Patrick Rothfuss talks about the upcoming Hobbit films...

B

Beutlin

Rivendell
First of all I would like to say that I do not read fantasy literature on a regular basis and therefore the name Patrick Rothfuss has not been familiar to me until now. Apparently he is a rather famous American fantasy author who has written the fantasy trilogy "The Kingkiller Chronicle". On a German hobbit fansite I stumbled upon his latest blog entry which is about the upcoming film adaptation of the Hobbit and his fears concerning Peter Jackson's handling of the source material.

http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012/02/concerning-hobbits-love-and-movie-adaptations/

WARNING: The author's language is not child-friendly.

PS: I do not share Mr Rothfuss beliefs but I wanted to let you know about his view on the Hobbit.
 
One of the things that tends to annoy me is when people say LOTR was "only moderately okay adaptations." Yeah, that may be so, but its the best adaptation that we are going to see in our lifetimes. If you want it like the book, just read the book. If you want an adaptation (which is defined as: A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted/changed from a written work, typically a novel) then watch the film!!! I'm not sure what the problem is!
 
From the artilce:

I can tell in my bones that the movie is going to be chock full of scenes that were never in the original story. I’m not talking about a little extra dialogue here and there. I’m talking about completely invented cutaway scenes that stuff more action in, and subplots that were only barely alluded to in the book. My off-the-cuff prediction? At least 20 minutes worth.
Click to expand...


Now, this is not a fair comment. It is largely true; however, these are not "invented cutaway scenes," but sequences lifted from material in The Lord of the Rings, especially in the Appendices. And they will probably add up to far more than 20 minutes worth of footage. At least some of it would probably have been included in Peter Jackson's Hobbit even if it had been made prior to LotR; a film audience would likely not be satisfied, for example, with Gandalf dropping completely out of the story for about half of the film only to pop up again just in time for the climax.
 
Why people cannot accept that some very reasonable individuals are not slobberingly in love with PJ's adaptations.

I would go one step further than Routhfus (who I've also never heard of) and say that they weren't very good films either, never mind adaptations.

There were moments of sheer beauty, and flashes of the sublime (indeed, some scenes are my favorite scenes in all of cinema), but overall, they are an overwrought and shallow mess (IMO.)

Can we just accept that some people feel that way, and were very disappointed? I hope so. Because it was actually a rather stinging feeling to realize that the adaptations of your favorite books were not going to be to your liking. I wish people would be tolerant and understanding of that.

On the other hand, I have higher hopes for the Hobbit, if only because Del Toro had a hand in the script-writing.
 
thanks for the seedy, bitter, poorly-contrived, seemingly unending strawman comparison of the LotR/TH films to internet porn. After giving a couple of coherent opinions, you seem to have sunk into an impersonation of a character out of a Kevin Smith movie...and convinced me never to read anything else you've written...ever.

Meanwhile, I'll be at the theater for the opening day (night?) of both of PH's TH movies, as far as I'm concerned. So, uh...nice job, Mr. Rothfuss - if that IS your real name (which I doubt). [cool][tongue]
 
Last edited:
But I still think they are the best adaptation that we are going to get (simply because it will be the only big-screen adaptation).
 
Rarely has there been a source material adapted to film where so much the narrative, dialogue, cast, world, and thematic material was kept intact. Whether or not one liked the films is of course totally subjective, but to claim they're flat out failures or unfaithful as adaptations of the novels is simply false. For example, true, PJ did cut out of the Scouring of the Shire...but have you seen/read Jaws? Spielberg cut out half the book! [cool]

BTW, to totally replicate the novels on-screen would be a mind-boggling tiresome experience with a running time of about a year. [tongue]
 
Last edited:
Good adaptions, not great.

