Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Food for thought for Hobbit bookfans
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 6 2016, 2:45pm

Post #1 of 147 (2277 views)
Shortcut
Food for thought for Hobbit bookfans Can't Post

Well I'm not really trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but I read this article today that discusses some of the problems that can be encountered when adapting a much-loved book to film. The original article is here: http://www.wired.com/2016/06/outlander-recap-s2e9/

Although the author, Roxane Gay, is discussing "Outlander", the article is mostly about adapting a book to fit a 2-hr movie, which she is doing with her own novel. Here are some of her quotes:

"It has been striking, over the past two seasons, to see how many people justify some of Outlander’s choices by saying, “It’s the book,” with a kind of reverence usually held for biblical texts. The book is certainly the source material and should be respected, but attributing the television show’s choices to “the book,” as if that somehow adequately answers a question, is silly. And for those of us trying to make sense of the show on its own, it’s also frustrating. "

I think this first quote sums my feelings about some of the complaints book fans have against the movie, whether it's as trivial as beard length or something more substantive like the Dol Goldur subplot. I have read "The Hobbit" before, as I've said many times my feelings might be different if I'd read it as a child instead of an adult. And many of the people watching the movie have NEVER read the book, or LoTR, certainly not the Silmarillion, etc. and wouldn't have that background for some of the scenes. And again, since Tolkien wrote this book for his children, you get into the idea of who the movie is intended for, children only or a much wider audience?

"The show’s creators have to try and meet readers’ (often lofty) expectations—making sure to include the most beloved scenes, ensuring the characters that were so vibrant on the page are equally vibrant on the screen, staying true to the various plot twists and turns. At the same time, the show needs to be just as coherent for viewers who are watching the show without the same context fans of the book have."

Yeah, the most beloved scenes - and even THAT will be different for different book fans. But someone who's never read the book doesn't have a "most beloved scene," so what do they want to see? In Peter Jackson's case, he has something of a track record for visual pieces, attention to small details, lots of action (and really, I could write an entire post on the subject of action scenes in movies, and how the audience may now expect something spectacular to the point that all movies must have that, but I'll save that for another day), and IMO the discovery of new acting talent. Most likely these non-book readers have seen the previous LoTR movies, and are coming in with expectations of seeing something like THAT, so certainly some of PJ's decisions were made on that basis.

And then she talks about adapting her own book:

"I am thinking about the choices and compromises I need to make for a 100,000-word novel to work as a two-hour movie. I need to relinquish the complete control I had over the book to a director, producers, the cast—and, eventually, the audience. What I find sacred in the book may not be seen as sacred by these other stakeholders. What I hold sacred may not work for the screen."

Now, I've never published a book. I'm working on one that I hope to publish later this year, which is a scary enough proposition without considering any future adaptation into a screenplay. But what fiction writer DOESN'T think about such a thing? Maybe there's a few, but I imagine most would like nothing better than to see their work on the big (or even small) screen. Christopher Tolkien isn't the only person that doesn't like the screen adaptation of a fictional work, Tom Clancy has NEVER liked any of his book to screen adaptations (no idea what George RR Martin thinks), so I'm not sure the author's approval is even all that important, given the above quote. But if a movie adaptation brings people to the original source material, than the movie, for all its flaws, has served an important purpose, and that can only be a good thing.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


LSF
Gondor

Jun 6 2016, 6:02pm

Post #2 of 147 (2040 views)
Shortcut
agreeing with the article [In reply to] Can't Post

With Outlander, I haven't read the books, but man did I feel like I was watching the book with Season 1 (got turned off enough to not bother with S2). I felt like I was watching an attempt at word-for-word the book. Many times I got frustrated and wondered "is that a book thing or problem that they felt they had to put in?" I got the feeling they weren't allowed to change or exclude anything, or input their own ideas. Considering the only change I saw Diana Gabaldon mention in an interview was a small one at the end, I suppose that answers my question on how "faithful" at least Season 1 was.

As for The Hobbit, PJ and Co stated they were making it to be enjoyed by people who had not read the book or had read it a long time ago. They were never making it for die-hard book fans who would want every detail and word included. Anyone who might be into fantasy might want to see it, so you have to keep those people (like me) in mind.

