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?
I enjoy Peter Jackson's vision and I'm willing to trust his judgement. He's taken liberties but, at the same time, he's propelled this series into something few others ever could have.
Michaela: And the thing is, there are plenty of women who are die-hard fans of the books, and would be more offended by a fairly big deviation from the plot than by there being no female characters! So his actions don't make sense. Peter Jackson is still losing a fair amount of moviegoers.
Elisa wrote: "Peter Jackson and the other writers will add a new character: Tauriel, a female Sylvan elf from Mirkwood, who is a great warrior and leads the army. Do you think it is treason to Tolkien? Or do you..."Nothing like taking a good story and hacking it to pieces for a pile of cash. Anyway, to those boneheads who say "Well, somebody has to be in charge of the armies, why not a woman?", it's because in the book it was already defined, and it was Thranduil.
And for those who were whining about there not being strong female characters in The Hobbit, and it's good PJ added one I say this: Please stick your nose back in your poli-sci textbook. TH is not a social experiment that needs fiddling with, it's a fictional story beloved by billions. It doesn't have to be politically correct and making it so is anathema.
Maria wrote: "Michaela: And the thing is, there are plenty of women who are die-hard fans of the books, and would be more offended by a fairly big deviation from the plot than by there being no female characters..."Erm... sorry, but a movie that grosses 300 million domestic, and 700 million foreign... is NOT losing moviegoers. (Part one of the Hobbit made nearly as much worldwide as Return of the King, and more worldwide than Fellowship or Two Towers). Now, we'll see how the numbers do on "Desolation of Smaug" - but I doubt that there will be any significant decrease.
Even Thranduil needs subcommanders. Just saying.
I have to say---what Peter Jackson has done is a beautiful interpretation of Tolkien. Im glad he left out Goldberry and her husband...would have been a great distraction in LOTR..I didn't mind that Arwen went to the Bruinen and called forth its power---but darn I would have loved to see Glorfindel! (Now theres someone who has been give short shrift in the films.But I'm an elven fan girl--so what I see on the screen is wonderful.
There have been so many films that interpreted books and were not exact reproductions of the authors vision.
I kind of wondered why Elrond or Thranduil doesn't head up the elven armies...but if its a woman--I say go for it...I do admit I hope she's not there for a love interest--that would be so un-needed because these are not romances. I do have to agree that Radaghast was not what I imagined and the rabbit sleigh was too much
Boy, but wait until the third film...
It is supposed to be made from a multitude of sources so what we'll get in that will be any one's guess!
Mimi wrote: "Michaela wrote: "Mimi wrote: "Zhanaestilinski wrote: "Well yeah it would be a wonderful addition considering the only strong and PROMINENT female role in the Hobbit was Galadriel and all she did w..."More likely that he couldn't envision a society that would fit in Middle Earth (i.e. based on human history/mythology) where more women characters made sense. I would point out that he pushed the limits of both the fantasy genre and his mythological sources with the characters that he DID include--especially Eowyn. To include more female characters in important roles would have been untrue to how he had set up Middle Earth and the story to be told.....
Also, everybody, please recall the man was steeped in European folklore and mythology. There`s a definite shortage of women in tales of war and power among the Norse legends.
um...the Valkyries, Freya? the Norns. The Norse had their heavy-duty women.
My problem with it is this - that they treat female moviegoers with such disdain that they think we can't enjoy a movie without any main female characters and/or a love story. Perhaps some women do feel that way.. those women can go watch Twilight again, imho. The Hobbit was just fine as is.
I agree Cristy. Seriously..I thought The Hobbit was charming...I can't believe PJ pulled off handling thirteen dwarfs!
Arabella wrote: "um...the Valkyries, Freya? the Norns. The Norse had their heavy-duty women."True. And such characters appear in The Silmarillion, as well as Tolkien's own translation of a couple of those original myths. I'm just saying that there wasn't a place in his story for more of that....
which of course was the authors prerogative since he didn't set out LOTR as a retelling of Scandinavian myths--no matter how influenced he was by them...
