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?
Jeanette wrote: "I was wondering why Legolas has blue eyes in the 2nd Hobbit ? Or have I missed something pivotal to the story ..."Legolas has blue eyes and silver-blond hair in the Lord of the Ring too.
A point that I think everyone would do well to remember is that any movie adaptation to a book is essentially really expensive hyped-up fan art; it's not going to be the same wonderful experience as reading a book and having your imagination make your own vision from the page. Nothing is ever going to be the same as the book. To be honest, we all know that there are very few female characters in the book to begin with, and in my opinion Tauriel didn't feel too forced into the plot at all.
It seems that it was a continuity problem as Orlando had to wear blue contacts over his brown eyes and sometimes forgot or didnt wear them if they irritated his eyes.
"Iris wrote: "I liked Eowyn, but I did think the adaptation made her a bit more mousy than she needed..."The casting of Miranda Otto was fine for the love/hero struck Eowyn, but by Miranda's own admission, she's a girly-girl with little inclination to swords and great physical activity. That translates as a mousy warrior-Queen for LOTR.
Nurlely wrote: "Jeanette wrote: "I was wondering why Legolas has blue eyes in the 2nd Hobbit ? Or have I missed something pivotal to the story ..."Legolas has blue eyes and silver-blond hair in the Lord of the R..."
I don't remember reading about what color eyes or hair he had, but you could be right.
Jackmccullough wrote: "I don't remember reading about what color eyes or hair he had, but you could be right. "
I meant to say in the TLOTR movie... :)
I forgot if the books mention anything about that.
According the Tolkien Gate, Thranduil has golden hair. The pics there show his blue eyes.
As his son, Legolas shares the physical appearance.
Kerry wrote: ""Iris wrote: "I liked Eowyn, but I did think the adaptation made her a bit more mousy than she needed..."The casting of Miranda Otto was fine for the love/hero struck Eowyn, but by Miranda's own ..."
I'm not sure there are many "appropriate" woman in acting to cast for the role as you describe correctly. Lucy Lawless and Bridgette Nielson (sp?) have been two of the very few genuine warrior looking women who also look terrific and can act (well sort of for Bridgette). I cannot think of any present day actresses that fit the bill, though I suppose with some training and muscle gain a fair number of today's stars could pull it off (Scarlett J or Charlize T come to mind).
One word: Unnecessary.
Erik wrote: " Lucy Lawless and Bridgette Nielson (sp?) have been two of the very few genuine warrior looking women"Blonde Xena as Eowyn........ hmmmmmm........ :D I can go for that. It would have been interesting at the least.
Naiya wrote: " Whoa. We need to take a step back and get some perspective here. As much as fantasy readers and fans love Tolkien, it's a little much to compare the Jackson's adaptation (or any adaptation) of a well-loved novel to Buddhist philosophy, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism, or the discovery, use, and abuse of nuclear energy..."My perspective is one in regards to pre-conceived notions and definitions. What one thinks of dwarves and adventures before one reads the book does affect how one understands the book. Unfortunately, in years since Tolkien first put Middle Earth to pen, the definition of “dwarves,” elves”, and “adventures” has changed. When I first read the Hobbit as a child, I was completely unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons. Elves were those little guys from the North Pole, and Dwarves had names like Bashful and Sleepy. Tolkien did not describe the physical stature of his elves in The Hobbit (at least, not my copy), so I went through the whole book thinking they were knee-high to Gandalf. I also went through the whole story imagining the dwarves to be as warlike as Bashful and Sleepy, which was easy to do because most of them never drew their weapons until the battle of five armies (only Thorin and Gandalf had swords when they fled from the goblins in the misty mountains). The fact that they picked up their arms at all was a testament to their character (as I have attempted to explain in another post on another thread).
The dwarves in this movie are not Tolkien’s dwarves. They are the fighters, rangers, thieves, and paladins from fantasy role playing games that did not exist when Tolkien wrote the books. I could not stand how Jackson steam-punked some of them with tattoos and piercings, nor could I stand how he equipped them all with weapons and combat skills from the start, as though they had delved into dungeons all their lives because that is what everybody does in Middle Earth. Tolkien’s dwarves were not “adventurers”. I know that Tolkien used that word, but again, the definition is not what it was when he wrote it. I just read a book written a hundred years ago in which the words “mistress” and “queer” are used quite often (The Secret Garden). It would be a completely different story if a modern director interpreted those words by a modern definition. The same could be said of Bilbo and Belladonna Took’s “adventures”. Where I live, I go on adventures every weekend, but it doesn’t require killing goblins, picking locks, disarming traps, or exploring deep subterranean passages (well, at least, not until my wife gets over her fear of lava caves). When I read this story as a kid, I never assumed Belladonna Took was a dungeon explorer or an orc-slayer. If her adventures had been violent, why was she not mentioned alongside Bullroarer, whose “adventure” was a military expedition? I’m sure that there might have been female elves in Mirkwood who fought at the battle of five armies, but Tauriel’s character belongs more in Neverwinter than Middle Earth.