As the subject of this post stated (he, he . . . got a couple of good belly laughs out of that . . . my dark, Kevin Smith side coming out there), they were moderately okay adaptions of the books.
- Too many invented action sequences that could have been eliminated to allow more excerpts from the novel to be included.
- Too many liberties with the personalities of the characters.
- Too many pointless deviations from the storyline (Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath [mad])

I do watch the movies occasionally, but I also refuse to watch many portions of them due to the changes or due to poor adaption from the novel.
I will have to admit that I watch the Rankin/Bass Hobbit more often than the PJ LOTR. That movie at the least stayed closer to the story of the Hobbit, while cutting out whole sections due to TV time constraints.

My opinion entirely, of course, but that's where I'm coming from.
 
Oy very, could they have done any more to assassinate that character! I'm certainly not adverse to their making Faramir or a more layered or dramatic presence than he was in the books (they succeeded with his brother, IMO) but they way they went about it...OY! OY! Oy... [shocked]

Personally, I suppose I tend to take a "glass is half full" approach to PJ's films: IMO he got so much right, and included so much from the books, while trying to make the best films possible and not an "illustrated audio book", that most of what he got wrong or excluded pales in comparison. They also happen to be 3 of my all-time favorite films regardless of source material, so that probably helps. [;)]
 
Last edited:
He said that "In the moments in which the films succeed, they do so by staying close to what Tolkien so carefully wrote; where they fail, it tends to be where they diverge from him, most seriously in the area of characterisation."

This sounds like the perfect example of someone who sees alteration as failure. They watch the movies from a closed-minded and biased stand-point where, if the movie does something that's not in the book, they criticise it as "wrong" rather than looking at it in terms of the story or trying to find anything interesting in the idea. The movies are not the books. The books have already been written. Why do a word-for-word adaptation? There'd be no suspense or surprise, you'd just stare at it like a mindless zombie knowing every turn before it happens. In my opinion Peter Jackson is keeping the story fresh and modern.

I'm not saying if you don't like his films then you're wrong, because that's your opinion. But if you honestly don't like the films because they are different from the books then I think you should try and be more open minded and prepared for new things.

This comment isn't aimed at anyone in particular, I'm just sharing my thoughts.
 
I still dont understand why reasonably intellegent individuals cant seperate the concepts of book and movies.
If you don't like the movies, thats fine. But judging them negativley because they arent exactly like the books, is unfair.
Should we have a 10hr movie full of exposition, drawn out scenes and events that arent visually embellished for the sake of a restless audience?
Is the average movie goer suppose to be expected to sit through an hour worth of Bilbo searching for weeks for each 13 individual Dwarf cells after they are captured by the Elves?
Its easy to imagine a scene as exciting while reading a book. But on screen you have to excite the audience to keep them from falling asleep.
You have all the time in the world to figure out whats going on in the book. The film doesnt have time to include and explain every little detail.
You also have all the time in the world to finish the book. While the movie only has 2-3 hours.
There are 13 Dwarves. THEY CANT ALL LOOK ALIKE. It would confuse people who arent obssessed with the details of the book. Which is most people.
Some things in the book that might seem cute, like talking animals, might come off as campy on film.
I know alot of you Tolkien fans wouldnt mind sitting through a long drawn out movie. But most people would mind.
If PJ could do a completely faithful adaption and make billions more than a adapted version, then im sure he would do it.
But most movie makers know that movies have to move a little quicker, be more visually exciting and express as much as they can in a shorter time period to get average movie goers to understand and care.
Movie making is a business. They are not making a fan movie as a favor to the tolkienites. Thats just the facts.
The books will always be the same. The movies wont change it.
Personally, i feel that PJ made a more respectful adaption than i would have expected any other director to have done.
At least Bilbo isnt wearing all black and is constantly brooding, like in a Tim burton version..lol
 
Love IT!

I love the book, everything about it, and I want to see it in full, without change . . . don't need the suspense, don't need any changes . . .

I'll never get it, because it's not cost-effective, and everything now involves money.

But, I WOULD LOVE THAT!