I'd say if anybody felt alienated by the first movie it would be the purists. I know we're a minotiry group, but we must not squeak our wheel as much as the others.If I read my Hobbit correctly, the dwarves spent several months in the dungeon after their adventures in Mirkwood, during which very little was mentioned of Bilbo's adventures sneaking around the elvenking's palace. If there is any place for inventing characters--and not necessarily warriors--that would be it. Saddly, I'm sure the creative license applied to this film will be to promote the video game, which means more hacking and slashing and less (if any) depth of character.
Jenelle wrote: "Maria wrote: "Michaela: And the thing is, there are plenty of women who are die-hard fans of the books, and would be more offended by a fairly big deviation from the plot than by there being no fem..."I'm just saying that a lot of people that did come to the first one might not go the second one, although the difference might not be too drastic.
LOTR was perfectly fine with female characters FROM THE BOOK. Other than that, I would be fine if there weren't females in the movies. You can still make a good movie without them, although I'm glad that females are prominent in movies now.
Mimi wrote: "To be honest I don't see what the big deal is about the addition of a female character :P"Let's say you went into a building with a big sign that you thought said, "Dunkin' Donuts" on it. In the building were a bunch of glass cases, a coffee maker, and a big, dark-haired guy who says, "Can I help you?"
The music playing in the room makes you think of lands far, far away....
"Yeah," you say, "I'd like two donuts and a cup of coffee. A chocolate one, and a glazed."
"OK," the guy behind the counter says. You notice a slight accent. Australian?
He takes out a box and starts loading it up with all kinds of donuts you didn't ask for.
"Hey! I didn't say a maple bar!" you complain. "Just a chocolate and a glazed."
"Oh, I'm turning this into a half dozen. See, I can make six donuts out of your order rather than just two. You'll like it much better."
"Hmmm."
Then he starts loading up things OTHER than donuts in there. One of those things you don't even recognize. It looks like it might be something they sell in a donut place... but it's clearly a new, experimental, never-before-seen pastry. It's triangular. He sticks that in last, on top of the other donuts, and powdered sugar rains down on the rest of them.
"That's something new," he says. "We're calling it The Tauriel."
"Hmm. OK, I guess there's nothing wrong with that."
"That'll be thirty-six bucks."
"What?! I didn't even order most of that!"
"Yeah, well, I put it in the box, so now you have to pay."
"Sheesh. Where's my coffee?"
"Here you go. Decaf."
"I want regular coffee."
"We don't serve that here at Dunkin' Doughnots."
"Doughnots? I thought this was Dunkin' Donuts."
"Oh, no. This is Dunkin' Doughnots. We get our donuts from older, more established shops, put powdered sugar on some, and then resell them in this store. It's OK, we have permission from the son of the guy who started Dunkin' Donuts. The Tauriel, though. That's new. We make that ourselves. We're not as good at making donuts as those other guys, but we slapped it together here in this shop. It has raisins!"
"Do donuts need raisins?"
"Well, our market research shows that certain segments of the population are turned off by the sale of donuts that don't have raisins."
Now, there's nothing WRONG with you paying that $36 for stuff you didn't order, but there's not a really good reason why you should.
Maybe the Tauriel is a delightful pastry.... Maybe you'll just LOVE it.
Personally, I don't like raisins.
Very cleverly done Gary! greatanalogyYou can make your opinion felt when the movie comes out and choose not to see it.
I'm not sure about Tauriel but As I've said earlier...I like what PJ has done so far with all his edits and additions.
For me it is a wait and see.
The difference being of course that we now know beforehand even entering the theater, not even to the point of buying the tix, that there is an extra donut, errrr.....female character added to the cast. BFD. Watch and enjoy or watch and weep.If you don`t like it, direct your own film.