What I’m trying to point out is that people often think they understand something when in fact they don’t. And it can be world-changing for the worse. Do you know why Blockbuster Video went out of business? Because too many unattended children thought they knew how to use a DVD when they didn’t. And too many parents thought they knew what a DVD player was for (a babysitter) and they didn’t. I and millions of consumers the world over got sick and tired of renting scratched, smeared, and sticky discs that would get us halfway through the movie and then leave us hanging. The same thing applies with turning a book into a movie. There is meaning in Tolkien’s work that Jackson has completely overlooked. I would have thought he knew what he was doing since he came so close in LOTR. But he didn’t. To me it looks just like a superstitious Buddhist or a war-hungry scientist or a three-year-old smearing sticky fingerprints and popcorn all over the DVD because they only understand it on a superficial level.
Kerry wrote: "The casting of Miranda Otto was fine for the love/hero struck Eowyn, but by Miranda's own admission, she's a girly-girl with little inclination to swords and great physical activity. That translates as a mousy warrior-Queen for LOTR."Mmm. That would explain it. Not the best casting then.... Too bad nobody thought of Evangeline Lilly back then.
During the battle of the Pelennor Fields, Eowyn confronted the Witch-king of Angmar, Lord of the Nazgûl, after Théoden was injured. The Witch-king boasted that "no living man may hinder me," referring to the 1,000-year-old prophecy by the Elf-lord Glorfindel, foretelling that the Witch-king would not fall "by the hand of man." By choosing Miranda Otto, PJ heightened the surprise and increased the drama of her improbable heroic actions. I think PJ purposefully chose someone who was "a girly-girl with little inclination to swords and great physical activity." It startled the Lord of the Nazgul and led to his demise at the hands of a Hobbit and a girl. Wasn't this Tolkien's intent?
Robert wrote: "There is meaning in Tolkien’s work that Jackson has completely overlooked. I would have thought he knew what he was doing since he came so close in LOTR. But he didn’t. To me it looks just like a superstitious Buddhist or a war-hungry scientist or a three-year-old smearing sticky fingerprints and popcorn all over the DVD because they only understand it on a superficial level. "Amen.
You said it way better than me. And what is really sad is that people are starting to accept this as normal. Adaptation = we can ignore the book's message.
S.W. wrote: "By choosing Miranda Otto, PJ heightened the surprise and increased the drama of her improbable heroic actions. I think PJ purposefully chose someone who was "a girly-girl with little inclination to swords and great physical activity." It startled the Lord of the Nazgul and led to his demise at the hands of a Hobbit and a girl. Wasn't this Tolkien's intent?"I don't think it was Tolkien's intent that the character's strength and warrior spirit should have been turned into a kind of mousy attitude so that the readers could be surprised by her sudden appearance later. Rather, that character is supposed to be a reference to the real world shield maidens (or, at least, the real world legend of the shield maidens.) Casting someone who doesn't have much interest in that kind of thing--and then backing that up with one's own characterization--turns the character into something of a muddle rather than a carefully thought out reference to a mythical archetype.
Oh Eowyn. Going to battle without your chakram.Even though, in the Witch King scene, PJ's Eowyn wasn't as powerful as in the book, I think Miranda was a good choice. I can't imagine Eowyn as any of these modern "warrior queens" that are everywhere in movies and video-games (sorry, but Tauriel fits here, also Xena). Eowyn (like many of Tolkien's characters) somehow feels more natural and real. Her strength is more of the spirit, than of the body.
Remember this "...it seemed to me that I saw a white flower standing straight and proud, shapely as a lily, and yet knew that it was hard, as if wrought by elf-wrights out of steel." Aaand also "...fair and cold, like a morning of pale spring that is not yet come to womanhood". I don't see Scarlet J., Charlize T. or others in this. And no, fair doesn't mean sexy :)
If they would have done this mistake with Eowyn, then Tolkien was out and fan-fiction in.
But fair "could" mean sexy. I don't think sexy is what Tolkien had in mind though, just mentally tough and girl next door beautiful.
Well, I think movie Eowyn is very close to Tolkien's vision and does possess the kind of beauty that is harder to perceive by people used to Hollywood standards. But thank God we have Tauriel.
Alexandrina wrote: "Well, I think movie Eowyn is very close to Tolkien's vision and does possess the kind of beauty that is harder to perceive by people used to Hollywood standards. But thank God we have Tauriel."I personally found her to be quite lovely. I think Tolkien would have been pleased.
I thought I was the only person who noted that. Hise eyes looked lighter than in LOTR, which I had just re-watched around Thanksgiving.
Otto is fine actress, a lovely Australian gal. 
Alexandrina wrote: "You said it way better than me. And what is really sad is that people are starting to accept this as normal. Adaptation = we can ignore the book's message."There was a good decade in there when people were making adaptations that were very accurate to the originals, or seemed to be going for accuracy, at least. Early Stephen King, for example, got hammered pretty badly, but then Stand By Me was close to the book and The Shawshank Redemption was as well--with a few notable exceptions. Some film makers seem to be very keen to stay true to the original materials. 300 and Sin City have a lot of shots that clearly used the original comics as storyboards. The adaptation of Lolita with Jeremy Irons was quite accurate, and I'd argue that's one of the hardest books that one could adapt.
