better fighting over gold. You also have Bilbo making the difficult decision to backstab a friend in order to save him from himself (a difficult subject for a child to understand). I don't think there's anything the movie got more right than this - and we still had that awful ending where both nephews were killed, one of my biggest problems with the book and probably the main reason why I didn't like it so much. There's death and loss, and Bilbo is a changed Hobbit because of it - no longer "respectable," I believe, but probably a better person for all that.


So, that's what I think the "spirit of the book" was, and maybe I've completely missed the point (or maybe that, too, is subjective). But from what I've seen, the movie captures these points quite well, and in some cases better than the book (yes, I said that!). But I'm up for having an honest discussion with people who DON'T share my enthusiasm for the movies, especially those who think the movies violate the spirit of the book. Please tell me what you think!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 20 2016, 11:05pm

Post #2 of 275 (6629 views)
Shortcut
Spirit and Tone [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien's The Hobbit is essentially a bedtime story and adopts a fairy-tale tone that Peter Jackson does not try to replicate in his film trilogy. Jackson doesn't ignore the main themes to be found in the book, but he expands on those by borrowing additional material from The Lord of the Rings (principally the sub-plot pitting the White Council against the Necromancer as well as the addition of Legolas). If that was all Jackson did then I doubt that most Tolkien fans would have had many problems with the films; however, the director made many additional alterations that were far more problematic for some viewers.

Peter Jackson's penchant for over-the-top action and humor changed the tone of the story to something both more serious and sometimes more absurd (the catwalk chase in Goblin Town; the barrel-chase; the excesses of the Master of Lake-town; Legolas' stunts; etc.). He also made alterations that went far beyond just expanding the story: Azog and an army from Dol Guldur; the High Fells and Nazgűl tombs; the addition of the Were-worms the Kili/Tauriel relationship; etc.

"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


StingingFly
Lorien

Apr 20 2016, 11:24pm

Post #3 of 275 (6622 views)
Shortcut
...nice summary, [In reply to] Can't Post

I would say you captured the spirit of the book, as PJ did intermittently. The best analogy I can think of is a BLT sandwich. There is a general recipe, those elements you mention in your summary. The Bacon (Adventure), Lettuce (Bilbo's story), and Tomato (war for gold).
PJ was heavy on the Bacon, light on the Lettuce, and good with the Tomato.
Unfortunately, he decided to add liberal amounts of Hot Sauce (over the top action), Mustard (gross humor) and Onions (love story).
Some found these additions to be delightful, others found them to be unpalatable.
What will never be agreed upon is what Chef PJ created. I say it is no longer a BLT, for it tastes nothing like the original recipe. Others will say there is still clearly bacon, lettuce, and tomato.
It is a question of taste.


wizzardly
Rohan


Apr 20 2016, 11:48pm

Post #4 of 275 (6614 views)
Shortcut
Sadly...no [In reply to] Can't Post

PJ took the re-writing of Tolkien a bit too far with this adaptation, and amongst all the additions, alterations, embellishments and over-the-top special effects, somehow managed to forget that this is supposed to be a story where the main focus is the character of Bilbo. Its not about how awesome and exciting battles are, or how dwarves can be sexy with a little grooming, or that women can be like Legolas and defy the laws of gravity with the best of them. The story is supposed to illustrate the pointlessness and stupidity of war, but PJ being the big epic battle fan that he is, put so much emphasis on his battle of five armies, and pulled every stop to make it as "Cool" as he thought possible. In this regard he really is like a 12 year old, gleefully blowing up his GI Joes in the sandbox with firecrackers.