With PJ's LOTR and Hobbit, I understood everything that happened and did not feel any need to go to the books to answer questions I might have after I see it, which means it works on its own, as I believe it should. Compared to the Harry Potter movies, which I had read the books before seeing them, but my parents and sisters had not. What happened every time we left the theater, they would ask me questions about that book to clear up any questions they had about the movie. My family still enjoyed the movies well enough, but I'm sure it was frustrating that they needed the book information to understand everything. With PJ's Middle Earth movies, the only question they asked me was "Who became king when Thorin died?" which was at least cleared up in the EE.

I'm also working on self-publishing a fictional novel, and I've thought about how a movie adaptation would work. I know this subplot would probably get cut, this minor character would either be cut or combined with another, this part of the plot would probably need to be reworked... I remember awhile ago on this board, someone linked to a TORN article that was about Tolkien's notes, including changes he would make if he had turned LOTR into a movie, including killing Saruman on Orthanc after the Ents take over, and completely omitting Helm's Deep. I think it's an interesting exercise to imagine your story in another medium.


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 6 2016, 6:49pm

Post #3 of 147 (2028 views)
Shortcut
Nice post KDC [In reply to] Can't Post

I would also add, again:

http://www.bbc.com/...na-hollywoods-future


Quote

Speak to anyone in the film industry in Los Angeles and they will tell you that the growth in global box office is bringing about fundamental change in Hollywood.
Most notably, potential overseas ticket sales nowadays determine whether or not a studio executive gives the go-ahead to a movie. David Hancock, Head of Film and Cinema at IHS Screen Digest, says: “If it’s a larger budget production that’s meant to go abroad then really the overseas revenues will be the dominant factor in that decision.”
In fact, the Hollywood studio staple has for a while been the big budget extravaganza that will sell overseas. Content has been shaped accordingly. As David Hancock notes: “They’re making films that have fairly universal ideas and themes, they’re not really culturally specific.” A good example might be the recently released action film Fast & Furious 6 which has already hauled in almost twice as much revenue overseas as it has in the US.
Dumbing down?
To the dismay of some moviegoers, little effort is being made to deliver sophisticated storytelling with these international blockbusters. That’s not totally surprising given that the subtleties of dialogue could easily get lost on non-English speaking audiences relying on subtitles. The movies are crafted mainly to provoke a visceral – as opposed to intellectual – response.


Re the Hobbit and the "dumbing down" statement, since we don't know why certain decisions were made by PJ - in this context I am even more impressed with what PJ managed to pull off with the Hobbit - e.g., he managed IMO to maintain core themes (Bilbo & Thorin friendship, the humble man Bard who takes on a dragon, Bilbo's arc - I guess a powerful wizard who works for good is probably pretty universal tho!Smile)


I don't know enough international culture to have a feel for how non-Western or even countries outside of the U.S. and the U.K. feel about the Hobbit book, overall. But what may be a classic work to me - I am thinking - is definitely not in many regions of China, say. Still, it seems the films were met with approval in that country, and globally.


balbo biggins
Rohan


Jun 6 2016, 9:52pm

Post #4 of 147 (1989 views)
Shortcut
yum! [In reply to] Can't Post

As a huge book fan first and foremost, liked the lord of the rings movie, i didnt particularly like the hobbit.

its not about the difficulties of adaption, its about the execution.


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 6 2016, 9:58pm

Post #5 of 147 (1988 views)
Shortcut
About China [In reply to] Can't Post

There's some flack out there regarding the upcoming "Dr. Strange" movie, over casting Tilda Swinton in the role of "The Ancient One," whom in the comics was a Tibetan monk. One of the original reasons given for this change is that China is now the biggest movie market in the world, so the Tibetan part of the story had to be cut. As I alluded to, it seems that big movies now seem to require even bigger battle scenes, almost like a one-upmanship in that regard ("Fast & Furious" is an ideal example; granted I've only seen 1 or 2 of those). It makes sense to me that such flashy battle scenes might be more easily understood in China, but at the same time it kind of makes me sad. Obviously a movie like "Dr. Strange" or "The Hobbit" will draw a bigger crowd than, say, "Mr. Holmes," staring Ian McKellan , and that is one movie I really enjoyed. I hope we don't get to the point where movies like "Mr. Holmes" can't get made, though, because such movies won't appeal to an overseas audience.


