The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Eldorion]

But, I would like to point out that Tolkien's books are more popular than ever because of Jackson's films.

I'm sure some people have read the book because of the films, but a lot of people also have been put off because of the films, in part because they had such an emphasis on violence. These people assume the book does to and thus don't read it. There's also plenty of people who have been disappointed by the book since it doesn't have as much 'action' as the films.

PJ certainly did a lot for himself, but whatever he did for Tolkien was (a) a side-effect, sort of like Gollum accidentally causing the Ring to be destroyed and (b) mixed in with a whole lot of bad.

And there are a few old codgers like me who have read the books many times over the decades, and still think Jackson's films captured the books brilliantly.

To be honest I'm not sure why you think that since PJ changed so much.

Jackson's films (particularly the Extended Editions) on the other hand, keep 70-80% of the original material relatively intact, though some of the various actions are shifted around. As far as I'm concerned that's pretty faithful and sets a new standard for adapting fantasy books.

Where does that figure come from? Regardless though, pure numbers don't really tell much. Aragorn, Frodo, Denethor, Faramir, and Gimli (among others) were all changed. This is a conclusion drawn from observation, though of course whether or not you like the characters as film characters is a subjective issue. Not to mention that entire plot lines were introduced (Aragorn falling off a cliff, Faramir taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath, etc.), cut (the Scouring of the Shire), or altered (the Battle of the Hornburg becoming the climax of TTT). How is that faithful?

And the fact is Tolkien took a lot of heat from book critics in his own day. And it;s not that the writers in their commentaries on the EEs think that Tolkien's work had shortcomings, it's that they knew some things that worked in print for Avid Readers, wouldn't necessarily work so well in a film that would also be seen by a GENERAL audience, half of which haven't read the books, and half of that group would NEVER read the books because they just don't read period.

They pretty clearly thought that some parts of the story were simply not dramatic enough and that they could do better (such as Frodo sending Sam away). Listen to their actual words on the matter; it's not about adapting, it's about them thinking they could improve the story itself.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Well Tolkien definitely set the standard high for all Fantasy that would follow. I think Rowling and a few others come close though.

Likewise, I think Jackson's take on LotR set the bar for Film Fantasy, but so far only LWW really comes close.

GB

[Odo Banks]

When anyone suggests that a chapter in a book would have been severely edited, it suggests to me the text is perceived to have "shortcomings". One of the DVD commentators did say point blank that modern editors would not have accepted things like "The Council of Elrond" as written. I could find a heap of other 'suggestions' of 'shortcomings'. They never use the word "shortcomings" but really that's what's being said. I hope you're paying attention, my dear GB!

Bravo Eldorion old son! If PJ thought he could improve the book with his alterations, it implies he saw 'shortcomings' in the text. There may have been an instance or two where an alteration might have actually been called for, because the book 'couldn't' be turned into film, though I'm not convinced; for most of the changes were done purely because PJ is a creative guy who thought he could improve on the book. Even PJ freely admits that sometimes he had to change things back closer to Tolkien's version, this because the Great Man knew what he was doing. Obviously, he didn't return to Tolkien enough!

It's said Tolkien never thought LOTR could be filmed. This is interesting, I think, because reading LOTR I always have a clear picture of what he's describing. Even PJ (when he's paying close attention to the text, GB!) realizes his characters and scenes very well. I had no real problem with the overall 'look' or 'feel' of the movie.

And what of all PJ's actual sub-creation work? It does suggest he thought he could make LOTR better, which was a bit audacious. Though, funnily enough - except for the very earliest Arwen scenes which were poorly handled - he probably did improve on the Great Man's work with his take on Aragrorn and Arwen. Shield-maiden Arwen, nah! Beautiful, elegant and wise Arwen, bloody bewdy mate! (My gosh! Please don't tell my fellow Fundamentalists I said that!)

Odo

[Gandalfs Beard]

Actually, Tolkien is very clear in his essay "On Fairy Stories", that he didn't think much of Fantasy Films generally due to the lack of technology to present it realistically. He felt that more often than not they came off as cheap Pantomime.

So I don't think that Tolkien thought his books were unfilmable due to his content, but because of the technology available at the time. I think he would have been very happy at the overall Look of Jackson's films, even if he did have problems with how some aspects of the story were handled.

As to the "sub-creation", I don't think this means that Jackson and his writers thought they could out-Tolkien Tolkien. I think they were doing what all artists do, which is interpret the source material with their own take on it. Though as film-makers for Profit Making Entity with a General Audience in mind, they also had many other considerations.

GB

[Odo Banks]

I sometimes feel PJ 'considered' too much and 'trusted' Tolkien too little. If he changed things just to be creative - well, I'm sad about that. Couldn't he have just made up his own non-LOTR story then?