The sexy dwarves, love story and addition of a female character was done purely to attract a wider demographic (in this case, women). This was done purely to make more money. And if I seem to recall, one of the other themes of the story is greed...so yeah, PJ failed to capture the spirit of the book...and didnt seem to have learned anything from his reading of it for that matter.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 21 2016, 12:11am

Post #5 of 275 (6605 views)
Shortcut
Well that's also a nice summary [In reply to] Can't Post

Definitely food for thought!Tongue

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Morthoron
Gondor


Apr 21 2016, 2:01am

Post #6 of 275 (6599 views)
Shortcut
No, the Hobbit movies did not capture the "spirit" of the book... [In reply to] Can't Post

One might like the movies better, love the added characters, and even the pouty Vogue-model dwarves, but Jackson badly missed on capturing the spirit of the book; in fact, in many instances, the movies seem wholly foreign in style, substance, treatment and plot.

Characters either don't look like their book counterparts (Thorin) or behave like their book counterparts (bitter Thranduil nearly the whole time and even bitterer Thorin during long stretches), are treated with unnecessary buffoonery (Radagast and Alfrid), or are minimized to the point of being unnecessary (Beorn). One could also say that Bilbo himself was shunted off to the side or minimized (such as when he single-handedly battles the spiders and saves the dwarves in the book, that was taken away in the movie).

Often, the movie devolves into extended chase scenes involving orcs who don't belong where they're at (Barrels out of Bond, Laketown, near Rivendell), and the orcs, even more mystifyingly, are led by a long dead leader who for some reason was found necessary to ressurrect when a perfectly sensible alternative was available right from the book.

The character additions were either completely unnecessary, like Alfrid (the Master of Laketown could have served the same role and practically did so in the book, yet was killed off early in the movie for no logical reason), plain silly (an albino orc with attachments), or was there strictly as a demographically marketable female (Tauriel) stuck with an uncomfortably weird grafted-on dwelf love story. Radagast was embarrassing, Legolas seemed to be able to defeat an entire orc army (yet nearly every other elf somehow died quite easily), and Galadriel turns blue and has seizures (perhaps Thorazine should be prescribed).

Sandworms from Arrakis, visible Bilbo skiing around on piles of gold with a dragon allowing it, giant hollow dwarves (perhaps left over from some ancient Easter party) filled with molten gold that eventually flows so that bobsledding can be practiced for the next Middle-earth Olympics, Rock Transformers(TM) in the mountains, and elvish gymnastics on the collapsing brick climb (Legolas, of course, only used that as practice for his later Mumakil slide).

It was disheartening. The added plots did nothing to enhance the movies over the book. Again, hubris overpowered common sense: Jackson ignored all the genuine humor and quaintness of Tolkien's tale, and in its place threw in troll snot, a diva operatic GoblinKing, unendurably long chutes 'n' ladders chases, sophomoric elf/dwarf sexual jokes, and bird-droppings on the hat of a psychedelicized wizard; admitting he had little time, Jackson ignored the bigatures and extensive modeling and rendering that lent a sense of realism to the the first trilogy, and instead opted for overbearing CGI that basically sucked the life out of Middle-earth; and worst of all, he absconded with the original plot and dialogue and threw it in the garbage, choosing to create characters and write the script with merely a nod to the original.

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 Apr 21 2016, 2:03am)


Gianna
Rohan


Apr 21 2016, 2:37am

Post #7 of 275 (6579 views)
Shortcut
I really love this analogy! [In reply to] Can't Post

Especially that it makes the point that some people enjoy the hot sauce, mustard, and onions, and others don't. It's all a matter of taste. I'm kinda seeing The Hobbit (and its defenders) in a different light now. Smile

~There's some good left in this world. And it's worth fighting for.~
------
My website
My LOTR-inspired fantasy novel is on Amazon


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 21 2016, 3:42am

Post #8 of 275 (6566 views)
Shortcut
I see your point, but ... [In reply to] Can't Post

I see your point about war - and in fact I think he's making a WW1 movie, or something like that. Yeah, there was some gore (which you'd expect in a battle) and he admits there was some self-indulgent action scenes. Specifically the war chariot; yes it was OTT but also one of my favorite scenes. So I'll give you that - some of the OTT action did get away from the horrors of war, which the book touched on. I said one thing I didn't like about the book was that both Fili & Kili died, and so many have told me that was what Tolkien thought of war - as Poldark said, "a waste of good men."

