The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
What do you think about Peter Jackson adding a new character in The Desolation of Smaug movie?
message 51:
by
Narek
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Aug 13, 2013 08:54AM
I hated this cheap horrible movie. No LOTR mood, no Hobbit plot. Absolutely terrible.
reply
|
flag
NO WHAT THE HELL SHE CANT HAVE LEGOLAS NOOOOOOOOOOO
Like this thread, my comments are going to be a little all over the place:1) I don't know what a Tolkien "purist" is. I consider myself appreciative and respectful of his work, but I thoroughly enjoyed Jackson's LOTR movies. Sure, things changed, but that's the nature of adapting to a new medium.
2) Though bonus points go to any filmmaker who cleaves closely to the source material, that's not always possible or desirable. And sometimes a radical re-think creates a brilliant film. Exhibit A: Blade Runner. Utterly unlike the book in numerous ways, but incredible in its own right.
3) I agree Gimli was reduced to little more than comic relief in LOTR. Which is saddening and drops an important point about the beginning of reconciliation of Dwarves and Elves. Still, understandable, as this is not Gimli's story. The main character arc is Frodo & Sam's, with a B arc for Aragorn.
4) Still, finally saw Hobbit on DVD in the past few weeks and ...was underwhelmed. Not for any of the stated reasons of fidelity to the book. My big problem was it's inability to find a tone. One minute silly comedy, the next reaching for serious epic. I get that it was probably hard melding the children's tale tone of the Hobbit into the existing world created for the LOTR films, but this just seemed muddled. Especially the cameo from Frodo just seemed forced and a little too on the nose.
I did like that some things that were dropped from LOTR were fit back in here. I enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo.
I hope it comes together better as a whole when all three films are out. But what you have to understand, and accept if you are to enjoy these movies, is that they are being transformed into an epic tale to rival LOTR. That's a big stretch from a nice, little, children's adventure tale of "there and back again." Growing pains are inevitable.
And those who want it to be "just like the book" should probably not even bother.
The only major change that actually bugged me in LOTR was the ending of the battle at Pelenore fields and the fact that Theodon swiped Eomire's big moment. Movies are different and to pull off a 100% faithful adaptation of LOTR the movies would come in at over 30 hours which would be maddening. That said I will say the first Hobbit movie changes bugged me quite a bit and I tried just to enjoy the unchanged parts.
For Tauriel, I will wait to reserve judgment until I see the movie, but her inclusion by itself doesn't bother me too badly. It's been a while since I read the hobbit but I don't remember the leader of the Silvan Elf guards being named at all. I don't think Legolas should be in that role because he wouldn't have achieved sufficient rank by that point (I don't think he has such a rank in Fellowship either, but it's been a while since I read the book too). Still, I've been waiting since I was 5 to see Smaug in live action on the big screen and the closest I've had is the cartoon so I am looking forward to this movie.
Well, I always wanted to see more of Radagast, was excited it was Sylvester McCoy ...and we got a rabbit sled.One of my favorite parts of the Hobbit is the whole Beorn sequence, but I'm not holding my breath.
Hope they at least make the spiders appropriately creepy/scary.
Robert wrote: "One of my favorite parts of the Hobbit is the whole Beorn sequence, but I'm not holding my breath."It's in Jackson's hands, and there's three movies, so I guess we have to expect... wait for it... the Beorn Identity.
He probably thought the film needed a love story, although the first HOBBIT film-which didn;t have one- was a big hit, despite not beeing too good. This resembles the way he really built up the Aragorn-Arwen romance in the first LOTR film. In the book, it was slmost invisible.
Melissa wrote: "Peter Jackson already changed the first movie so much. It was almost unrecognizable to me. If he wants to add a new character to the next movie it will just further turn me off. In commentaries and..."First of all, no offense...but "The Hobbit" was published in 1937, so those "growing up" with it probably aren't all that interested in the movies. As far as Peter Jackson adding new characters and plots into "The Hobbit."