But the above-mentioned flack over "Dr. Strange" is just another issue people have to take into consideration when adapting a movie to the big (or small) screen. One of the complaints that comic books and "The Hobbit" have in common is lack of female characters. I know most book fans don't really care about that - indeed, I've read a few female book fans that insisted they "didn't need a female character," etc. But in trying to draw in a wider audience, such considerations need to be made, and I for one appreciated the inclusion (even if I didn't totally care for the final outcome). In this regard, sometimes you can't win no matter what. Some people who either never read the book or didn't care for it complained that there were too many Dwarves, and suggested the number get cut to 7 - as if! Or they complained about seeing the eagles again (but it was in the book!), or that AUJ was too slow with too much backstory, etc. And Marvel was criticized for casting Black actors to play Nick Fury and Heimdall, criticized for not having more female characters, and now they're being criticized because they casted a woman! You just can't please some people!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Morthoron
Gondor


Jun 6 2016, 10:40pm

Post #6 of 147 (1981 views)
Shortcut
I watched a few minutes of AUJ last night... [In reply to] Can't Post

...as I flicked through channels on cable.

It was the part where Gandalf kills the GoblinKing and the bridge breaks, and all rules of gravity and logic were suspended, climaxing when the dead GoblinKing (looking as if he weighed near 500 pounds), again suspends all rules of gravity and logic by falling on top of the Dwarves quite a long time afterwards -- all for a bad punchline. And no one was injured.

It was just as imbecilic as the first time I watched it. It was immersion-breaking and completely unnecessary. It reminded me why I so despised these poorly planned and executed adaptations. It made me wonder how dim-witted Jackson considered the audience. I'll flick the channel faster next time.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



wizzardly
Rohan


Jun 6 2016, 11:43pm

Post #7 of 147 (1961 views)
Shortcut
I didn't know PJ stated that he wasn't making this for fans of the book [In reply to] Can't Post

If I had known that, I wouldn't have even bothered wasting my time or money on it. Oh well.


wizzardly
Rohan


Jun 6 2016, 11:46pm

Post #8 of 147 (1962 views)
Shortcut
You've got to be joking! [In reply to] Can't Post

You mean you didn't laugh yourself silly over that hilarious line?


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 7 2016, 12:37am

Post #9 of 147 (1945 views)
Shortcut
Well I agree that wasn't one of the better scenes [In reply to] Can't Post

I nicknamed it the Nantucket Sleighride, but for the most part I thought AUJ stayed close to the book AND had the right combination of backstory and action. I also felt that the Warg chase was overly long, and didn't care for the bunny sled. But the decision to add the prologue was, IMO, a good one, setting up the tale of the Dwarves and their Quest.

But these are decisions that people adapting books to movies have to make, and PJ apparently believed that the non-book audience needed this information to make sense of why 13 Dwarves would try to break into a Mountain stronghold housing a dragon - not a very bright move, when you put it like that. You know, I will likely have a similar reaction to the new X-men movie, as I'm pretty familiar with the story of Apocalypse and his 4 horsemen. I'll probably watch it this weekend, but I'm afraid I won't like it at all. I could be pleasantly surprised, or I could be as bitter as some of you guys are.Mad

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Morthoron
Gondor


Jun 7 2016, 2:28am

Post #10 of 147 (1915 views)
Shortcut
But you see, that's the issue, KDC... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
But these are decisions that people adapting books to movies have to make,


That inane bridge collapse was not necessary in making the story better, in heightening tension or in bridging a space left empty in the original plot. It was juvenile and looks fake as hell. Like Legolas climbing up a falling stack of bricks. Restraint is practiced by the greatest directors (just because you can do it doesn't mean you should). Subtlety and nuance is absent in the Hobbit movies. It is nonstop overkill.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 7 2016, 3:23am