However, I totally disagree that he lost the "lesson on greed." If someone makes a movie, they generally want an audience. If you make your living making movies, you naturally want your movies to be a success, and wanting that DOES NOT make you "greedy." That's like calling me greedy because I want a raise. Obviously you don't like the design of the dwarves, and really seem to resent Tauriel (lot of people do, and I can't figure out why). And it's still debatable as to who wanted the love story - was it PJ, or Phillipa, or Warner Bros? Don't know, it got mixed reviews and I personally didn't care for it. But the mere inclusion of a female elf shouldn't have ruined the movie - after all, there were female wood-elves in LoTR. Yes, these movies made alot of money, but they also cost alot of money to make. So what you call greed, I call wanting to make a return on investment.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 21 2016, 3:44am

Post #9 of 275 (6568 views)
Shortcut
Question [In reply to] Can't Post

You say that PJ didn't try to replicate the fairy-tale tone of the book; do you think he should have?

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 21 2016, 3:48am

Post #10 of 275 (6566 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, not really [In reply to] Can't Post

"(such as when he single-handedly battles the spiders and saves the dwarves in the book, that was taken away in the movie)"

NO, Bilbo DID free the dwarves - that was not taken away, not sure where you're getting that.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


moreorless
Gondor

Apr 21 2016, 6:00am

Post #11 of 275 (6550 views)
Shortcut
I think he tries to but within limits... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You say that PJ didn't try to replicate the fairy-tale tone of the book; do you think he should have?


I think Jackson definitely looks to shift the tone relative to LOTR towards something lighter but compared to Tolkien I think the differences in medium and expectation limit how far he can push it.

I would argue that on the page its much easier to tell stories within the same world that have a different tone since in the Hobbit especially your viewing events though the narrator and often with less exact detail. Filming the same story on the other hand I think means your forced to show things "as they are" much more.

Added to that of course Tolkiens Hobbit was released before LOTR where as Jacksons came afterwards which obviously shifted expectations a lot In that situation I think it becomes harder to look past elements of middle earth that go on to feature in a story we already know.

I would argue as well that releasing the Hobbit after LOTR put pressure on Jackson as far as both works having a lot of similar elements within them. Its much easier releasing such stories the other way around adding depth and I think Jacksons answer was to try and branch out on the Hobbit expanding Thorins character as something we hadn't seen as much of in LOTR.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

Apr 21 2016, 12:19pm

Post #12 of 275 (6503 views)
Shortcut
He only got them untangled in the movie [In reply to] Can't Post

After Bilbo cut them down the Dwarves and then Elves got into a huge confrontation with the Spiders while Bilbo leaves the battle to pursue the Ring. This does downplay Bilbo chasing off the spiders as in the book.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

Apr 21 2016, 12:26pm

Post #13 of 275 (6495 views)
Shortcut
AUJ is the closest to the tone [In reply to] Can't Post

The book has a gentle, warm tone with an understated humor and sense of whimsy and wonder, with a bit of self-awareness that admittedly might have been difficult to translate to film. Even when the book gets a bit darker it still maintains a fairly gentle approach.

I'd say that AUJ comes the closest to this warm and charming style, but is awkwardly balanced with things like Azog and the Azanulbizar scene. In general, the book has little interest in violence, going so far as to have BOFA off-screen, whereas PJ plays up these elements as much as possible, going to ludicrous lengths in the third film. The sense of humor in the films (especially BOFA) is also very different from the slightly wry but affectionate humor of the book.


