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:
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 1:11am

Post #226 of 240 (335 views)
Shortcut
Amen [In reply to] Can't Post

your last 2 paragraphs, very well said.

You have summed it up neatly.

Vous commencez m'ennuyer avec le port!!!


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 1:24am

Post #227 of 240 (326 views)
Shortcut
All Ablush again. lol [In reply to] Can't Post

I, unsurprisingly, think it would have worked better thus. But, not to us were those millions entrusted lol. A too liked the Rankin Bass pinecone envisioning better. I am glad it was included at all, but I must admit Peter had rather gotten my hopes up after the Wizard's entrance into Goblin town, and the burst of blue fire that he used to dislodge the boulder there. It lulled me into thinking that Peter had gone back and read about Gandalf's penchant for explosive bursts of blue flame, and that the pinecone scene would be properly impressive, even as it avoided going overboard into sheer Michael Bay territory.

In Reply To
would have been better. Be it the bluer pinecones, having Bolg instead of Gorka Morka, the wargs forst etc...

Hell, the rankin bass version is better. I ve recently discovered that scene is probably the scene i hate the most. Unsure


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 10 2013, 3:02pm

Post #228 of 240 (313 views)
Shortcut
How they chose to avoid over balancing the book narrative [In reply to] Can't Post

On the question of the mis-casting of the giants as transformers and Radagast and the "hare brained" non decoy decoy I am, as you know, right there.

On the question of your solution to Azog's back story in isolation I would agree. However there is a more fundamental challenge for the film makers of the Hobbit particularly when a hugely successful LOTR has already been made.

The Hobbit only gained its significance within the legendarium long after it was written. Tolkien re wrote the riddles chapter, found out the meaning of the white council and the necromancer and wrote up the Thror/Thrain back-story twenty years later.
The very real danger of investing a post LOTR Hobbit film within its context is the context becomes bigger than the subject.

There are, for film goers, four contextualising subjects to deal with:-

1) The destruction of Erebor.
2) The death of Thror at the hand of Azog.
3) The incarceration of Thrain by the servants of the enemy.
4) The reintegration of Saurons form and his acolytes and I use that word deliberately within the context of the film universe.

The script writers found a solution and hierarchy of reveal for each of the four elements and made conscious decisions about the weight of each and which should be real time and which should be look back.

Erebor was a no brainer as the epilogue it is the most important and drives the story.

The death of Thror was the next but was simplified and threaded into the real time narrative so it had immediacy and pertinence rather than "oh that's interesting history but why slow things down" .

The incarceration of Thrain was to be yet another epilogue but the decision was take ,wisely in my view, to delay its inclusion into the second film and I suspect like the Thror story arc it will not complete ninety years ago it will straddle and be threaded into the real time narrative.

The reintegration of Sauron could have been a fourth epilogue but instead it has been brought into the real time narrative, though at the last minute it was decided Gandalf and Radagasts discovery at the high fells will now be recounted but from within the current movie time line.

The weight of all this material needs to be used sparingly and carefully to add depth to tell the story but not lose sight of the strategic decision made that these films are about Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf . So whilst I would have loved every nuanced element of the appendices to appear, and I still hope for the Balrog in the Thrain arc,if you delve to deep you over turn the lead story. The balance they have applied may not be to every bodies taste but I can see why they went as far as they did.

Now for those who wanted their episodic children's book and none of this other hoey my argument doesn't work. But WB were never going to stump up a quarter of a billion dollars to send a different group of actors to NZ to make that story in a single film. What they were happy to do is underwrite a two film adaption which would draw the original talent and other talented actors into something different which would be aimed like LOTR at a global audience which would also satisfy the curiosity of Tolkiens long standing following even if they did not approve of everything done.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 10 2013, 3:05pm)


Elenorflower
Gondor


Mar 10 2013, 3:19pm

Post #229 of 240 (305 views)
Shortcut
they could have easily [In reply to] Can't Post

made the Hobbit in 2 films using nothing but the book. One film would have been rushed, but two would have done the story justice without ANY additions from the appendices or made up material. IMO