Frank wrote: "Anyway, to those boneheads who say "Well, somebody has to be in charge of the armies, why not a woman?", it's because in the book it was already defined, and it was Thranduil..."I re-read this book earlier this year. I don't recall any of the commanders of the armies being named, but I looked it up and at least according to Wikipedia, you are right, Thranduil was in command of the Elvin Army. However I stand by my initial points:
1. Anyone adapting this book to the screen would have to add a few characters.
2. Women must exist somewhere in Middle Earth.
The Battle of Five Armies is the climax of the story. Moviegoers are expecting to see an epic fight. The battle needs to rival that of the Battles of Helms Deep and Minas Tirith in the LOTR movies.
In the book, the description of the Battle is fairly breif. (None of Tolkien's fight scenes in the book were very detailed.) It goes something like this: the five armies descend on the Lonely Mountain, the fighting begins, Bilbo gets konked on the head, he wakes up, the battle is over, and Gandalf tells him what happened. I'm simplifying it a little, but it's not very far off.
This works in the book. In fact, if the description of the fighting dragged on too long, readers would probably get bored. On the same token, if the author suddenly introduced us to several new characters, and then followed them all through the fight, the reader would probably get confused and lost.
However, this would be very anticlimactic in a movie.
To do the battle justice, Jackson needs to show the whole thing. The viewer a needs few people to follow through the fighting. I'd expect to see one or two characters added to all the armies. Armies are broken up into smaller units, each with a commander, these are the individuals who the viewer will probably meet.
Adding these characters can be done without altering the storyline of the book. They're necessary to properly bring the battle to life on the big screen. Books can almost never be translated directly to film without being changed in some way. (Screenwriters understand this, and believe it or not, authors do too!)
Now as far as one of these characters being a woman...
Personally, I take no issue with this. Do I think the book needs a strong female character? No. Am I fine with one being added? Yes. I do think it's unrealistic for there to be no women at all in the movie. The people of Middle Earth wouldn't last very long if there weren't women somewhere. (Again, this is something that the author of a book can get away with. Tolkien's focus is very narrow, strictly following Bilbo and the dwarves. But this focus has to expand in the movie. I'd expect to see women in Mirkwood and Lake Town.)
True, Tolkien doesn't have many female characters. But the ones he does have are strong, particullarly Eowyn, but Gladariel and Arwen as well. Tolkien also speaks very highly of Bilbo's mother in the first chapater of The Hobbit, calling her "remarkable" and even hinting that she may have had an adventure or two herself. We don't know why Tolkien didn't have many female characters, or how he would feel about one being added to the movie, but based on the few that are already in the book, I would say the precedent has been established.
I think race in Middle Earth has more to do with one's likelyhood to be a warrior than gender. You wouldn't see warrior hobbits, male or female. Conversely, I'd expect to see many women in the armies of the dwarves, goblin and orcs. It would probably be very rare to see women in the human armies. There wouldn't be many women in the elvin armies, but there would probably be a few.
Now, with all that being said, I think adding a character still has the potiental to go very, very wrong. I would be pretty angry if Jackson added a female character to be a love interest for Bilbo or Thorin. I don't mind him giving her a little backstory, but her role in the movie needs to stay limited. However, I would feel the same way if Jackson added another male character to the story in a place where he didn't belong. (I didn't much like the inclusion of the Pale Orc. Orcs and goblins are nasty creatures, and they'd attack dwarves whereever they found them. Creating a central villain wasn't necessary.)
I'll reserve my judgement for when I see the movie. If done correctly, this character could fit seemlessly into the movie without altering Tolkien's orginal story. If her role is too large, it could easily ruin things, and then I will be just as outraged as some of the people here. I don't think the movie needs a strong female character, but I don't have any problem with one. Adding a woman will neither add to nor take away from the story for me.
The bottom line is that this character is not being added to improve an already great story. This character is being added out of necessity, to fill a gap created by adapting the book to a movie. If done correctly, it won't detract from the story.