Gianna
Rohan


Apr 21 2016, 12:43pm

Post #14 of 275 (6489 views)
Shortcut
I myself do not so much resent Tauriel as what they did with her character. [In reply to] Can't Post

I was relatively positive when I heard they were adding a female Elf, curious to see what would happen with her. But when they peddled her as a strong female character and then turned right around and gave her a love triange and all that, I was disappointed.

~There's some good left in this world. And it's worth fighting for.~
------
My website
My LOTR-inspired fantasy novel is on Amazon


StingingFly
Lorien

Apr 21 2016, 12:49pm

Post #15 of 275 (6488 views)
Shortcut
Agreed... [In reply to] Can't Post

...I was just getting ready to say the same thing. In the book it is a fantastic scene. Bilbo uses his wits and Tookish courage to save the company and battle a terrifying company of enemies. There is action, drama, tension, triumph, despair. It is a defining moment for the character. This was greatly reduced in the movie, which rushes past Bilbo's heroics to introduce the high-flying elves, which exterminate the spiders effortlessly, minimizing Bilbo's accomplishment even more.
In the book there was also a build up to the spider encounter. The company had been wandering hopelessly through Mirkwood. They were tired and lost. At night there were the strange eyes in the dark that were creeping in on them. This creates tension and sets the mood. Little of this is in the film. On film it feels like they are in Mirkwood for a couple of hours. The extended edition fixed some of this and did a good job capturing the 'spirit' of Mirkwood, especially the river crossing. Unfortunately, they stole from Mirkwood to develop a fanfic romance and the story suffered.


Darkstone
Immortal


Apr 21 2016, 1:20pm

Post #16 of 275 (6487 views)
Shortcut
Lesse... [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected. He may have lost the neighbours’ respect, but he gained-well, you will see whether he gained anything in the end.

Um, no.

******************************************
“Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"
"Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."
"Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
"But no living man am I! I am Eowyn, daughter of Theodwyn!”
"Er, really? My mother's name was Theodwyn, too!"
"No way!"
"Way!"
"Wow! Let's stop fighting and be best friends!"
"Cool!!"

-Zack Snyder's The Return of the King


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 21 2016, 1:34pm

Post #17 of 275 (6481 views)
Shortcut
Well okay, I can see that [In reply to] Can't Post

One of the things I don't think the movie did well was handle the ring - somehow at the end Gandalf knew all along that Bilbo found a magic ring in the Goblin tunnels; how exactly? Well he's a wizard, I guess. I would have traded that scene where Bilbo killed the creepy thing for the scene where he told Balin and the others about the riddles contest with Gollum. That was probably too hard to fit in, but I would have liked to see it nonetheless.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Smaug the iron
Gondor


Apr 21 2016, 2:06pm

Post #18 of 275 (6472 views)
Shortcut
There is a build up in the film. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
In the book there was also a build up to the spider encounter. The company had been wandering hopelessly through Mirkwood. They were tired and lost. At night there were the strange eyes in the dark that were creeping in on them. This creates tension and sets the mood.


http://screencapped.org/...21#top_display_media When Bilbo is touching the spider web and when the spiders saying attercop, that is a build up to the spider encounter.

And I must say that I never had the idea that the eyes in the dark where the spider eyes.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 21 2016, 2:09pm

Post #19 of 275 (6472 views)
Shortcut
Reply [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You say that PJ didn't try to replicate the fairy-tale tone of the book; do you think he should have?


That would depend on his intended audience. If he had decided to make The Hobbit as a children's film then, yes, he probably should have kept the general fairy-tale quality of the book (which does become more serious as the story progresses; one thing he does do in the films). And, honestly, fairy tales can be pretty dark.

Where I felt Jackson erred (and you are free to disagree) is: 1) Gross-out, over-the-top humor that was inappropriate for either TH or LotR; and 2) Departures from Tolkien's legendarium that did not contribute positively to the films or were otherwise unneeded. Bolg could have served the same purpose as Azog in the story; if Jackson needed a second Orc-leader he could have promoted a character under Bolg for the role (perhaps having him succeed the Great Goblin as well). There was no need for a convoluted backstory for the Nazgűl or the creation of the High Fells and its tombs. Tauriel wasn't a bad character on her own, but she didn't need to have an awkward romantic relationship with Kili (or anyone else).

