Peter Jackson directs "The Hobbit"

When I was a kid I read the Hobbit once. I read it again as a young adult, and now I'm reading it to my kids. It's a great book, as I'm sure you all agree.

However, the version of the Hobbit that is actually in my head is not the book. Instead, it is the 1977 cartoon adaptation. I watched it on TV many many times. Also, I had a record (with an illustrated storybook) of the cartoon adaption which I listened to many many times. Until Ian McKellen came along John Huston WAS Gandolf. While I enjoyed it as a kid, when I've watched some scenes as an adult, I see the limitations of the adaptation. I look forward to the movie because it by all rights should be a better adaptation.

Haakon7 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Pat Rothfuss:
Concerning Hobbits, Love, and Movie Adaptations

I take his point. And you can read that as I'm on the verge of agreeing with him.

As much as I enjoyed the LoTR films, I'm also nostalgic for a time when the textures and colors of Tolkien's stories were in a place that was private to me in the way that only a book could be.
If you air those epic moments and little dramas out in the way that Jackson did, then it can feel like the world is now in on a secret that previously only you knew, making the whole secret less personal and less interesting for everybody.

It makes me sad that there are people out there whose only exposure to the histories and personalities from the Lord of the Rings are the cariacatures that Jackson has created. Like the 'real thing', but not quite.

But I'm still going to watch and love the movie. Hypocritical? Maybe.

But how many more read the books because of the movies? Tons, I'm sure.

My problem with that article is this:

And that’s how I’m going to feel when I watch the Hobbit.

I'm glad he's aware of how he's going into this film, but I can't shake the feeling he's going in to be disappointed regardless of how the movie ends up. He makes good arguments, I just can't live with the "I'm a purist" attitude. The movies will NEVER be the books. Never. They're different mediums and I'd rather a good movie than a perfect adaptation of a book. I think the LOTR movies are some of the best movie adaptations I've ever seen, but even then they're not as good as the books. I've never met a movie that was better than a book (other than books written after the movie (ie. Star Wars)).

I ran out of steam, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Aristophan wrote:

However, the version of the Hobbit that is actually in my head is not the book. Instead, it is the 1977 cartoon adaptation. I watched it on TV many many times. Also, I had a record (with an illustrated storybook) of the cartoon adaption which I listened to many many times. Until Ian McKellen came along John Huston WAS Gandolf. While I enjoyed it as a kid, when I've watched some scenes as an adult, I see the limitations of the adaptation. I look forward to the movie because it by all rights should be a better adaptation.

I had that same record, although visually the work of the brothers Hildebrandt is what will always be ingrained in my mind: IMAGE(http://www.timefold.com/brosimages/unexpected.jpg)

Is it really that difficult to disassociate a movie with a book? He admits to liking the movies but doesn't like that they don't have enough whatever it is that captured his imagination as a kid. Well, why can't you just enjoy the movies for what they are? MOVIES. It was such a rare feeling, going to the movies and being blown away by them. Given that I hadn't read any Tolkien yet, I equate seeing Fellowship to seeing the first Matrix. I had no idea what to expect and was completely blown away. Having read the books, I now love the books and the movies. Is that really so hard?

To some, yes, it can be.

It's like telling someone to stop crying. It doesn't work.

The films don't really harm the books for me. I have a thousand different gripes about stuff they changed, but I still really love the movies for what they are. They got the soul and tone of the thing pretty well.

I think of it like the LA Confidential movie, which has a completely different story about the same characters. LOTR isn't as close as that, since they changed a lot of important characters in detrimental ways, e.g. Denethor, Faramir. Having said that, I actually prefer the Boromir in the movies to that in the book, since he's less of a speechifying dick, and his bond with Merry and Pippin makes him a bit more human.

garion333 wrote:
Haakon7 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Pat Rothfuss:
Concerning Hobbits, Love, and Movie Adaptations

I take his point. And you can read that as I'm on the verge of agreeing with him.

As much as I enjoyed the LoTR films, I'm also nostalgic for a time when the textures and colors of Tolkien's stories were in a place that was private to me in the way that only a book could be.
If you air those epic moments and little dramas out in the way that Jackson did, then it can feel like the world is now in on a secret that previously only you knew, making the whole secret less personal and less interesting for everybody.