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 8:34pm

Post #230 of 240 (280 views)
Shortcut
In my opinion [In reply to] Can't Post

A smart film maker would have handled the Hobbit films as if LOTR had never existed. None of the events that happen in LOTR have occured and there is no reason to bring them into play in the Hobbit. To me a smart film maker would have kept to the story giving some subtle hints of things that were known at the time of the Hobbit but came to fruition during LOTR. But nothing more than subtle hints. Just because LOTR was as successful as it was they should have looked at doing the Hobbit the same way. BUT they opted NOT to do that instead opting to change the way it was shot, opting to add 3D, opting to make it more of a standard fantasy film instead of going for the more historical feel of LOTR. All choices made by Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. Had they actually listened to the people who were going to be watching these films, Not about the content but the style and feel, maybe the films might have fit together more like LOTR instead of feeling like there was no solid direction for the film until the very last minute when it was actually too late to do any good. There were a ton of ways to make the Hobbit without feeling the need to make as many direct links to LOTR as Peter Jackson did. Or go so OTT and fake as they did. Personally I preferred the more realistic, historical based LOTR, which felt like real characters and real places. Instead of the Hobbit where it feels like actors in costumes and sets on a soundstages. Using rehashed dialogue and lacking the insight into the story of the Hobbit to bring it to life without making it a caricature of LOTR and over all a joke to the franchise IMO.

The destruction of Erobor could have been done as a memory of Thorin's in Baggend and been just as powerful as it was as a prologue. I felt it was an awful choice having Bilbo recount the tale, instead of Thorin. It took away from the feeling of such material. Bilbo wasn't there and wasn't emotionally invested in its telling, whereas Thorin was or even Balin for that matter. Erobor might have been the reason for the journey but it lost all its weight by being told by Bilbo. I felt the reason for the journey should have been discussed at Baggend to fill in Bilbo on why they were going on this quest.

The death of Thror at the hands of Azog is a major event, BUT it doesn't need to be changed. Azog did kill him, where I have the problem with that is they shorten the whole dwarf and Goblin war into one basic event instead of declaring that it went on for years. That the beheading of Thror was the start of it in fact. They lacked the whole Dain killing Azog part which IMO is much more important than having Azog chase Thorin all over the countryside. Since Dain becomes king under the mountain. He takes Thorin's place on the throne. Therefore his character should have been more important to the overall story. But Jackson chose to ignore it, even though it is 100 times more entertaining than what we got. Like I said Bolg could have been used as the Orc chasing Thorin and it would still have been in the current time without butchering Tolkien's lore. It would still have the same effect but still kept Tolkien history intact better than the horrible lets rewrite Tolkien lore bringing Azog back from the dead ruining more details than it helped to make better. I feel that was a lack of direction on Jackson's part or the script writers listening to someone who obviously had no clue about middle earth.

Thrain being captured by the enemy... nothing says it couldn't be shown as a flashback. But it didn't happen during the battle of Anazulbizar, it was years later. That is part of where Jackson loses faith in moviegoer to understand timelines. chooses to simplify things instead of leaving them to the imagination to the fans. Heck put times in subtitles at the bottom of the screen if he is that worried about people not understanding. At least it would add some depth to the story making it feel like there was some history involved and not just everything being rushed and in the present. Again taking it out of the past and injecting it into the present takes the weight out of it, it strips it of any historical feel which IMO carrys more weight than everything all happening at once

As far as Sauron and showing his "reintegration", he was barely mentioned in the Hobbit. 2 sentences tops in the Hobbit book. So there really is NO need to bring back Sauron as a character. I understand some people want more of that storyline, but its not important to the tale at hand which is Bilbo's adventure followed secondly by Thorin reclaiming Erobor...The Necromancer could have been done visually to be reminiscent of Sauron from LOTR but never once confirming that is who he is. Hooded figure in tattered robes almost like he had been buried for decades (also tying in the whole Necromancer, dealing with the dead thing)with rusty armor being seen underneath the robes that is reminiscent of Sauron's armor from FOTR. possibly even walking with a staff like a cane to show he has not regained his power and is weakened. But never once revealing who he truly is. Something like that would have worked fine for the necromancer character to be included without dealing anything with the ring or his real identity, but visually he would be noticeable when watching FOTR.