Ylenia wrote: "The Hobbit movie is already very far from the book, so I think I will consider it just like a complitely different story."You are right. The movie is so far from the book right now, I think is for the people who doesn´t read the book is going to be fantastic because is The Hobbit, but some people who just read the book SOME are going to think that is just awfull because don´t have any sense for the book, for my is not so bad but ¿what? ¿really? ¿legolas? ¿the girl elf? Damn! I preffer the book a 100%
That´s my opinion.
Karla wrote: "The bottom line is that this character is not being added to improve an already great story. This character is being added out of necessity, to fill a gap created by adapting the book to a movie. If done correctly, it won't detract from the story...."I think the "bottom line" has something more to do with merchandising. This new she-elf was first introduced in last year's LEGO playsets featuring LEGO versions of all the characters from the films. There's the dwarfs, Gandalf, Gollum, Legolas...and Taurial. They already have her bio out on LEGO.com if you're interested. The way I read it, she's a hack-and-slasher whose daggers have more opportunity for character development than she will.
That might not seem so bad to some, but I'm one of those people who boycot toy franchises that target small children with toys licensed from PG-13 and R-rated films. Ever since psychologists discovered that children play out the distubing scenes from movies as a way to cope with what they saw, and that this need to play out scenes translates into purchasing toys to do just that, toymakers have fought over each other to land the licensing contract with movies that children have no business watching (and that parents have no business taking them to).
Joshua wrote: "The first third of Jackson's HOBBIT was so idiotically different from the book--with rabbit-driven sleds, 2-ton goblin kings squashing dropped dwarves, and a computer-generated orc captain who look..."If you knew the history of Radagast you'd know that his sled of rabbits is not a Jackson creation, it is legit. Azog is also a prominent character in the history of Thorin and the Erebor dwarves. The history of him as portrayed in the movie is completely accurate. I have a feeling that his purpose in the movie is to give a more tangible purpose for the Necromancer, which in the original writing of The Hobbit (before it was expanded into Lord of the Rings and became an embodiment of Sauron trying to take hold of the North before his war against man) only had a purpose as a plot device to take Gandalf away from the dwarves during their travels through Mirkwood. If Azog is a minion of the Necromancer, aka brought back from the dead by Sauron as a captain of the war in the North, then his presence makes sense. As for the Goblin King falling on them, I can agree that wasn't really necessary, but you can't always love every moment. :)
Personally, I have no problem with Tauriel. It looks like she's going to be the only elf with any heart toward the dwarves and any sense to say, "You know, that dragon in the mountain could at any time wake up and come looking for more things to burn for kicks. What better place than a forest? We really should have done something about this a long while ago. These dwarves have no chance really, but at least they're going to try. We ought to back them up, for our own sakes if not for theirs."As for Legolas leading the Elven Army, I'm really glad Jackson isn't bringing Orlando back full-force. We know Legolas, we know he hated dwarves at the beginning of Lord of the Rings, so wouldn't fighting alongside them in the Battle of Five Armies have turned his heart a little more than that? Frankly, I'd rather them bring in a character never mentioned in the books. I also understand why he'd choose to create a female character, considering that the book had absolutely no women. God knows every feminist would come out of the woodwork otherwise. I trust Jackson not to make her too big of a character, and just allow her to play her role and be done with it.
As some have said, it could be done very well, but I am still opposed to adding a feminine character if it's just to appease women. Besides, given the way the first movie was handled, I will be surprised if it is well done.
Oh, so the rabbit sleigh is in Tolkien somewhere? I don't remember that..I do remember about Azog etc.
Dominique wrote: "It all depends on how well she does, though as a tolkienite I hate him already. He's destroyed several Lotr characters, cut out an entire scene, and added in a random plot twist. I'm waiting to se..."
That plot twist was from Tolkien's unpublished notes so Tolkien actually did write it.