At least we agree that PJ captured the overall look of the book. Though, I don't know if we should make a habit of agreeing, Dear Beard, what ever will my Fundamentalist friends think? I mean, you are a Lib after all... ('Heathen' seems such a derogatory term and I'm still fond of you in spite of your waywardness!)

Odo

[Emiss]

Welcome to the forum Emiss . I hope you read the last 11 pages now that you've made your point.

Your thoughts on Merry are the first to appear on this thread. But you will find some that agree and some that disagree on your Bombadil point .

GB

allrighty, I'll read when I find the time!

[Bullroarer]

Although I really loved the films there is undoubtedly a little bit I would change about them.

I really loved the scenes in Hobbiton and I think that that might have been, as well as in the books, the part that I loved best. I didn't however like the fact that some of the character's characteristics (mouthful I know) weren't as they were in the book for example Gimli was played as too much of a fool and less of the dwarf he should have been played as, I believe someone had mentioned this before on the forum.

In some ways I am glad that Jackson chose to leave out Tom Bombadil, Goldberry and the Barrow-wights because I think that adding that many characters to the storyline and then having to bring them to life on screen might have been a bit confusing for everyone who hadn't familiarised themselves with the original text, prior to watching the films. Although I do also have some dissatisfaction about not being able to see the character in a new dimension. Of course it would have made the running time way too long if he had been included.

I really loved the orcs, they really were brought to life brilliantly and with such an exciting range of variety as well. The Uruk-Hai, the scary powerful silverback gorilla equivalent, were brilliant, they struck terror into the hearts of the audience let alone the people they were fighting. I also loved the coarse and simple attitudes that the orcs seemed to have about the world, they really corresponded with the brutes that Tolkien portrays in the books.

I didn't however like the wargs very much, someone said earlier that they looked more like monsters than they did wolves, I entirely agree I think that they looked a bit like a cross between a bear and a pitbull terrior. They were surposed to be furtive, sneaky and intelligent as well as being malicious and vicious, not just wild blood-thirsty dog-bears.

My favourite actor has (EDIT) to be Sir Ian Holm, aswell as most of actors who also played Hobbits, they were superbly acted and they really compared well with Tolkien’s creation. I also loved the two wizards (heres hoping there'll be more than just two in the Hobbit white council etc.) Ian McKellen was excellent and Christopher Lee played Saruman exactly how he should be, evil and corrupt and with a touch of supremacy (i.e. the Uruk-Hai he sporns).

In conclusion I really loved the films and now I think about it I think the films are great the way they are.

Regards

Mr. Bandobras Took

[Fimbrethil]

Hi all I'm new to this forum

I read most of the replies on this thread and found the discussions to be very insightful. I read the books only after seeing the first movie. I absolutely loved the movies!

Here my input (I'm not as knowledgeable as most of you guys so don't kill me haha, I also have not seem the extended versions)

Things that I would have liked to have seen in the movies:

-Tom Bombadil and the passing of the barrowdowns but I can see why too many characters would be confusing for the viewer
-More on the time Merry and Pippin spent with Treebeard and the Ents. From what I remember wasn't Treebeard rather hostile towards the hobbits at first in the movie? I got the impression he was very gentle in the book and was always singing. Anyway the two towers movie seemed to focus more on the battle at Helms Deep.
-Pippin meeting with Beregond and his son
-The scouring of the shire! I think this is my absolute favorite part in the whole LOTR series. I love how the hobbits don't really take the new rules and ruffians seriously and how they put into practice the experience in warfare they gained from thier epic journey. I don't think its anticlimatic and I'm glad Gandalf left them to deal with it. It's interesting the parallels between modern industrialization and what Saruman tried to do the Shire
-The love scene between Eowyn and Faramir, so sweet!

Anyway I understand that the movies can't include everything and I wouldn't consider myself a "purist". I was still very disappointed that we didn't get to see the hobbits take back the shire. I think Gandalfs Beard made a good point about how the harry potter movies cut even more out. One scene from the movies that I really did enjoy was the fight scene between Saruman and Gandalf in the Fellowship at Orthanc.

^-^

[Gandalfs Beard]

Welcome to the forum Fimbrethil . Some great thoughts, well balanced. I agree with some . Though as you've read through the posts, you can see I may differ on some also. Good to have you aboard.

GB

[Eldorion]

Hi all I'm new to this forum

Hi, welcome!

the two towers movie seemed to focus more on the battle at Helms Deep.

It did indeed, to the point where PJ considered Helm's Deep the climax of the movie. Tolkien took a rather different view of things though, seeing the Ents as more important.

Anyway I understand that the movies can't include everything ... I think Gandalfs Beard made a good point about how the harry potter movies cut even more out.

Personally I'm more comfortable with the cuts (with a few exceptions, such as the Scouring of the Shire) than the outright changes and additions. Everyone knows the movies had to cut things but it's by no means a given that they must change the story they're adapting.