I don't find any issue with flashbacks making things less important to the current story. they are there for a reason to give some backstory to the current events. They shouldn't feel as frantic as the current story but should add some depth and weight to it. With them pushing everything into the current time they just make everything seem rushed and frantic and that there is SO much going on at the same time.

When Jackson stuck to Tolkien and his history and events the film was great, when he deviated from Tolkien not so much, I would just say mediocre.


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Mar 10 2013, 8:35pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 8:50pm

Post #231 of 240 (291 views)
Shortcut
As you know, I agree with a lot of what you say here, though I still [In reply to] Can't Post

believe that the war of The Dwarves and Orcs could have been more faithfully and better handled, without loosing the tension and villain Peter sought. Bolg works just as well as a secondary or tertiary villain and foil as if father does, if not better.

In Reply To
On the question of the mis-casting of the giants as transformers and Radagast and the "hare brained" non decoy decoy I am, as you know, right there.

On the question of your solution to Azog's back story in isolation I would agree. However there is a more fundamental challenge for the film makers of the Hobbit particularly when a hugely successful LOTR has already been made.

The Hobbit only gained its significance within the legendarium long after it was written. Tolkien re wrote the riddles chapter, found out the meaning of the white council and the necromancer and wrote up the Thror/Thrain back-story twenty years later.
The very real danger of investing a post LOTR Hobbit film within its context is the context becomes bigger than the subject.

There are, for film goers, four contextualising subjects to deal with:-

1) The destruction of Erebor.
2) The death of Thror at the hand of Azog.
3) The incarceration of Thrain by the servants of the enemy.
4) The reintegration of Saurons form and his acolytes and I use that word deliberately within the context of the film universe.

The script writers found a solution and hierarchy of reveal for each of the four elements and made conscious decisions about the weight of each and which should be real time and which should be look back.

Erebor was a no brainer as the epilogue it is the most important and drives the story.

The death of Thror was the next but was simplified and threaded into the real time narrative so it had immediacy and pertinence rather than "oh that's interesting history but why slow things down" .

The incarceration of Thrain was to be yet another epilogue but the decision was take ,wisely in my view, to delay its inclusion into the second film and I suspect like the Thror story arc it will not complete ninety years ago it will straddle and be threaded into the real time narrative.

The reintegration of Sauron could have been a fourth epilogue but instead it has been brought into the real time narrative, though at the last minute it was decided Gandalf and Radagasts discovery at the high fells will now be recounted but from within the current movie time line.

The weight of all this material needs to be used sparingly and carefully to add depth to tell the story but not lose sight of the strategic decision made that these films are about Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf . So whilst I would have loved every nuanced element of the appendices to appear, and I still hope for the Balrog in the Thrain arc,if you delve to deep you over turn the lead story. The balance they have applied may not be to every bodies taste but I can see why they went as far as they did.

Now for those who wanted their episodic children's book and none of this other hoey my argument doesn't work. But WB were never going to stump up a quarter of a billion dollars to send a different group of actors to NZ to make that story in a single film. What they were happy to do is underwrite a two film adaption which would draw the original talent and other talented actors into something different which would be aimed like LOTR at a global audience which would also satisfy the curiosity of Tolkiens long standing following even if they did not approve of everything done.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Mar 10 2013, 8:55pm

Post #232 of 240 (275 views)
Shortcut
I don't think it would have worked for the same director and cast to handle a prequel [In reply to] Can't Post

even one that authentically came first, as if it were not a prequel. It would have been dissapointing on some levels if this film team made no attempt to tie the films into the larger series. That said, I still disliked some of their choices. I was fine with Erebor, fine with Necromancer inclusion. . . I severely disliked the changes to Dwarven (and Arnorian/Angmarin/Lindonian/Rivendellian) history, in large part because it was not required to get the story across, and because it was less potent than the actual tale.