"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


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 21 2016, 2:21pm

Post #20 of 275 (6462 views)
Shortcut
Okay... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
After Bilbo cut them down the Dwarves and then Elves got into a huge confrontation with the Spiders while Bilbo leaves the battle to pursue the Ring. This does downplay Bilbo chasing off the spiders as in the book.


I would suggest that Jackson did that intentionally to separate Bilbo from the Dwarves before the Wood-elves arrive. He might have felt that the Elves should have noted Bilbo's presence otherwise and his subsequent disappearance, something that Tolkien completely glossed over in the book.

"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


StingingFly
Lorien

Apr 21 2016, 2:32pm

Post #21 of 275 (6451 views)
Shortcut
From The Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

"They slept all closely huddled together, and took it in turns to watch; and when it was Bilbo's turn he would see gleams in the darkness round them, and sometimes pairs of yellow or red or green eyes would stare at him from a little distance, and then slowly fade and disappear slowly shine out again in another place. And sometimes they would gleam down from the branches just above him; and that was most terrifying. But the eyes that he liked the least were horrible pale bulbous sort of eyes. "insect eyes" he thought, "not animal eyes, only they are much too big." - The Hobbit, chapter VII, pg 141.


Smaug the iron
Gondor


Apr 21 2016, 2:40pm

Post #22 of 275 (6448 views)
Shortcut
Yes I remember it [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
"They slept all closely huddled together, and took it in turns to watch; and when it was Bilbo's turn he would see gleams in the darkness round them, and sometimes pairs of yellow or red or green eyes would stare at him from a little distance, and then slowly fade and disappear slowly shine out again in another place. And sometimes they would gleam down from the branches just above him; and that was most terrifying. But the eyes that he liked the least were horrible pale bulbous sort of eyes. "insect eyes" he thought, "not animal eyes, only they are much too big." - The Hobbit, chapter VII, pg 141.


I do remember that they did see eyes in the dark, I always thought it where other animals and not the Spiders. But now after reading it again it does make sense that they are the spiders eyes.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Apr 21 2016, 2:54pm

Post #23 of 275 (6441 views)
Shortcut
Spider eyes... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I do remember that they did see eyes in the dark, I always thought it where other animals and not the Spiders. But now after reading it again it does make sense that they are the spiders eyes.


At least some of them were spiders' eyes.

"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


Noria
Gondor

Apr 21 2016, 4:09pm

Post #24 of 275 (6432 views)
Shortcut
Spirit, theme and tone [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
So, how 'bout another hornet's nest? On my last post, a few of the (for lack of better term) naysayers stated that the Hobbit movies didn't capture the "spirit" of the book. Now, in all honesty I would like for one or more of the naysayers to explain their position here. I may not be the best judge of this topic, since I personally wasn't crazy about the book. Maybe if I'd read it as a child I'd feel differently, but then I know of a few TORnsibs who did and still manage to like/love the movie, so feel free to join in. First of all, what do you think the "spirit" of the book is - a whimsical tale? A lesson about greed? Here's what I think the book was about:


First, it was an adventure. Now that's something that I think most children dream of, but as adults we can certainly become complacent and resistant to change. Stepping outside of our comfort zone can be difficult, whether it's a cross-country trip or just trying something new closer to home. I think this was expressed in the book by Bilbo's comparison of his Baggins and Took side. The movie started with his Baggins side, but then the Took side took over and he went off on an adventure!


Second, it was the idea that the smallest person that the least is expected from can be just the right person after all. Bilbo struggled with the task, certainly felt inadequate at times, but was able to rise to the challenge and help those Dwarves who he'd grown to care about.