Rana wrote: "If you knew the history of Radagast you'd know that his sled of rabbits is not a Jackson creation, it is legit. Azog is also a prominent character in the history of Thorin and the Erebor dwarves. The history of him as portrayed in the movie is completely accurate"Good to know. Thanks for the insight!
Does anybody have a reference for the bunny mobile?
Lord of the Rings was a pretty good adaptation of the books, Im not saying its perfect but I really enjoyed it all the same. But, I could not stand the hobbit. The new characters (who never existed!) are taking part of the main plot. The Pale Orc for instance, correct me if I am wrong but he did not have a role in the book yet he is a main driving factor in the movie? Logic people! I think that they have tried too hard to make the hobbit like LoTR when it was not written as a prequel, merely a separate book in a time before the battle for middle earth. Yes, the characters cross over and yes they live in the same world but they are not the same series. The Hobbit was intended as a lighter childrens story about an adventure while LotR was intended as heavier more engaging reading for older readers. Why then are they trying to make the Hobbit as exciting and tense as LoTR when it was supposed to be jovial. To change the tenor is one thing, to change the plot is an entirely different story.
Azog, AKA "The Pale Orc" did appear, serving much the role he did in the first part of the movie--an old enemy of Thorin, slain long ago. His son leads the Orcs at the Battle Of Five Armies, and I can certainly understand the filmmakers' desire to tighten things up and tie it all together a bit more. Also, Rana above made a very interesting leap of logic in assuming that he's a minion of the Necromancer....I'd never thought of that. Whether that proves to be the case or not, its an interesting thought. My problems with the first film had far more to do with the butchering of the Necromancer storyline than with Azog or hints of additional female elves. That, I'm fine with. I can understand the narrative reasons for adding a character in that role, and have no problem with it being a woman. Is it politically correct pandering? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. But if it's done well, I have no issue with it.
Yeah, it doesn't bother me that much that Tauriel will be added. It's more because it felt as if the Hobbit was just a little too intense..... intense later in the movie is fine, but it was a bit too much so at the beginning. It's not as bad as the Dawn Treader, though. And I didn't hate the movie, just wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be.
Gary wrote: "Does anybody have a reference for the bunny mobile?"Pretty sure the Rhosgobel Rabbits and sleigh were a Peter Jackson creation. I haven't read the unpublished works, of course... but I find the Encyclopedia of Arda to be a good place to find references to all things Tolkien-Cannon: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda and the rabbits are not mentioned there.
I had a problem with Azog in general, because in the history (though accurate in the flashback... for the most part) he really was supposed to be dead. His SON, Bolg, does, in fact, show up by name in The Hobbit book, and I felt that it would have been far closer to acceptable to have HIM be the one portrayed in the movie... they could have left all the extra bits in, but calling the Orc "Azog" when he was clearly killed by Dain... annoyed me.
Amy wrote: "Lord of the Rings was a pretty good adaptation of the books, Im not saying its perfect but I really enjoyed it all the same. But, I could not stand the hobbit. The new characters (who never existed..."Hee hee, I just have to tip my hat to your final line and its brilliant pun-i-ness. Love it! (Was it intentional?)
"Having said that, the fact that the leader will be female has the appearance of sucking up to the politically correct thought police. The novel was originally published in 1937, for crying out loud. Give Tolkien credit for having a woman take down the king of the Nazgul in the LOTR and accept the rest of his work for what it is. "Could not agree more to this comment right here
"The desolation of smaug" was not for lovers of the hobbit. Peter Jackson can't resist adding plot lines to include more female characters. Equality is a beautiful thing, but if that's your goal mr. Jackson, then stop standing on the shoulders of a great author, and make something completely original. Yet it's not about feminism; it's about marketing. Why else would legolas play such an integral part in the plot of a story that never mentions him? And there is much more (spoiler): why does bilbo take off the ring for most of the time he speaks to smaug? Why do the dwarves battle smaug for 30 minutes of the film using their old mining tools? Why do some dwarves get left behind in lake town? Dwarf/elf/elf love triangle? Goblin/elf/dwarf battle during the barrel escape...what!? Another dwarf/elf/goblin battle in lake town? Escaping Beorn during the day? Bard randomly getting arrested? None of these events happened in the original text or the appendices. There's plenty of original content in The Hobbit to appease an audience, but mr. Jackson, perhaps, "delved to greedily" this time.