In Reply To
A smart film maker would have handled the Hobbit films as if LOTR had never existed. None of the events that happen in LOTR have occured and there is no reason to bring them into play in the Hobbit. To me a smart film maker would have kept to the story giving some subtle hints of things that were known at the time of the Hobbit but came to fruition during LOTR. But nothing more than subtle hints. Just because LOTR was as successful as it was they should have looked at doing the Hobbit the same way. BUT they opted NOT to do that instead opting to change the way it was shot, opting to add 3D, opting to make it more of a standard fantasy film instead of going for the more historical feel of LOTR. All choices made by Peter Jackson and Warner Bros. Had they actually listened to the people who were going to be watching these films, Not about the content but the style and feel, maybe the films might have fit together more like LOTR instead of feeling like there was no solid direction for the film until the very last minute when it was actually too late to do any good. There were a ton of ways to make the Hobbit without feeling the need to make as many direct links to LOTR as Peter Jackson did. Or go so OTT and fake as they did. Personally I preferred the more realistic, historical based LOTR, which felt like real characters and real places. Instead of the Hobbit where it feels like actors in costumes and sets on a soundstages. Using rehashed dialogue and lacking the insight into the story of the Hobbit to bring it to life without making it a caricature of LOTR and over all a joke to the franchise IMO.

The destruction of Erobor could have been done as a memory of Thorin's in Baggend and been just as powerful as it was as a prologue. I felt it was an awful choice having Bilbo recount the tale, instead of Thorin. It took away from the feeling of such material. Bilbo wasn't there and wasn't emotionally invested in its telling, whereas Thorin was or even Balin for that matter. Erobor might have been the reason for the journey but it lost all its weight by being told by Bilbo. I felt the reason for the journey should have been discussed at Baggend to fill in Bilbo on why they were going on this quest.

The death of Thror at the hands of Azog is a major event, BUT it doesn't need to be changed. Azog did kill him, where I have the problem with that is they shorten the whole dwarf and Goblin war into one basic event instead of declaring that it went on for years. That the beheading of Thror was the start of it in fact. They lacked the whole Dain killing Azog part which IMO is much more important than having Azog chase Thorin all over the countryside. Since Dain becomes king under the mountain. He takes Thorin's place on the throne. Therefore his character should have been more important to the overall story. But Jackson chose to ignore it, even though it is 100 times more entertaining than what we got. Like I said Bolg could have been used as the Orc chasing Thorin and it would still have been in the current time without butchering Tolkien's lore. It would still have the same effect but still kept Tolkien history intact better than the horrible lets rewrite Tolkien lore bringing Azog back from the dead ruining more details than it helped to make better. I feel that was a lack of direction on Jackson's part or the script writers listening to someone who obviously had no clue about middle earth.

Thrain being captured by the enemy... nothing says it couldn't be shown as a flashback. But it didn't happen during the battle of Anazulbizar, it was years later. That is part of where Jackson loses faith in moviegoer to understand timelines. chooses to simplify things instead of leaving them to the imagination to the fans. Heck put times in subtitles at the bottom of the screen if he is that worried about people not understanding. At least it would add some depth to the story making it feel like there was some history involved and not just everything being rushed and in the present. Again taking it out of the past and injecting it into the present takes the weight out of it, it strips it of any historical feel which IMO carrys more weight than everything all happening at once

As far as Sauron and showing his "reintegration", he was barely mentioned in the Hobbit. 2 sentences tops in the Hobbit book. So there really is NO need to bring back Sauron as a character. I understand some people want more of that storyline, but its not important to the tale at hand which is Bilbo's adventure followed secondly by Thorin reclaiming Erobor...The Necromancer could have been done visually to be reminiscent of Sauron from LOTR but never once confirming that is who he is. Hooded figure in tattered robes almost like he had been buried for decades (also tying in the whole Necromancer, dealing with the dead thing)with rusty armor being seen underneath the robes that is reminiscent of Sauron's armor from FOTR. possibly even walking with a staff like a cane to show he has not regained his power and is weakened. But never once revealing who he truly is. Something like that would have worked fine for the necromancer character to be included without dealing anything with the ring or his real identity, but visually he would be noticeable when watching FOTR.

I don't find any issue with flashbacks making things less important to the current story. they are there for a reason to give some backstory to the current events. They shouldn't feel as frantic as the current story but should add some depth and weight to it. With them pushing everything into the current time they just make everything seem rushed and frantic and that there is SO much going on at the same time.