It makes me sad that there are people out there whose only exposure to the histories and personalities from the Lord of the Rings are the cariacatures that Jackson has created. Like the 'real thing', but not quite.

But I'm still going to watch and love the movie. Hypocritical? Maybe.

But how many more read the books because of the movies? Tons, I'm sure.

Me, for one. At least I saw Fellowship then read everything before Two Towers came out.

I think the books tended to drag on a little. They were full of majesty but I sometimes found my mind wandering.

I've just resigned myself to thinking of the movies as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings and the books as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. They're two very different tellings of the same story for different mediums.

Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Haakon7 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Pat Rothfuss:
Concerning Hobbits, Love, and Movie Adaptations

I take his point. And you can read that as I'm on the verge of agreeing with him.

As much as I enjoyed the LoTR films, I'm also nostalgic for a time when the textures and colors of Tolkien's stories were in a place that was private to me in the way that only a book could be.
If you air those epic moments and little dramas out in the way that Jackson did, then it can feel like the world is now in on a secret that previously only you knew, making the whole secret less personal and less interesting for everybody.

It makes me sad that there are people out there whose only exposure to the histories and personalities from the Lord of the Rings are the cariacatures that Jackson has created. Like the 'real thing', but not quite.

But I'm still going to watch and love the movie. Hypocritical? Maybe.

But how many more read the books because of the movies? Tons, I'm sure.

Me, for one. At least I saw Fellowship then read everything before Two Towers came out.

I think the books tended to drag on a little. They were full of majesty but I sometimes found my mind wandering.

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

Grenn wrote:

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

This is a "choke him out right there in the theater" worthy offense.

Thin_J wrote:
Grenn wrote:

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

This is a "choke him out right there in the theater" worthy offense.

Was it Bill Lewis?

Grenn wrote:

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

Man, and I thought I nearly slipped when people at my school were all "Oh my God I can't believe they killed Gandalf!" and almost responded with "What are you talking about he come-OH! Yes. He died."

NathanialG wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
Grenn wrote:

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

This is a "choke him out right there in the theater" worthy offense.

Was it Bill Lewis?

McChuck.

Grenn wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
Grenn wrote:

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

This is a "choke him out right there in the theater" worthy offense.

Was it Bill Lewis?

McChuck.

Wow. What a betrayal.

Grenn wrote:
Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Haakon7 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Pat Rothfuss:
Concerning Hobbits, Love, and Movie Adaptations

I take his point. And you can read that as I'm on the verge of agreeing with him.

As much as I enjoyed the LoTR films, I'm also nostalgic for a time when the textures and colors of Tolkien's stories were in a place that was private to me in the way that only a book could be.
If you air those epic moments and little dramas out in the way that Jackson did, then it can feel like the world is now in on a secret that previously only you knew, making the whole secret less personal and less interesting for everybody.

It makes me sad that there are people out there whose only exposure to the histories and personalities from the Lord of the Rings are the cariacatures that Jackson has created. Like the 'real thing', but not quite.

But I'm still going to watch and love the movie. Hypocritical? Maybe.

But how many more read the books because of the movies? Tons, I'm sure.

Me, for one. At least I saw Fellowship then read everything before Two Towers came out.

I think the books tended to drag on a little. They were full of majesty but I sometimes found my mind wandering.

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

Luckily my friend didn't ruin anything for me. His mom was annoyed that there was a sequel. She had no idea it was a trilogy of books.

Vector wrote:
Grenn wrote:
Vector wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Haakon7 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Pat Rothfuss:
Concerning Hobbits, Love, and Movie Adaptations

I take his point. And you can read that as I'm on the verge of agreeing with him.

As much as I enjoyed the LoTR films, I'm also nostalgic for a time when the textures and colors of Tolkien's stories were in a place that was private to me in the way that only a book could be.
If you air those epic moments and little dramas out in the way that Jackson did, then it can feel like the world is now in on a secret that previously only you knew, making the whole secret less personal and less interesting for everybody.

