Were the Hobbit movies are truerer the novels than the Lotr movies. As at least Fili does die in the Hobbit whereas Haider does not in Lotr. Apologies for making this point in the wrong thread and having to delete it lower down!
People on the internet (especially here and on Youtube) seem to think roughly like this:
The LOTR movies = completely faithful to the book, or at least unfaithful only in minor, very minor details.
The Hobbit movies = totally unfaithful and almost a complete rewrite of the story.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Did you actually read the books, or is this all based on hearsay?
I read ALL the four books, but a long time ago, I admit. The last time I read the The Hobbit and LOTR was more than 10 years, if I reckon correctly.
or his debasing of Tolkien's stories,
Oh, come on, it's clear that you are, and you hate the poor guy too.
but large chunks of The Hobbit were simply pulled out of Jackson's posterior.
Wow, what a polite statement!
Let's just concentrate on the characters that did not exist in the book:
How about we concenctrate on characters that did not exist in LOTR? There actually is an article about them in the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...he_Rings_film_series And it's LONGER, in content, than the list of original characters from the Hobbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...e_Hobbit_film_series Tauriel
OK, no possible arguing in there.
Legolas
Legolas is a canon character by Tolkien, is Thranduil's son and probably was in Mirkwood during the Dwarves stay in there. Maybe Tolkien didn't write him in because he had not conceived of teh character yet. But to me his presence in the movies makes perfect sense.
Radagast
Radagast is also a character by Tolkien, and he is mentioned in the book, so why is this is a big deal?
Azog
Same thing, although ''resurrecting'' him was a bit of a stretch, Maybe the flashback scene was acceptable, but to make him alive again and insert in the main story, I agree this was a questionable decision. Still the trilogy, like any other big Hollywood blockbuster, needed a main villain, right? Especially the first movie, since Smaug doesn't appear. They had to make someone be it...
Alfrid
Sure, no arguing there, since it's definitely a non canon character. But the movie needed some comic relief, right? And what's wrong with that?
Bard's children
Maybe YOU didn't read the books? Báin actually does exist, altought he is only mentioned in LOTR and not The Hobbit. But that point doesn't matter since you said ''books'', and not ''book'', so I am presuming you are considering the LOTR books in this discussion as well?
Saruman, Galadriel, The Nazgul
All canon characters, but Jackson wasn't adaptating any part of the Hobbit when he made the scenes in which those characters are included. He was using material from the LOTR Appendix. This is why I say Jackson wasn't just adapting ''The Hobbit'' when he made this trilogy, but a lot of other related stories by Tolkien. He just took the advantage and connected them all.
Spice Worms from Arrakis
Even those were mentioned in the book, although admittedly they didn't actually appear. Still, they were not wholesale inventions of Jackson like Alfrid or Tauriel.
Remove their dialogue and roles and you are left with a movie and a half, maybe two movies (which would have been better).
I would be interested in checking out the math proving that.
Jackson faced enough ridicule for expanding the roles of Haldir and Arwen (they were expanded but they did exist in the context of the trilogy).
Almost all the characters you mentioned did exist in the context of The Hobbit + LOTR Appendix, which is something you seem to be missing.
[replybut had he invented characters wholesale like he did in The Hobbit, he would have been laughed off the set, and his movies laughed out of theaters. And we wouldn't be even discussing the making of Hobbit movies.
How do you know that? Are you Sibill Trelawney from
Harry Potter?
Certainly, there are asinine additions in LotR: The elves at Helm's Deep
I would say that this is more significant than most (or any at all) changes in The Hobbit. If you are curious, I will explain why
(including Aragorn frenching his horse),
OK, this is unarguably a change from the text, but what on Earth is wrong or so ridiculous about that? I have always wondered why people nitpick over such insignificant details.
Faramir dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath for no particular reason, Frodo telling Sam to leave, etc. ;
Those were pretty big changes -- at least comparable to the Hobbits ones -- weren't they? So why the double standard?
however, because there were not as many wholly superfluous and invented characters, situations and dialogue, one would have to conclude that the original trilogy was not as farcical as the second.
I think it's a pretty reasonable and valid point to make that the two trilogies have about the same amount of changes. In fact, I make the ''
bold'' claim that the first triolgy has MORE changes than the second. Since this post is already too long, I will not be the listing the reasons why, but fortunately, there is a post by
Dormouse in response to post from
Omnnigeek (and Omnigeek never replied) that basically matches my own view. I will reproduce it below:
Irrespective of whether any of us likes or dislikes any particular change - or the whole package of changes - I reckon that if we were to tot up all the various changes to the story in one adapation and set them against the other we'd find them about equal in number. [Again, please note that I'm not distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable changes, since that is, as you say, a matter of opinion]. We might even find that there were more changes to the story in the Lord of the Rings films. Think about it for a moment - just a few examples, here, of many:
No Fatty Bolger, Crickhollow, conversation between the Nazgul and the Gaffer - the film Nazgul didn't seem the sort who would ask for information from anyone.
No deviation into the Old Forest. Barrow Wights, Bombadil.
No 'There is an Inn' song in Bree - just one symptom of the fact that in the film Barliman's inn is a very different place
Arwen gallops round the countryside looking for Strider and the hobbits - no Glorfindel...
And so on. I could carry on in this vein but there's no point - everyone who knows the book knows how long the list would be. But just to highlight a few of the more noticeable - or notorious changes, Aragorn cutting off the head of the Mouth of Sauron - Faramir standing by in approval while his men beat up Gollum - Faramir almost giving way to the temptation of the Ring and dragging Frodo to Osgiliath - the Witchking unseating Gandalf - Arwen is dying - Denethor's death - the unscoured Shire.
The task of adapting the two stories was very different and each posed different challenges. Lord of the Rings is so much longer and more detailed that most (but certainly not all) of the changes were made to condense the story to film length. But in The Hobbit there are very few characters beyond the central nucleus. Elrond but no Rivendell elves; the Elvenking but no Mirkwood elves; Bard and the Master the sole named inhabitants of Laketown. To adapt the book as a companion piece to Lord of the Rings - which was always the intention; I'd lay odds that it was what the studio actually wanted and paid for - some expansion was necessary and expansion will always be more conspicuous and more contentious than omission. If we don't see Bombadil it's easy to accept that he is still there, we're just not seeing him. If we do see a Tauriel or an Alfrid - who? they're not in the book.... And so it goes.
So may I suggest to you - and I think your post actually proves it - that what you're saying is that you personally find the changes in The Hobbit more objectionable than the changes in Lord of the Rings. That's a fair and reasonable point to make. But it certainly doesn't prove that more substantial and significant changes were made to The Hobbit. I submit that that is still a matter of opinion.
Link to thread:
http://newboards.theonering.net/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25; And... I am done.
I, for one, would love to hear you give your thoughts on th Elves at Helm's Deep. :)