When Jackson stuck to Tolkien and his history and events the film was great, when he deviated from Tolkien not so much, I would just say mediocre.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 9:02pm

Post #233 of 240 (270 views)
Shortcut
I'm sure there would always be connections [In reply to] Can't Post

but those connections should have been much more subtle and well thought out. I think in the case of most of Jackson's connections they seem forced and unnatural, or complete rehashing of LOTR. They could have done things much better IMO and not had so much foreshadowing of what is to come, since not even Gandalf can see the future, And the Hobbit happened 60 years before LOTR.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 10 2013, 10:55pm

Post #234 of 240 (267 views)
Shortcut
The core issue [In reply to] Can't Post

I have read your responces and am most grateful for the varacity and application you have applied in doing so. There are I think two types of critique of AUJ those whom accept the outcome but dislike certain elements (ill judged humour, inappropriate heirarchical interpersonal relationships Galadriel/Gandalf use of CGI elements etc). Then there is the other type of criticism which suggest the whole business of the movie making is ill conceived and ill judged.

Where I think you and say Eleanorflower are flat out wrong is to suggest the current film makers could have made an innocent Hobbit isolated from its literary surroundings. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit he had no idea :-

1) Who Gandalf was.

2) Who Gollum is and the significance of the magic ring in his possession.

3) The background to the formation of the White Council and its concerns and its place with in the Ainu's strategic care for middle earth.

4) The back story regarding Azog, Thrain and the Necromencer (at this stage the 2nd age had not been fully written which is crucial in understanding the significance of Morgoth's lieutenant after Morgoth was banished at the end of the first age).

We do, we know the answer to all of these things and to suggest that PJ could have made a film without addressing and recognising this rich vein of historical context and indeed utilising and drawing on it would have been a huge missed opportunity.

All I can say is we have to agree to disagree at the most fundamental level about our approach to these movies. The key reason I am interested in them is because he is giving us a re imagined Hobbit with the benefit of hindsight. I am not interested in the childrens book with all its failings being played out on screen and I am delighted with the approach they have taken. Far from disliking the realism and immersion of 48 fps I think it combined with the semi mythical quality of the CGI prologues (not epilogues my bad!!) is riveting.

It can still go wrong and they have to be careful with Sauron and how they complete his arc after the battle of Dol Gulder but so far so mostly good.







In Reply To
but those connections should have been much more subtle and well thought out. I think in the case of most of Jackson's connections they seem forced and unnatural, or complete rehashing of LOTR. They could have done things much better IMO and not had so much foreshadowing of what is to come, since not even Gandalf can see the future, And the Hobbit happened 60 years before LOTR.


I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 10 2013, 10:57pm)


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Mar 10 2013, 11:41pm

Post #235 of 240 (253 views)
Shortcut
things like [In reply to] Can't Post

the character of Gandalf does not really change from the Hobbit to LOTR. He might have been a bit grumpier in the Hobbit but still overall the same character...

There really is no need to play up the magic ring or what it was since we get all that info in FOTR which is what those films are about the Hobbit however is NOT about the ring or Sauron for that matter. we find out what the rings significance was also in the beginning of FOTR

The white council, while I can respect what Jackson tried to do was just poorly written. It felt rushed together and incohesive. Gandalf and Saruman didn't seem like friends as we are led to believe at the beginning of FOTR. It obviously seems like there is a power struggle there which seemed unnecessary and forced to create conflict and nothing more.

Azog storyline Jackson created is nothing like Tolkien's and IMO honestly and bluntly just plain sucks when compared to the way Tolkien wrote it. As I said had it been Bolg chasing Thorin and the rest of the history been intact it might have worked much better but the way it stands now. It's nothing compared to the original way Tolkien wrote it..

If Jackson had followed Tolkien's history instead of trying to change it maybe it would have worked better but I still feel he failed miserably in presenting something Tolkien would have considered good or even been proud of


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 10 2013, 11:49pm

Post #236 of 240 (255 views)
Shortcut
Feigned Ignorance [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes, I would not want to keep myself in feigned ignorance of what was later discovered about Middle Earth. I'd rather approach the story as if there were a history unearthed after the original telling. That seems to me to be in keeping with the spirit of the historical or nostalgic nature of the Middle Earth collection. Telling the story as if we did not already know the background and the outcome would be, perhaps to a real historian, dishonest and incomplete. Maybe even propaganda.

