The Hobbit Movie Forum » Hobbit Movie

1. jon
   Member

   "...But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story - the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing spledour from the vast backcloths ...I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama..."

   -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (1981), no. 131

   My question to the Forum is this: to what degree has Jackson fulfilled the promise of Tolkien's intent here: to draw from his vast mythology where room had been left for other "minds and hands" to fill in the rest later? To what degree has he failed? And how might the Hobbit movie deal w/Tolkien's intent fairly? Or where is it bound, or guaranteed, to fail?

   Posted 3 months ago #
2. stuart Carrier
   Member

   Ayup Jon...

   I think instead of 'Failure' we should speak first of 'Triumph'. PJ hasn't written any new chapters to the Legendarium, nor really fleshed any out any more than beyond Tolkiens prose, but has triumphed in a Modern way, to get PART of the Legendarium depicted in the Medium that our Generations uses more than any other: IE, Film to the Masses. Just to be able to watch a reasonable part of the story of EA, (As distinct in 'Just' the LOTR part is a Triumph.

   As I read your chosen Excerpt from his writing, nothing new has been added to the actual Legendarium as a whole, with 'Merely' a part being Interpreted in the Film Medium, and of course as fans and Fickle Human beings, we can't even agree about the basic vision of PJs being 'Correct'. I think that when ALL of the Legendarium has been put onto screen, and in a way satisfactory to everyone (which will NEVER happen) then I guess we can try and answer the Question you pose. And this reply doesn't even GO Close to answering your Question in a Literary context either. I think any writer nowadays trying to flesh out or add to Tolkiens work would be quickly attacked. Just Look at whats happened to Conan Doyles 'Sherlock Holmes' Canon to Illustrate. some is Liked, some reviled. I can only see that happening with Tolkien, and more 'Violently' as it were. We humans like our Sacred Cows LOL ! The Hobbit movie will be treated no differently than the LOTR Films now.

   I think though, that what he HAS done, although far from 'Perfect' whatever that may be, is pretty Neat.

   Posted 3 months ago #
3. Eldorion
   Member

   I think it's worth remembering that in the quoted passage Tolkien is referring to a way of looking at his work that he had long since abandoned, which is why he says "once upon a time" in the very first sentence. :)

   Posted 3 months ago #
4. jon
   Member

   Eldo - I'm not so certain that the primary objective - the creation of a humongous tapestry of legend, some (the most important for his own themes) depicted in detail some only sketched so that others might expand upon it, was ever really abandoned. Much of his writing up to the end seems to carry that theme implicitly. It certainly seems to be implicit in Smith of Wootton Major - a very late work (1967). It's kind of the whole point of that story - although I suppose we should be loath to say "allegorically speaking." But the symbolism there I think is plain enough to see.

   Or, perhaps from a more general or broader perspective, we might say that Tolkien spent his whole life just throwing things in the "pot" as it were - as in the essay "On Fairy Tales" style. More junk in the much vaster fairy-tale pot for all the rest of us to chew on for a while.

   Posted 3 months ago #
5. jon
   Member

   (BTW - great web-site!)

   Posted 3 months ago #
6. pettytyrant
   Member

   I don't think Jackson drew from it at all- he reduced it in almost every conceivable way. In scope, depth, themes- all reduced.
   The quote you give from Tolkien, particularly the last bit you gave, "paint and music and drama", when taken in context to what Tolkien says he once thought he would like to do, "to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story", always gave me the impression he was not wanting what he had written rewritten, but that he wanted musicians to be inspired to set poems to music, and artists to paint of great events or peoples from the history of ME and for playwrights to write plays about all the things Tolkien mentions but never got round to fleshing out- like the cats of Queen whats her name.

   In my opinion PJ is not doing what Tolkien was wishing here, I think Tolkien would be much happier and much prouder if he were here today by all those posting on youtube and similar with their version of his songs etc than by PJ for all the films expense and flash.

   Posted 3 months ago #
7. stuart Carrier
   Member

   Ayup Jase...

   Queen Beruthiel... And I for one have Seven Moggies excited and Enthused by the thought of the Silver Screen. Do we write the Screenplay or the Book first... ?

   Posted 3 months ago #
8. Orwell
   Member

   Depends, Stu -- what did you think of the way The Hobbit (book) ended?

   Posted 3 months ago #
9. stuart Carrier
   Member

   Ayup Orwell...

   I Actually meant that I think that the Hobbit film will be, like the other Three films, Loved and Hated in (more or less (?)) Equal Measure.

   The Actual Book endings a bit Dull isn't it though ?

   I do offer though that as the last frame of Bilbo in Bag End fades, we could get a final 'Preciousssss' or 'Bagginsssss' Voiceover off one A. Serkis...

   Posted 3 months ago #
10. jon
    Member

    Petty -

    '...and for playwrights to write plays about all the things Tolkien mentions but never got round to fleshing out- like the cats of Queen whats her name.'

    OK, so by your very same argument then it is perfectly agreeable to you that as long as Jackson does new material that's 'off page' then he can do as he likes (as long as he doesn't deviate from what's written), and that a scene from Dol Guldur in The Hobbit movie would be perfectly fine as long as it abides by this criteria?

    Posted 2 months ago #
11. pettytyrant
    Member

    Jon I was saying that was what I thought Tolkien meant in the quote given- not that I thought it was good idea- people would only arse it up as PJ has abley proven.
    But even if I were advocating it I woud say there is a difference in expanding something Tolkien mentioned but gave little details or info on and expanding and embellishing something which is a finished work such as TH. The two are not comparable.
    If the job is to adapt Th then you have to take the book as is as the full article and assume that what the author wanted in it is what is there. I dont believe it is the job of the adapter to be arrogant to presume they can 'improve' on the original best selling for decades book.

    Posted 2 months ago #
12. jon
    Member

    Indeed. Strongly agreed.

    Posted 2 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must register or log in to post.