It makes me sad that there are people out there whose only exposure to the histories and personalities from the Lord of the Rings are the cariacatures that Jackson has created. Like the 'real thing', but not quite.

But I'm still going to watch and love the movie. Hypocritical? Maybe.

But how many more read the books because of the movies? Tons, I'm sure.

Me, for one. At least I saw Fellowship then read everything before Two Towers came out.

I think the books tended to drag on a little. They were full of majesty but I sometimes found my mind wandering.

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

Luckily my friend didn't ruin anything for me. His mom was annoyed that there was a sequel. She had no idea it was a trilogy of books.

Me again! My mom kept asking when they get there. Two more movies mom. Ohhhhhh....

NathanialG wrote:
Grenn wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
Grenn wrote:

This was my experience. The worst part about not reading the books prior to seeing the movies is your asshole friend leaning over to you as the Fellowship are mourning the loss of Gandalf in Moria and saying "I bet you think he's dead, don't you?"

This is a "choke him out right there in the theater" worthy offense.

Was it Bill Lewis?

McChuck.

Wow. What a betrayal.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I honestly don't remember this very well but let's count it as punishment for the hundreds of fantasy books he'd read by then, yet had not read LOTR.

Am I gonna have to separate you two? Sheesh....

As far as the whole "the story on the screen isn't going to match my imagination" thing, well, that happens in all books. I am a purist, and a canon-Nazi so I have a certain amount of sympathy for the writer even though I don't really agree with him.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff in the film adaptations that works differently in my head when I'm reading it myself. But I can cope with Jackson's interpretations. When faced with this situation I always try to reconcile them or do my best appreciate them separately. When I can't, you rant a lot and throw things. I try to keep the second bit to a minimum, though.

Unless it's Star Trek.

Honestly, does anyone actually think that the inclusion of Tom Bombadill would have made the LOTR movies any better?

I can appreciate that the original author may take issue with his masterwork being shortened or abbreviated for a medium it was never originally intended for, but how many more people have now been exposed to Tolkien's work prior to the release of the trilogy? Isn't that a good thing overall?

Nevin73 wrote:

Honestly, does anyone actually think that the inclusion of Tom Bombadill would have made the LOTR movies any better?

I can appreciate that the original author may take issue with his masterwork being shortened or abbreviated for a medium it was never originally intended for, but how many more people have now been exposed to Tolkien's work prior to the release of the trilogy? Isn't that a good thing overall?

I don't think Rothfuss is saying that the movies are a bad thing; he's saying (and I agree) that Jackson's vision of the movies is much more bombastic and less subtle than Tolkien's in many places. He also says he enjoys the hell out of the movies as movies, while not thinking they're necessarily great adaptations.

Nevin73 wrote:

Honestly, does anyone actually think that the inclusion of Tom Bombadill would have made the LOTR movies any better?

I can appreciate that the original author may take issue with his masterwork being shortened or abbreviated for a medium it was never originally intended for, but how many more people have now been exposed to Tolkien's work prior to the release of the trilogy? Isn't that a good thing overall?

I tend to look at the effort made to stay true to the original material which is why i consider the LOTR movies as one of the best adaptations. No it didnt have Bombadill, but it did have the special clasps for the cloaks they were given in Rivendell and little touches like that all over that makes it seem like they're doing all they can to get all they can within the restraints of a movie.

Nevin73 wrote:

Honestly, does anyone actually think that the inclusion of Tom Bombadill would have made the LOTR movies any better?

Definitely not, but that's a misunderstanding of what Tolkien purists want from the film adaptations. What they don't want is a slavish devotion to just transliterating what's on the page to the screen, as if the book could be the screenplay: that makes a misguided adaptation and a terrible film (see: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—or don't, if you haven't read the book).

Jackson did a lot of things right with his adaptation, and removing Bombadil (and much of the other singing) was one of those things. It just wouldn't have worked on the screen, would have bogged things down, introduced too many one-off characters, and probably be a little cringe-worthy if not just a weird shift in gears.

What Jackson did wrong (and I mention this ever so briefly just for contrast) was get the spirit of the story fundamentally wrong. A creator has all sorts of leeway to adapt a work to another medium, but when he misses the central point of the work (the strength of the smallest) for his own vision (epic action), that's when he can be rightly criticized.

