I think that they want to include the things that were happening during the Hobbit that make LOTR make more sense.

I think its a cool idea to add in things they referred to in the LotR and the Appendix involving the Hobbit. It will flesh out the story a little more, and make it a little bit more exciting for those fans that wish to see more than just the novel that we've all read so many times.

I'm not optimistic with the way things seem to be going...

Odo

Hi Nat, welcome to the forum!



Actually it will add entirely new elements to the story, not flesh out the existing one.



What is the point in making a movie called The Hobbit that is ostensibly an adaptation of the book if you're not going to bother adapting the book but just make a new story that is somewhat based on the book?

I hate to beat a dead horse , but that is essentially the definition of adaptation--creating a film based on the original story. And as long as the adapters use Tolkien's own material to expand the Hobbit (i.e. the White Council etc.), it still falls in the pervue of adaptation, rather than creating an entirely new story based on concepts from the original story(as was done in Will Smith's I Robot, based on Azimov's works).

GB

Well if we want to talk definitions, adaptations is actually defined as "a written work (as a novel) that has been recast in a new form; "the play is an adaptation of a short novel"" according to WordNet. In other words, it is the same story but it is told in a new form; it's not a hodgepodge of different stories that Tolkien wrote and were then expanded and grouped together by the filmmakers. More simply, the films will be called The Hobbit so many will assume that it tells the story of The Hobbit (the book). Confusion has arisen from this with LOTR; I'm confident I'm not the only person to have had conversations with non-fans who confuse what happens in the book versus the films.

Very true Eldorion, but many of those Film Fans aren't book-readers anyway. So they aren't so concerned about the alterations due to adaptations. It's only people like us who really care about that sort of thing.

And the short form dictionary definition of "adaptation" doesn't account for the necessary changes that are always made when adapting stories from one media to another.

In some rare cases the film comes first, then the written form, in which case a good book adaptation will fill in many gaps from the film. A Play will be adapted differently from a film, which is adapted differently from a musical, which is adapted differently from a Graphic Novel. In each case the artists involved choose which elements to adjust, leave out, or add, for any number of reasons which I have already pointed out, and in some cases you have even agreed that certain changes made sense.

I think you and Odo do make a good case for Purism, but it's all relative as to how Pure your adaptation would be compared to another's.

GB

I think that is what "recast in a new form" is supposed to mean. No one expects a 100% literal repetition of the book.



True, but I think that any time the changes cause alterations to the fundamental characterizations and personalities of the characters or to the plot it has gone too far because it starts changing the story itself instead of making tweaks in order to retell the story.



I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you pleaes elaborate?

Thanks for the great discussion (yet again).

I was just meaning that if you actually adapted a film from the books yourself, that as Pure as you would try and make it, you would invariably find people even more Purist challenging your vision . It's all relative .

GB

Certainly there is no objective, universal standard that one can use for purism, but neither is there one for "heathenism" (as Odo calls it ), or revisionism if you prefer. Purists will of course disagree over what exactly constitutes a fundamental part of the story (I for one see no problem removing Bombadil, while others see it as major issue). Purists can at least agree however, for the most part, about method for adaptation (i.e., preserve the fundamental story - including characters and plot - even if you change the way in which it is told).

As I mentioned above though, the alternative is not any more objective. It is largely based on an idea of the "spirit" of the book. At least for purism there is an objective text that can be referred to rather than personal interpretations. Other variations of revisionism base changes on the need to make the story easier to follow or appeal to modern audiences, but again these are personal and far more relative than differing interpretations of which parts of the text are most important.

We can still debate the merits of each method of adaptation though, even with the knowledge that neither gives an exact guide of what to do for a scriptwriter.