Most people don't know, but "the hobbit," was written as a children' bedtime story. That is why it has such a simple plot, and is only about 300 pages. The Necromancer, Azog the Defiler, Thorin's hatred of elves, are not in the Hobbit, but are in fact written out in the LOTR trilogy and in other Tolkien canon. Most people don't know that. I too was confused by all the extra stuff, until I started reading other lesser known Tolkien books.
Jessica wrote: "While I dislike changing the storyline (cause Tolkien is awesome) there are virtually no female characters in The Hobbit and I can understand why adding some might be necessary to pacify the femini..."I fail to see the justification. Should they add characters of different complexion to pacify other factions? Cosmopolitan social mores should be left out of fantasy. It was written as predominantly male, and it should stay that way. It is not a sexist novel, and it is not anti-feminist. It just happens to have very few strong female characters. This does not need to be corrected any more than Pride & Prejudice needs more gun totin' guys on horses. It just does not fit, and it just should be left out. There's nothing to fix.
I reserve judgement on Tauriel until I see the film. I don't think Legolas should play a major part in the film adaptation. Whilst I wouldn't object to a small appearance because it is entirely plausible that he would be present, he was never mentioned in the book and so should not have a big part in it. The biggest annoyance for me is the way Percy Jackson has made into three (very long) films. It is not for him to be able to recreate it to the best it can be, it is to get more money. What most annoys me most though, is that he had these three (very long) films to fit all of a 300 page book in, and he still missed important things and details out too busy with close up zoom ins of "hot" dwarves and someone riding a sleigh pulled by rabbits-just... why? However, that said some of the things done were really quite good. For example, I think some of the scenery for Middle earth is perfect, really amazing. The hobbit hole is just... perfect. Not a nasty smelly hole indeed. Some of the costumes are pretty good, especially for the elves.
The exclusion of Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs scene have been the most glaring offenses offered so far.
Tom Bombadil and the Barrow downs would have went like a lead balloon in the movie. It's a side track that while expanding Middle Earth it completely distracts from the narrative about the one Ring. I see the validation for it being left out of the movie and to be honest I found it to be the weakest point of LOTR books.
It may be a side story, but so is the Silmarillion, which is immensely popular. What Tom and the downs sequence do for the story is deeply enriching. They develop the narrative much more than 1.5Hrs of Helm's Deep did.
Much of the Silmarillion was not featured in LOTR, it would be distracting. I fail to see how the Tom and down sequences add anything to the One Ring aspects of the story. You're implying they do while agreeing it's a side story, that contradicts. At least Helm's deep held to that narrative with Saruman's forces attempting to decimate Rohan in order to keep them from the invasion by Mordor into the Pelenor Fields.
There simply is nothing sacrosanct about keeping the book intact. Each artist has the right to artistic license and if Jackson wishes to add a character, that is certainly his prerogative. Whether it is a good idea or not, only time will tell.I found the first movie a little disappointing and did not meet the expectations one would have from watching the LOTR, his masterpiece. Yes, it was silly at times, too much so, with the fat dictator in the mountain and Dumbamore...the latter verifying Saruman`s take on his personality.
The success of LOTR films have just gone to his head and now he has delusions of being Tolkeins successor giving him the right to ruin the great authors words. This, however, is nothing new in Hollywood, where titles, plots, characters, endings have all been changed to suit an audience, who quite obviously never studied history or read the actual books. Bottom line is just read the books and sod the film makers who arrogantly decide to alter the plot, how dare they!!! Poetic licence = bollocks. If they don't like the book they should write their own. It just infuriates me.
Robert wrote: "Much of the Silmarillion was not featured in LOTR, it would be distracting. I fail to see how the Tom and down sequences add anything to the One Ring aspects of the story. You're implying they do ..."I suppose if the need is to focus on a single thread of a complex story so that it will be digestible by mass audiences, then I would have to concede you're right.