And just because I'm feeling extra-defensive, I'll add that that's still no reason why the adaptation can't be enjoyed as thing in and of itself! I leave that to the judgment of the individual viewer.

Just because I'm an aggressive Tolkien purist who believe this and that, doesn't mean I demand others not to believe the other thing.

But to The Hobbit: I actually disagree a bit with Rothfuss on the specifics, because I think he missed something in the trailer. And that, in Jackson's favour, is that Jackson isn't adapting the children's book. To do that and keep the tone would be a really weird follow-up to the epic trilogy and almost be a slap in the face to the movie fans who aren't familiar with The Hobbit. Instead, Jackson's incorporating material from Durin's Folk and The Quest of Erebor, which beef up the story and add to it all the lore and gravitas that an equal prequel (sorry) to LOTR needs. And Jackson doesn't have to make any of this up (although I'm still afraid to hear any dialogue he's written): Sauron, rings of power, big battles, Tolkien wrote it all down.

So in that sense, as a LOTR movie-disliker, I'm actually looking forward to The Hobbit since it really will be an adaptation that isn't beholden to transferring a single work, but synthesizing a few different sources to make something new. Personally, I still don't think Jackson is the best director for the job, but it's the way things are, so I anticipate it. Plus, Tim Canterbury.

IMAGE(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/326/5/9/thanks_legolas_by_hmcgirl-d33evmc.jpg)

"Oh damn, Tanglebones just wrote in one paragraph what I'm trying to say. But I'm too deep into this post now, I gotta ride it out!"

Gravey wrote:

"Oh damn, Tanglebones just wrote in one paragraph what I'm trying to say. But I'm too deep into this post now, I gotta ride it out!"

Yours is much more to the point about the Hobbit - I was only really talking about the LOTR stuff, since I haven't really read too much beyond the Silmarillion & chunks of the first Book of Unfinished Tales.

Pft. Rothfuss should shut up and get back to writing Book 3.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Pft. Rothfuss should shut up and get back to writing Book 3.

:D

Ah yes, The Return of the Bard; sequel to The Fellowship of Undergrads and The Two Strings.

The film of LOTR makes me think of Branagh's movie version of Hamlet. Coming out of Hamlet I really had an appreciation for how MUCH there is to that story and that there are so many decisions to make that I would love some and hate some. I think that helped me with the LOTR films. For every spine tingling moment like Frodo and Bilbo dressed in orc armor looking down on Mordor or Gandalf's death, there was something like the handling of Shelob that I violently opposed. The damned "dwarf tossing" line being one of the worst. *shudder*

But, overall, I can roll with Jackson's vision because it gave me enough of what I wanted/expected that swallowing the parts I didn't like was easy.

Reminds me — I need to crack the spines on those bluray versions and watch them. It's been years.

And I need to re-read the books again.

lostlobster wrote:

For every spine tingling moment like Frodo and Bilbo dressed in orc armor looking down on Mordor or Gandalf's death

Definitely doing it wrong.

Grenn wrote:

Is it really that difficult to disassociate a movie with a book? He admits to liking the movies but doesn't like that they don't have enough whatever it is that captured his imagination as a kid. Well, why can't you just enjoy the movies for what they are? MOVIES. It was such a rare feeling, going to the movies and being blown away by them. Given that I hadn't read any Tolkien yet, I equate seeing Fellowship to seeing the first Matrix. I had no idea what to expect and was completely blown away. Having read the books, I now love the books and the movies. Is that really so hard?

No, it really isn't. For books I love, movies have had very little impact on how I view them.

I saw Woman in Black last week, and it was a monumental disappointment compared the book. I have to tell you, when I think of Artur Kipps, I don't think of Daniel Radcliffe. As perfect as I thought he would be for the role, the film told such a different story that it just doesn't compute.

I would suppose if I saw the movie first of any book, that I would picture those characters. That was certainly the case with Fight Club.

Hell, I don't picture Tim Robbins and Laurence Fishbourne when I think about Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. And Fishbourne's character was an actual Irishman!