Post #11 of 147 (1904 views)
Shortcut
Like I said, [In reply to] Can't Post

the bridge scene wasn't one of the better ones. PJ does have a style, and not everyone cares for it. Subtlety and nuance is missing from lots of movies, or maybe it's there but you have to look for it between the flashy scenes. I'm not excusing it, as I alluded to I could write an entire post (and have considered it) questioning whether we've become so conditioned to the flashy scenes that they are now required in movies. BUT I submit that all three of the Hobbit movies did have those quiet, thoughtful scenes - even BOT5A, with the much lauded acorn scene, and the EE scene of Bilbo and Bofur on the ramparts. And that exquisite scene between Freeman and McKellan, with no dialog or background music! It's there, perhaps just too few and far between for your taste, and that's understandable. Let me just repeat that, whether the Hobbit or Outlander or any other book to screen adaptation, there are lots of tough decisions to make between the written material and the desire to appeal to an audience that hasn't read the book. And in many cases, the book is read BECAUSE of the adaptation. Surely you can take some comfort in that!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


LSF
Gondor

Jun 7 2016, 4:23am

Post #12 of 147 (1891 views)
Shortcut
hmm... [In reply to] Can't Post

"or I could be as bitter as some of you guys are."

I suppose I just don't see the point in being bitter over a piece of entertainment if I don't like it, even if I am attached to the original source material. The longest I've been bitter or angry about something like that was Star Trek Into Darkness, which only lasted a day before I moved on.



LSF
Gondor

Jun 7 2016, 4:30am

Post #13 of 147 (1892 views)
Shortcut
not to some people... [In reply to] Can't Post

"And in many cases, the book is read BECAUSE of the adaptation. Surely you can take some comfort in that!"

A friend of mine saw the Man From UNCLE movie last year, and got into the original 60's show because of it. She encountered some show fans who were very unwelcoming to anyone who had not heard of or seen the show before the movie.



dormouse
Half-elven


Jun 7 2016, 1:36pm

Post #14 of 147 (1847 views)
Shortcut
Well, it's true that Peter Jackson likes heightened tension... [In reply to] Can't Post

...exaggerated scale, all that, I don't think it's true that the Hobbit films are without subtlety and nuance. Take just one scene - Gandalf and Bilbo sitting together after Thorin's death. Everything there is stripped back to the bare minimum. No action, no music, no words - just two great actors telling you how they feel by how they are. Or another example; Bilbo finding himself alone at Bag End and going through the gamut of emotions from being glad the dwarves have gone to wishing he could go with them. Or Thorin and Balin's reaction on first entry to Erebor. (I could go on)

It's in the nature of subtlety that it doesn't grab you by the throat. If it did it wouldn't be very subtle. But it is there, underpinning the fights and the chases and the collapsing masonry.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 7 2016, 1:45pm

Post #15 of 147 (1842 views)
Shortcut
Well that's crazy! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
"And in many cases, the book is read BECAUSE of the adaptation. Surely you can take some comfort in that!"

A friend of mine saw the Man From UNCLE movie last year, and got into the original 60's show because of it. She encountered some show fans who were very unwelcoming to anyone who had not heard of or seen the show before the movie.


I was a child when that show was on air, I barely remember it. Some people!FrownMad

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jun 7 2016, 1:47pm

Post #16 of 147 (1837 views)
Shortcut
So true [In reply to] Can't Post

It is only a movie, after all.Blush

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 7 2016, 1:57pm

Post #17 of 147 (1834 views)
Shortcut
Yep [In reply to] Can't Post

dormouse hits nails only on the head, ladies and gentlemen. None of this sliding off onto the thumbnail crap.

"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 7 2016, 2:06pm

Post #18 of 147 (1830 views)
Shortcut
Also, to reiterate kilidoescartwheels [In reply to] Can't Post

This is a film about 15 individuals who scheme to steal a dwarven kingdom back from a dragon (already formidable in the source, now a couple of jumbo jets in size - and who breathes incinerating fire) who took the kingdom by force whilst the army of dwarves were helpless to stop him and even an entire onlooking elven army showed up just to say, "Yeah, screw this. No way we're getting past that."

A lot in this story, as an adaptation from the get-go and as established on-film early on, is flexible. A LOT.