That said, the quality of the telling of the historical record is deeply in question.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Mar 10 2013, 11:56pm

Post #237 of 240 (259 views)
Shortcut
Spectacle [In reply to] Can't Post

We have heard time and again that Tolkien would have looked at his work being turned into spectacle with great disdain.

Yet Peter Jackson, and hence Boyens, who both claim to have a fondness for the stories of Middle Earth, and who want to work in the spirit of Tolkien's work if not the man himself, says in one of the recent UK interview videos that he would hope Tolkien, if he were alive today, would enjoy the "spectacle" of the movies. This presents a man out of touch. I was stunned by the statement and I still have some cognitive dissonance about it. I can't believe he would really be that oblivious to what he was saying.

Here's the video:
http://www.facebook.com/...t=vb.175992219114649


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Mar 11 2013, 12:00am)


Elessar
Valinor


Mar 11 2013, 12:27am

Post #238 of 240 (242 views)
Shortcut
I believe he meant [In reply to] Can't Post

You can use spectacle in a couple ways. I think Tolkien was talking spectacle in something that would be pure trash. Take the movie Battleship its pure cheese (and while I enjoy it) and more the type of spectacle Tolkien would have been worried about. What Jackson meant was I believe the spectacle of seeing his works comes to life in a positive way. Also, if we're going to pick at Jackson for word choices its Middle-earth (like Tolkien wrote it) not Middle Earth.



Phibbus
Rohan


Mar 11 2013, 1:54am

Post #239 of 240 (248 views)
Shortcut
Golly [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I am not interested in the childrens book with all its failings being played out on screen


Now there's a piece of off-the-cuff pejorative worthy of Ms. Boyens herself.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


Michelle Johnston
Rohan


Mar 11 2013, 6:53am

Post #240 of 240 (247 views)
Shortcut
I share the authors view of his book [In reply to] Can't Post

My view of Tolkiens work is almost identical to his own.

The LOTR was the great passion and love of his literary life that he felt confident to have published, though he felt it to short.

The core of his creatity was the Silmarillion which evolved and revealed itself slowly to him over 30 years and which after retirement he lacked the energy and self belief to find solutions to how to bring an orderly narrative to publication. Though deeply frustrating in its lack of coherance and consistancy of tone it is my great passion to, as is much of the variant material.

The Hobbit was written for Michael and Christopher and over the years he grew to regret the narrative style with its third person look ins. He recognised at the time, he hesitated whilst writing, and later, that the narrative collapses after Smaug's death. When he restarted quite unconsciously the book began to take on the feel of the later hobbit story and the Silmarillion and this incompatability came to a head with the BOTFA which he resolved by dwindling it to a look back scene. It was unashamedly written for children which is why I had not read it for thirty years until I began thinking about the films last year. What I have discovered on this forum is that whereas for my generation the Hobbit is merely regarded as a gentle read that you pursue after the greatness of LOTR, for our childrens generation it is one of their cherished childhood memories. Indeed I read it to my eldest daughter when she was 6 or 7.

On the question of Pippa she is of course right that screen adaption requires different treatments to source material its a different medium. However I found whoever wrote in the fake personal jeopardy arcs, that turned up particularly in the TTT, to be very trite whether Theoden, Legolas and particularly Treebeard. So far that has been avoided matters seem to develop properly though I know many are against what they see as the fake reconciliation between Thorin and Bilbo.

I am with Martin Freeman who did not want that drawn to far into the movies I also think that it fits in the mythology for Bilbo to emerge from underhill transformed by not only his accumulated experiences thus far but by his encounter with Gollum and the acquisition of the ring. When Tolkien wrote the book it was merely a trinket to give Bilbo a hidden advantage just as Gandalf's other business was a narrative ploy to allow Bilbo to shine, rather than connected, as it has become, with a key part of the history of the third age. Its this kind of understanding developed by Tolkien after the childrens book was written that should inform the film makers and the artistic outcomes that they pursue. It is the modus operandi beautifully set out by Ian Holm when he opens up the "real story" to us." I never told you" and as for my good self .... and so dear readers I must get on with my day and whatever that brings Wink

I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.

(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 11 2013, 6:56am)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.