JenSo now you are a psychotherapist? You know exactly what motivates Jackson? Unless you have seen a news clip in which he talks about the HOBBIT, I don`t see how you could conjecture his "delusions of being Tolkein`s successor".
Geoffrey wrote: "JenSo now you are a psychotherapist? You know exactly what motivates Jackson? Unless you have seen a news clip in which he talks about the HOBBIT, I don`t see how you could conjecture his "delusio..."
Maybe I should have used the word 'editor' instead of 'successor'. And instead of talking about his delusion, I should have said 'bare faced cheek'. But, Geoffrey, if you think it's OK for movie makers to re-write classics to suit their profession, then no more to be said. We must agree to disagree.
I think what's weird about this exchange is that Jen, you seem riled up about this, but you gave the book 2 stars?
Kenneth wrote: "I think what's weird about this exchange is that Jen, you seem riled up about this, but you gave the book 2 stars?"Not the point .. I just hate it when original works are tampered with or facts distorted to make a good film. I'm even unhappy with 'modernised' Shakespeare. I know, one of those, a traditionalist, but that's me.
At first I didn't mind. I thought a female character would be cool. I had dreamed about it while first reading the Hobbit, actually.
The Hobbit was a bit disappointing, but honestly even adding Legolas as part of the story line bothers me a little. Even though he's been one of my fav characters since LOTR was introduced to me.
But after Narnia, I hate change. Please Jackson. Tell me that the last few movies aren't going to be that different from the book......
The Hobbit was a bit disappointing, but honestly even adding Legolas as part of the story line bothers me a little. Even though he's been one of my fav characters since LOTR was introduced to me.
But after Narnia, I hate change. Please Jackson. Tell me that the last few movies aren't going to be that different from the book......
What was up with the Great Goblin's goiter? Ew. Every so often in the later Jackson films, you can see hints from his early zombie films, like the natives in King Kong.
No. No. No, no, no, no, no. And no. She is not allowed.
some things should never take place. that is one of them.
No Jen, I don`t think the point is that "it`s ok to rewrite classics to suit their profession" but their "medium". Each medium has its own artistic demands. What might be great in prose, not work on the big screen. Nor is there anything wrong with adding to a novel or deleting scenes, as long as it makes sense. And yes, everyone has a slightly different take on a liteary work`s significance, so yes, Jackson has every right to make changes. But they have to work for the retelling of the tale, and if they don`t, then we can fault him for changing the story.
Geoffrey wrote: "No Jen, I don`t think the point is that "it`s ok to rewrite classics to suit their profession" but their "medium". Each medium has its own artistic demands. What might be great in prose, not work o..."^This. Well said, Geoffrey.
Not sure if this has been addressed yet, but too many people on this thread seem overly concerned that Tauriel is a love interest for Legolas (personally, I don't care either way), but Jackson has already said (I believe MULTIPLE times) that there will be no relationship between the two, and he just added her in because the movies could use a strong female character.
The original has stood the test of time exactly as it is. It doesn't need anything added to increase its awesomeness.
Geoffrey wrote: "No Jen, I don`t think the point is that "it`s ok to rewrite classics to suit their profession" but their "medium". Each medium has its own artistic demands. What might be great in prose, not work o..."I completely agree. Most of the time, movies based on books just can't be everything the book was. But they can be entertaining and creative in their own right. There are some things that a movie just cannot do... it cannot pull its visuals straight out of every audience member's imagination. It cannot keep every single line of dialogue or depict every single scene... the movie would be 18 hours long... and only the most avid Tolkien fans would be interested in watching it (I would be one of them).
Douglas Adams (author of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) understood this. His story began as a radio series, then a "trilogy" of five books, a tv series, and eventually the movie. Lovers of the book didn't love the movie so much, even though Adams himself wrote the screenplay - none of the iterations of the story are identical. Adams understood that different mediums excel in different places.