And finally, the book does take a darker turn, and you have people who should know better fighting over gold. You also have Bilbo making the difficult decision to backstab a friend in order to save him from himself (a difficult subject for a child to understand). I don't think there's anything the movie got more right than this - and we still had that awful ending where both nephews were killed, one of my biggest problems with the book and probably the main reason why I didn't like it so much. There's death and loss, and Bilbo is a changed Hobbit because of it - no longer "respectable," I believe, but probably a better person for all that.


So, that's what I think the "spirit of the book" was, and maybe I've completely missed the point (or maybe that, too, is subjective). But from what I've seen, the movie captures these points quite well, and in some cases better than the book (yes, I said that!). But I'm up for having an honest discussion with people who DON'T share my enthusiasm for the movies, especially those who think the movies violate the spirit of the book. Please tell me what you think!


In my opinion, even though PJ changed a number of the elements of the book, like hot Dwarves and female Elves, those are really not fundamental changes to the essential story and he nailed the book’s spirit, if by spirit we mean theme. Kilidoescartwheels describes that very well indeed and I agree with her. The recreation of Middle Earth is also an unqualified success for me and a major part of why I love both trilogies.

The main story that I see in these movies is the journey of Bilbo from self centered everyman to altruistic hero. Some elements have been moved around or modified to fit the overall story being told but Bilbo’s arc is there. For instance, to my mind, the essential part of Bilbo and the spiders was that he faced the spiders, fought one and rescued the Dwarves, even if they freed themselves from the web stuff. I don’t agree that Bilbo is diminished here, though we move on quickly from his heroics to the effects on him of the Ring, a part of his story that is unique to the movie. Bilbo’s story shares screen time with those Dol Guldur, Laketown and the Elvenrealm but it is still very much present

Also, for me the singing and name calling as Bilbo draws the spiders away are great in the book but, like the talking purse, serving animals, singing eagles and Tom Bombadil would probably look ridiculous on the screen. The balance between the more fantastical elements of the book and any kind of realist feel is a difficult one.

There are two things that PJ said in videologs or appendices or somewhere that struck me: one was that when he was worrying about making The Hobbit films, he said to himself that he was still the same guy who made LotR, the other was that he didn’t want to repeat himself. I think that both thoughts are evident in TH movies: he is still the guy who likes big battles, action scenes and dubious humour, who isn’t reluctant to change characterizations and add plot elements, be corny and even cheesy at times. But he didn’t repeat himself by replicating the “realistic”, gravitas imbued tone of LotR, instead opting for a lighter, more humourous and whimsical feel for his Hobbit movies. The Hobbit novel is a fey and whimsical children’s story with more than a little of the fairy tale about it and what was required in the adaptation to film was a series of epic movies to follow in the footsteps of the weighty LotR. So PJ chose a path somewhere between the LOTR movies and TH novel.

We all feel differently about whether or not PJ’s approach works or not. It does seems clear that it cost these movies fans at both end of the spectrum, satisfying neither those who wanted something more similar to LotR nor those who wanted a faithful puristy adaptation of the book as it stands. I would have been happy with a more “realistic” Hobbit but am thrilled with what we got.

Anyone who expected a warm and fuzzy children’s adventure story made by Peter Jackson and Warner Brothers (who had eaten New Line) was always doomed to disappointment. Maybe The Hobbit would have been different if it had been made first been but not when it was a follow up to LotR.

Also, anyone who having seen Jackson’s LotR trilogy and didn’t expect aggrandized battles, expanded and improbable action sequences, questionable humour, changed characterizations and introduced elements in that same writer/director’s adaptation of TH was probably deluding themselves.

Forgot to say thanks for an interesting discussion, Kili.


(This post was edited by Noria on Apr 21 2016, 4:10pm)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Apr 21 2016, 5:23pm

Post #25 of 275 (6398 views)
Shortcut
You're welcome! [In reply to] Can't Post

And thrice welcome!Cool

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 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.