I loved that he added her in. I love The Lord of the Rings but I didn't like The Hobbit. (Books) The first movie was bad. It was so boring. It didn't draw me in, but I went to see the second one anyway. When Evangeline Lilly came on screen as this She-Elf I've never heard of, I was surprised, but pleasantly. I thought she added more tension to the plot line and gave you something to root for. She will be the one who opens the doorway to the fact that the elves and the Dwarves are not that different.
"Tauriel, a female Sylvan elf from Mirkwood, who is a great warrior and leads the army...."When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and LOTR women weren't considered warriors - since then archaeologists have discovered otherwise, and women served in Iraq and still serve in Afghanistan (including a now-Congresswoman).
The Hobbit still features heroes and heroines who still fight for their homes and what they believe in. Given the sad cynicism of some here, that's a positive.
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..."This is exactly why it is wrong. It is like changing James Bond to be bisexual to appeal to some new audience. Or deciding the hobbits ought to look like the minions from Despicable Me to appeal to small children. Good God, what ever is wrong with following the original story??
The movie was entertaining, but not really the Hobbit.
Erik wrote: "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 p..."A bad comparrison chosing 007, how do you think a franchise of 50 years does survive it actually adapts to the times. And has done so with great succes. Tolkiens small novel gets a fairly faithfull adaptation but there is some adding elements that adds pleasure to the current viewers.
LOTR did do very well with some padding of its story and some stuff left out as well but created a whole new generation of LOTR & Hobbit readers as well as pure cinematic fans.
Peter Jackson does serve the writings of JRR Tolkien the best anybody has done before.
Erik, I think you make a valid argument, and there would be nothing wrong with following the original story; [Except for the fact that some (like myself) might find that boring] And the only problem I had with Tauriel is that, she being a kick ass female in this fantasy world dominated by men, kind of, ever so slightly, (not really) takes away from Eowyn. Because when Eowyn was introduced into the story, my mind was blown. She was the only female in The Lord of the Rings that I liked because she kicked ass. I held her in esteem for that. But now there is this She-Elf who is just as bad ass (possibly more so) and it (arguably) diminishes Eowyn's character.And yet, that notwithstanding, I liked Tauriel. She gave the movie a little something more.
Mark wrote: "Erik wrote: "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 n..."Actually my 007 reference is spot on...the series has survived by NOT changing the formula. Bond gets the girls. The only thing different has been the increased violence in the movies for today's times, and is hardly significant or series changing. So little has changed in the 007 movies that the actors playing the role of Bond are almost completely interchangeable. I'm afraid your argument is quite unsupported. The added elements must have been meant for people who don't read, so there may be a point there.
I do not understand why a "kick ass female" is required for this movie to be a success. Where was the kick ass male in "Aliens" (as an example)? Does a balance need to exist? Not at all, because it followed the storyline.
I like the character Tauriel...but she doesn't belong in the Hobbit movie.
Actually Erik your 007 reference is rather off the mark, take that from a fan who has read the books and seen the movies. The actors are by NO means interchangeable, if you can exchange Roger Moore with Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan with Timothy Dalton you show you know litte about the franchise. So in that aspect your argument is more than unsupported. When you compoare the books with the movies you should know that while the first six were probably true to the books by Fleming the 23 movies are in NO way supported by the 15 books written by Fleming. Six Bond actors that are easily different from each other made the franchise a long stay.The fact that you do not see that why movies can be updated to a new era, say 80 years later, shows you do know your book but understand little of the necessities of cinema. For me the book and movie are two different media and work perfectly well. I enjoy the book and the movie version both. Tauriel is an excellent adding to a movie series that has visualised the world of Tolkien very well. I would not have midned a 4th LOTR movie if that meant Tom bombadil and the battle of the Shire would be included, but as it is they were pretty good and did Tolkien credit.