As for this female elf character... I have no problem with her. We live in an era where movies will be shunned if there is no strong female character. Jackson gets that, and is coping with that cultural trend while trying to stay pretty true to the feel of the stories. Does he get everything "right"? no. He left out a lot of my favorite scenes/lines/and even a character or two in the LOTR trilogy. But his movies don't (and can never) detract from the masterpiece that Tolkien wrote. I see them as separate entities. I love the movies for what they are, for the brilliant technical achievement, and for the fact that I can now share this story I have loved my entire life with friends who will never (or would never have) read the books - but now, because of the movies, have fallen in love with the story (and some have even read the books!). For that alone, Peter Jackson has my gratitude.
I suppose the more cogent defense of sticking to the book is the argument that many movie-goers will never read this or any other book, and as they are a growing majority of the public, this will serve to sway public opinion of the book negatively as a result, by association with the film. I doubt readers are as concerned with how the films will affect their own opinion of the book/story experience as much as they are with the general public's opinion of their prized possession.
I am a bit curious as to whether those who declaim the poetic license of one medium`s straying from the original feel the same way about other media and times. Classical painters by the hundreds depicted Hercules Labors, Persephone`s Rapes, and the Adam and Eve story. Each had a different take on the original. Few were exactly accurate to the Greek mythology or Biblical source as there were so many variations. Are we to criticize Boticelli, Giotti etc. for the liberties they took with their classical sources?
Geoffrey wrote: "Geoffrey Ellis I am a bit curious as to whether those who declaim the poetic license of one medium`s straying from the original feel the same way about other media and times."I would say there's the same peril, in the case of myths it's very likely even more perilous. That is, taking something that is a success, and (for whatever reason) going another direction is to take a winner and roll the dice on it. There are any number of reasons for a later artist to do that (the limits of technology, budgets, outright hubris, etc.) but there's almost always a good counter argument to all those rationalizations.
When it comes to classic myths, that's particularly problematic as those stories have not only succeeded, but withstood the test of time. So, a change to a classical myth from, let's say a Renaissance artist, is a pretty dubious thing to do as it is to take something that is as near to a guaranteed success and revise it.
In the case of myths, however, there is at least one really good rationalization for changing it. We don't usually have an actual author--or that author is unknown, so changes aren't quite like contradicting that author. Sometimes there is an oral tradition that predates any written account, so that makes for an abstracted story in the first place. In that sense, because myths become cultural icons, there's a value to such revisionism in an artistic sense. That is, taking the Arthurian myth and changing it is less of a problem than making changes in an adaptation of, say, Catch-22.
S wrote: "What was up with the Great Goblin's goiter? Ew. Every so often in the later Jackson films, you can see hints from his early zombie films, like the natives in King Kong."I thought making him a comic figure was overblown. His last bit of dialogue made me both facepalm and wish I had a Peter Jackson voodoo doll and a great big hatpin.
I don't think it's so much like re-writing a myth or adapting for a new medium (film) as it is a reflection on where society has gone. This is a book that was written in the days when Hollywood was beginning to adapt books and theatre for film. Tolkein even opined that his book could never be made into a movie (based on the technology at the time). Of course, at the time of his writing, popular opinion found women in pants to be repulsive (H.L. Mencken, for one). Tolkein borrowed heavily from Norse Saga, where men went on adventures (viking) without women. Back then it was easy for readers of both genders to identify with those wandering dwarves without female companionship.In contrast to the viking sagas that inspired him, Tolkein was not writing for a generation who needed bloodshed and violence to keep the story interesting. In fact, in the half of the book that made up the first movie, there was exactly one paragraph of violence (unless you want to count the "flashbacks" of Bullroarer Took and the descent of Smaug onto the Lonely Mountain). I am somewhat disturbed that Jackson thinks his audience needed all that hack-and-slash. Who does he think we are, a bunch of blodthirsty Scythians?
I guess I'm just old fashioned in that I don't need my movie to feel like a video game. I have already declined the invitations by my Tolkein-fan friends to attend the next movie. Maybe on video, but I don't want to waste money on the big-screen-experience if I already know I will be disappointed.