OK . . . . . . . . . I'm done now . . . . . . . . . thanx for setting me off, QT [;)]
 
Maybe Alice in Wonderland or something fast-paced like that so it has a chance of being good. I don't think it would work. Like Psycho's shot-for-shot remake didn't work. But I'd love someone to do it as an experiment, just to see the reception it gets.
 
and can't say i disagree either. For one I think they could stay a bit closer to the book than having to run off on tangents that in fact are barely eluded to in the Hobbit book and are little more than a couple paragraphs in the appendixes. Yeah I think it is cool hey are exploring Gandalf venturing into DolGuldur and I really hope they include a bit of the Dwarf and Goblin war stuff. BUT I think they are overplaying the whole Necromancer/one ring situation which takes the whole purpose of the Hobbit story into a direction that Tolkien never would have wanted it to go. I just think to over work that part of the story to try and "fit" the LOTR trilogy together with the Hobbit films instead of letting the viewer use their own mind to figure things out is terrible. The beginning of FOTR tells Sauron's story and all we need to know about the ring and I know people don't want to believe it but there are people out there who have NOT seen the LOTR trilogy, to keep pushing the ring issue ruins the context of what the ring was in the hobbit story, A TOOL, and nothing more. The ring never spoke to Bilbo, it never invaded his mind, he never seen the dark lord while wearing it, the nazgul never hunted Bilbo because of it. It made him invisible, thats it NOTHING MORE. Sauron was hiding, was NOT actively looking for it in the open and didn't even declare himself openly for another 10 years AFTER Bilbo returned home to Baggend...

The character in every cast list is only ever referred to as the Necromancer, Benedict Cumberbatch has stated he is only VOICING the character. So thinking logically about it, and NOT trying to put any wishful thinking into it, I don't think "Sauron" will make an appearance in the fiilms as anything more than the necromancer or at least I am hoping so.

I think PJ and crew should stay as close to the book with very few variations from it as possible. I still do think the whole White Council stuff is cool but doesn't need to be half a movies worth. If Gandalf disappears for a while in the films thats fine with me. If the Necromancer is nothing more than a 5 minute scene thats fine with me too, its just a bit of icing on the cake but its not needed. too much about the ring being the one ring will worsen the film IMHO (cause thats not what the hobbit is about). Too many changes makes the story something its NOT, if Jackson changes too much they might as well change the name of the films and NOT call it the hobbit. Call it "more from middle earth" or something then.

Don't get me wrong, I think LITTLE scenes of backstory like,Thorin escaping Erobor, Thrain giving Gandalf the map and key, Dwarf and Goblin war stuff, Azog killing Thror and throwing a dwarf head with his name carved into the forehead back at the dwarfs, Azog's head on a stick after Dain beheads him, Smaug wrecking Dale and taking Erobor from the dwarves, stuff like that which is pertaining to the story at hand, which is the story of Bilbo joining a group of Dwarves to reclaim their halls under the mountain. It's not another story about Sauron, or the ring, or the rightful king of Gondor, or destroying a ring or anything like that, its about Bilbo and the 13 dwarves going to the lonely mountain. It seems people keep forgetting that.

Change is unavoidable going from book to film but it should be minimum when it needs to be done
 
I think many have argued till they were blue in the face about whether LotR is a good adaptation or not. PJ certainly took liberties, no debate there. I however, think it's a little ridiculous to argue about whether they are good movies are not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it would seem to me that they were deemed "good" movies when they were nominated for 30 Academy Awards, winning 17 of them, and sitting at 92%, 96%, and 94% respectively on Rotten Tomatoes.
 
Someone else could potentially re-make the trilogy with closer adaptations in respect to certain character situations, but making a trilogy that includes so much more of the detail from the book would be nearly impossible in my opinion. The movies would be ridiculously long and expensive, but it could be doable. But there would be a chance that the acting, and sets and everything else wouldn't turn out as well as PJ's adaptation did.
 
Jackson has to establish all of the characters in the film to the audience, with dialogue and new situations and stories, whereas Tolkien didn't have to do that, because he referred to the dwarves in terms of a giant mass more often than not, and only a few of them really spoke at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top