"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War


Elthir
Grey Havens

Jun 7 2016, 2:15pm

Post #19 of 147 (1827 views)
Shortcut
another medium [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
As for The Hobbit, PJ and Co stated they were making it to be enjoyed by people who had not read the book or had read it a long time ago. They were never making it for die-hard book fans who would want every detail and word included.


I don't know anyone who wanted "every detail and word included".


Quote
I remember awhile ago on this board, someone linked to a TORN article that was about Tolkien's notes, including changes he would make if he had turned LOTR into a movie, including killing Saruman on Orthanc after the Ents take over, and completely omitting Helm's Deep. I think it's an interesting exercise to imagine your story in another medium.


Where did Tolkien write that Saruman should die on Orthanc? In his letter to Zimmerman at least, Tolkien complains that Saruman's proper death has been cut, and says that in that case he [Tolkien] sees no good reason for killing Saruman. JRRT adds that Saruman would never commit suicide, and suggests a line for Gandalf to "tidy" Saruman up.

But let's be clearer here in any case, this letter is in reaction to a film treatment proposed in Tolkien's day -- in reaction to a number of specific things already suggested by filmmakers -- for clarity, not Tolkien's own notes on how he would turn his story into a film (if the letter is the source of your above statement of course).

Films and books are different mediums, about which everyone seems to already agree. What is not agreed upon however, is what is necessary for adaptation, including what Jackson chose specifically to do in all six films, versus what could have been done.

Look at how many times Tolkien has a problem with the treatment given him: can Zimmerman simply say to Tolkien: but films are different and need to include simplifications and changes? He can. And Tolkien will arguably say, yes but what changes, what simplifications, what is the focus, what could be omitted given time restrictions... and so on.

As someone already posted "it's in the execution"... and while Tolkien himself was open to "changes" (generally speaking), and aware of the problems of adaptation, note that he doesn't agree with plenty of the actual changes the filmmakers thought would make "good film". That's where the discussion begins I think, looking at the actual execution (or possible executions), from matters large to the smallest detail. What about film made Jackson do this or that?

Obviously it gets very subjective after we all agree that books and films are different mediums.

"The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies." JRR Tolkien, letter 210, Tolkien's comments on the film treatment of The Lord of the Rings


(This post was edited by Elthir on Jun 7 2016, 2:30pm)


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 7 2016, 2:31pm

Post #20 of 147 (1819 views)
Shortcut
Director's choice tho.... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
That inane bridge collapse was not necessary in making the story better, in heightening tension or in bridging a space left empty in the original plot. It was juvenile and looks fake as hell. Like Legolas climbing up a falling stack of bricks. Restraint is practiced by the greatest directors (just because you can do it doesn't mean you should). Subtlety and nuance is absent in the Hobbit movies. It is nonstop overkill.


Hmmm. I personally don't feel, for instance, that the large presence of Arwen in the LOTR films
"was necessary in making the story better, in heightening tension or in bridging a space left empty in the original plot."

But IMO

Restraint is practiced by the greatest directors (just because you can do it doesn't mean you should). Subtlety and nuance is absent in the Hobbit movies. It is nonstop overkill.

Is a rather extreme statement, considering the quality of acting in the Hobbit and IMO some truly beautiful scenesHeart. Although I am not sure that the Hobbit book, itself, or LOTR, technically speaking, are filled with "subltety and nuance" - what would that mean, exactly, in context of Tolkien's material and the way he wrote, depicted on screen? I mean, to me that translates to a film like "Finding Neverland", for instance, which IMO is a perfect jewel of a film, quiet, and yet with deep undercurrents. Or, perhaps, "Searching for Bobby Fischer".

Tolkien's material IMO doesn't lend itself - and IMO shouldn't - to having folks at a dinner table staring at each other, while the tension mounts, and then a person leaves, and the other stares bleakly out a window at the rain. With LOTR and the Hobbit narratives - they are epic myths, "journey myths", "hero myths". E.g., things are going to happen that can't be depicted with, say, the dwarves sitting in Mirkwood for twenty minutes of screen time, and maybe there'd be a scene where Bilbo picks at the tattered embroidery of his vest, and catches Thorin and Dwalin smiling at him, and we see Ori shiver at some glowing eyes and Nori puts an arm around him - e.g., that kind of "nuance" might be lovelyTongue but meanwhile you've got a global paying audience - some of whom are going to get impatient after 10 minutes of this sort of thing.