Well I will reserve judgement until I actually see the movie. Still having a recognizable face on the elven side is not a bad thing.
My view: The first movie made me miserable. My complaints:
>How many more times could they fall off of ledges that should have killed them with only minor injuries?
>The Pale Orc (or, as I like to say, The Pale Dork)
>Much,much, too long. Serious over-embellishment. I could care less about Rhadagast's rabbit-drawn sleigh. I can understand mentioning him, yes. But morphing him into a VIC (Very Important Character)? Totally pointless.
So, I am not going to waste money on the other two movies, and to me this new fact proves my point...I wish Tolkien had more female characters too, but making one up to fill this need is morphing the story line to the point of nonrecognition.
Ashleigh wrote: "Just how far do you think it can be taken before all meaning of the original is lost? I mean at its essence, you have to retain as much as you can, but does anyone think it could be taken too far in general to the point where those who know the original cant discern it?"It's a good question. It can definitely get to the point that something is unrecognizable. Generally, I think that's because the film isn't meant to be related to the original and the title is just taken for marketing purposes. The film I, Robot is only connected to Asimov through a few tangents, for example.
Jackson's work isn't as far off as that. If I, Robot is a 1 and, let's say Sin City is a 10, then Jackson's version of The Hobbit is about a 5 or 6.
The rabbit sled was extremely silly but even more so was the insect that he regurgitated. That was simply awful.
Steve wrote: "I loved the LOTR movies, but what Jackson is doing to the Hobbit is blasphemy."Agreed. Adding characters to The Hobbit just feels like a way for Jackson to stretch a small book out into three movies.
After thinking some more about it:At least he's adding a woman!
Let's be honest, in the book this was an all-male adventure. While I'm not much for movie adaptions that change so much I have to hand it to Jackson: at least he's adding a female character. Something Tolkien himself didn't do.
Anyway, I'm trying to look at the movies a bit differently now because let's be honest: movies tell stories in a different way than books.
Sparrowlicious wrote: "After thinking some more about it:At least he's adding a woman!
Let's be honest, in the book this was an all-male adventure. While I'm not much for movie adaptions that change so much I have to ha..."
Point taken; I'm still irritated though.
Gary wrote: "Yay! Can this elf "snowboard" on a shield down a flight of stairs while shooting arrows too? Everything Jackson does to change a classic literary masterpiece is wonderful! I hope he does another..."Mean-spirited? Perhaps, but still very funny.
Steve wrote: "I loved the LOTR movies, but what Jackson is doing to the Hobbit is blasphemy."I so agree.
Maria wrote: "Mean-spirited? Perhaps, but still very funny."Thanks for saying so.
It's too bad, really. What a great opportunity to do something astounding. He literary has hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal... and he's making schlock. Sad. I mean, on the grand scale of things, it's not the massive banking boondoggle of the so-called "banking crisis" but it's such a wasted artistic effort.
Not if we enjoy it Gary. If people are going to see it, it must have some value.
Oh, it has some value. Just not what it should be. I like the occasional donut, but I don't confuse it with croquembouche.Jackson is selling $10 donuts and calling them croissants.
I agree Gary. The first movie of the HOBBIT is definitely a do not. But then again, the novel is second to LOTR, the movie is the same. But at least Jackson could have spun his magic better with Bilbo`s story. Tolkein wrote LOTR better than the HOBBIT, but Jackson`s artistry in the masterpiece pales his efforts in the latter.
I didn't mind the first LotR film. It's not a great adaptation, but it's above the quality of what one might see on prime time TV. After that things start to drop off rapidly. The Hobbit adaptions seem to be just another step in that steady drop. Every film gets a bit further from the original materials in terms of plot, character and quality.
Plus, it kind of assumes that the ability to relate to characters boils down to gender. The audience is already relating to hobbits and dwarves.... Women can't relate to the movies because they don't have female characters? I don't think that makes sense. If that's the case then they better throw in some Asians, a few Eskimos and some vegetarians, or those groups will be alienated too.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