The storyline by the Hobbit is followed only the story is given more space to breathe and give us more middle earth, and I love that. Tauriel is not for the balance she is there so you het to see that there is more than just male testeron in Middle-earth. Jackson could not have chosen a better actress for the part and he gives her like Geown a decent part and character.
The book might be good but even Tolkiens writing left things in the margin that Jackson has vastly improved upon by looking at the big picture instead of only the one book instead of Tolkiens whole creation.
As such Jacksons middle earth is a heck more faithfull as the folks from EON are to Flemings creation.
And if you watched Aliens you should know where the kickarse male is, as he survives with Riply and Newt.
Mark wrote: "Actually Erik your 007 reference is rather off the mark, take that from a fan who has read the books and seen the movies. The actors are by NO means interchangeable, if you can exchange Roger Moore..."Lol. Wow, now there's an argument.
Mark wrote: "Actually Erik your 007 reference is rather off the mark, take that from a fan who has read the books and seen the movies. The actors are by NO means interchangeable, if you can exchange Roger Moore..."I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not view the movies as being significantly changed by swapping any of the actors around, as Bond is still Bond and they all act essentially the same. Simply because the 70's sensibilities didn't let violence take center stage doesn't mean Craig is acting any different in today's version. We are simply getting to view more of the wetwork, which in turns darkens the Bond of today and gives Craig a much more sinister role. Brosnan, Dalton, or Moore could have done the same thing, had it been fashionable.
My point was that you shouldn't add a trait to a icon like Bond to appeal to a new audience. You shouldn't add new characters to a classic tale to appeal to a new audience. You probably support the Lucy Lu (spelling?) as Watson on the Sherlock TV show... and for me I find it appalling. At least the BBC version kept the proper synergy. Why mess with a classic?
I too disliked the omitting of Tom, but editing it out was more palatable then adding scenes not in the book. My opinion.
There were no kick-ass males in Aliens either. Sorry, the most testosterone being displayed clearly was by Ripley, and the men generally whined, were douches, or simply died. I have no issue with it, as it aligns with the story well.
The 007 comparison is an interesting one. It does illustrate a few points about the issue of book to film adaptation.First, it points out that making a faithful adaptation (or not) does not make a film a success or failure.
Second, it illustrates the problems with telling a story in another medium. Many aspects of those books don't translate well into film.
Third, it shows how that adaptation process can be done well, or done poorly. Several of the changes made from the original books were not great....
Also, it works as an example of WHY someone might need to adapt. Many aspects of the original James Bond books are very dated nowadays. I'd argue much more dated than JRRT, in fact.
Last, having been working my way through the Bond books over the past year, I have to point out that there's also an issue with the relative quality of those original works. Fleming was no Tolkien, and he was writing the equivalent of pulp books. Broader changes make more sense with that in mind.
throwing this tauriel in is like having arwen at the battle of helms deep, which PJ and his writer Fran almost did ! that move would have been worse then bad.
but the tauriel thing ..its done..
there are no lead roles for women in this movie so in a way I am all for it...
I mean after adding the rabbit sled and the White plastic Orc....wasnt much of a shock...
true to the book no....if the movie was true 100% or close, it would have been a short"ish" movie..
I just don't see the point. Tolkiens work is based on a time in history when female warriors weren't the norm and he was also focused on the common man fighting evil. People would've came to see the movie with or without her...it's not like the book is about a female dwarf loving warrior elf and her adventures chasing orcs...I don't know what a purist is and I understand changing things for movies, but it would help if your changes didn't seem like random crap.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
You´re attributing motivations to Jackson which I seriously doubt exist. I don´t think it´s his concern that you will be offended by the absence, but that he might pull in more market share if he adds female characters.