For myself, some PJ "OTT" scenes here and there - *shrug*. I've never had a problem w. the bridge collapse, it's a more "dynamic" ending than just having everyone run out of a tunnel, and it segues IMO nicely to a shot of swarming goblins coming for them over the rocks - which couldn't have been done in a strict "tunnel shot". There were some older posts on the bridge collapse, but I think the same points could be re-said re "realism" - dwarves are not "human"; they have a denser bone structure. Neither is Gandalf or Bilbo, re surviving a fall.
The bridge doesn't just fall, anyway, it more or less slides and jams against the sides of the cavern on the way down.

IMO it's a lighter way of handling the Goblin King's end, keeping in mind a mixed global audience with children who could probably readily appreciate that sort of thing, as opposed to "subtlety and nuance". Meanwhile, IMO, there are exquisite scenes such as Bag End and the carrock and even the eagles at the end of AUJ. So IMO Peter Jackson should be praised for what he managed to accomplish with the Hobbit, which, when I started REALLY thinking about it, is no easy material to adapt - e.g., keeping its whimsy and yet having a "teen/adult level" film or films.


Avandel
Half-elven


Jun 7 2016, 2:54pm

Post #21 of 147 (1810 views)
Shortcut
But [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
"The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies." JRR Tolkien, letter 210, Tolkien's comments on the film treatment of The Lord of the Rings

I don't know enough about Tolkien to comment in detail; but it's been said on this forum often enough, and others, that Tolkien, and his son, if not others of the estate, have something of a negative opinion of PJ's adaptations.

And Peter Jackson, to my mind, does make some inexplicable changes in original materialUnsure. However, as a FILMMAKER, I'd suggest that Peter Jackson and his colleagues would have the knowledge of creating a film, and that what an author may feel is critical may be something that just doesn't lend itself to a visual realm - especially with the limits of technology. Or a multi-language audience. It seems to me that Tolkien, and probably other authors, never truly consider that creating a film is not their area of expertise, and that perhaps some decisions are made because you are telling a story in 90 minutes, 2 hours, maybe a bit more, maybe over 6 hours or so total if there is more than one film.

So decisions have to be made - what to keep, how to depict a character arc, and so on. I always feel a bit sad in that it sounds as if Tolkien and his son don't approve of PJ all that much, and yet reading the Chronicles books it seems to me no-one could have worked harder to respectfully and beautifully depict Middle Earth and its peopleHeart, and preserve the core arcs of the books.


Eldy
Tol Eressea


Jun 7 2016, 3:47pm

Post #22 of 147 (1792 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien didn't approve of PJ... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but he also didn't disapprove, because he died in 1973. Wink


Quote
yet reading the Chronicles books it seems to me no-one could have worked harder to respectfully and beautifully depict Middle Earth and its people, and preserve the core arcs of the books.


I've only read two of the Chronicles books but I can't say I got this impression at all. PJ was pretty upfront this time about being more interested in making prequels to the LOTR films than adapting the book.



There's a feeling I get, when I look to the West...



(This post was edited by Eldorion on Jun 7 2016, 3:49pm)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 7 2016, 4:10pm

Post #23 of 147 (1782 views)
Shortcut
The films are all the better for it [In reply to] Can't Post

 

"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jun 7 2016, 4:14pm

Post #24 of 147 (1778 views)
Shortcut
And still, every chapter's accounted for [In reply to] Can't Post

That's an epic feat.

"Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right... even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say, 'No, YOU move.'"
- Captain America: Civil War


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jun 7 2016, 4:41pm

Post #25 of 147 (1767 views)
Shortcut
"I imagine most [writers] would like nothing better than to see their work on the big (or even small) screen" [In reply to] Can't Post

If that's true, isn't it strange? Would most screenplay writers like nothing better than to see their work adapted into novels or short stories?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 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.