Lately, though, it does seem like an awful lot of film makers have backslid, and the original materials are being used more as "inspiration" than "adaption." I'd argue that the PJ films are a sort of Disney-fication of Tolkien's work. That's not necessarily a bad thing... but it does create a pretty recognizable product.
Wish I'd known before I saw the movie."Disneyfication" is putting it mildly. I'd prefer some of Disney’s 2D characters rather than PJ’s 3D dwarves/dragons etc. Some of them actually have more depth.
Kerry wrote: "Otto is fine actress, a lovely Australian gal. "
I loved the way she acted, for you could really "feel" her emotions during many of the dramatic scenes. I did not know she was Australian...yet another reason to like her : ) I'm a sucker for that accent.
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..."Exactly how I would have described it. I personally knew the lord of the rings existed, but the hobbit was the book I read first. It is better to have the hobbit BEFORE lotr. It completely messes the storyline up.
There was too much Legolas in this movie, and his eyes looked really weird. It distracted me any time he was on screen.As for Tauriel, she was alright. Didn't like the whole healing/ love triangle thing though.
Joseph wrote: "I thought she was a lovely addition, and I think its terrible the way people are acting over the additions to this story. Peter Jackson was true to the book through and through, he just added a li..."Thank you! Finally, someone who shares my point of view.
I don't understand how someone can claim that Jackson is "true to the book through and through" given all the extraneous stuff he put in.The person who said he Disneyfied the story is right. I said, in regard to the first four movies, that he dumbed the story down. Pretty much another way of saying the same thing.
I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have grounds to comment. But, I did see the first movie - it was called The Hobbit. It should have been called 1/3 of the hobbit - I didn't realize he broke such a short interesting story into 3 films. I won't go see the rest of them.
Joseph wrote: "Joel wrote: "I haven't seen the movie, so I don't have grounds to comment. But, I did see the first movie - it was called The Hobbit. It should have been called 1/3 of the hobbit - I didn't reali..."I believe I said that's what I intend to do.
Jackmccullough wrote: "I don't understand how someone can claim that Jackson is "true to the book through and through" given all the extraneous stuff he put in."Yeah, that's hard for me to figure out too.... I think by "true to the book" they mean "kept the main points" or something like that. That is, compared to some adaptations (for example, The Firm which completely changed the end of the book, or Starship Troopers which was really a parody/satire of the book, or that bizarre affront to both man and machine: I, Robot) then PJ has been faithful to the general plot and concepts of Tolkien's original work.
However, I have to say that that kind of verbiage doesn't accurately describe PJ well at all. It seems to have missed Tolkien's original themes and only given a superficial reading to the plot. I'd use "inspired by the original" personally. Maybe "loosely based on" or "derivative" are better terms.
All that I can say about the Hobbit movie is disappointing! I hated what P.J did with the story, he changed everything...and Tauriel is just one of changes that I hated
I reread the 2nd half of the book to see what PJ changed (lots), and I forgot that (SPOILER) Kili dies, so I predict that in the last film, both Kili and Tauriel will be killed.
Obviously, those who never read the book don't know any better. There were people who saw Tim Burton's "Alice" who thought it followed the novel!-because they never read it.
I love the book so much and I love the movies equally but I don't consider the movies as true to The Hobbit book.I like how Gary described them as 'inspired by the original' for as much as PJ added Tolkien's Silmarillion to The Hobbit, he also invented Tauriel character. I have nothing against Tauriel. I even like the idea of having a female warrior elf added to the story. I just dislike the idea of having more romance between Tauriel and Kili. An elf and a dwarf? Where did that come from???
I am waiting for the third movie as excited as for the previous ones.
if the rights to any book are given away to Hollywood/Disney/Pixar/ PJ or whoever then its their interpretation that makes the film ,, in the Hobbit PJ took poetic licence to another level. Children reading the book for the 1ST time will be disappointed instead of enthralled which as an avid reader makes me sad.
I like Tauriel. Before anyone lashes out at me, I do appreciate Tolkien's writings and appreciate what he's brought into The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. They're two underrated series that constantly get overshadowed by the more "tween popular" Harry Potter. Movie adaptions have always been way different from their book counterparts. I really don't mind, because it could it could have been worse: He could have added really cheap and inappropriate jokes like so many of today's movies do and he didn't. Tauriel is not an original Tolkien character by any means, but I give props to Jackson for creating a character in one of Tolkien's races. You can agree or disagree with me here. I'm just stating my view.
Narnian525♥♪ wrote: "I like Tauriel. Before anyone lashes out at me, I do appreciate Tolkien's writings and appreciate what he's brought into The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. They're two underrated series that con..."agreed :)
I have seen the movie and I personally love Tauriel. Middle Earth needs a strong female character and Evangeline Lilly portrayed that perfectly.
♥Caro♥ wrote: "Narnian525♥♪ wrote: "I like Tauriel. Before anyone lashes out at me, I do appreciate Tolkien's writings and appreciate what he's brought into The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. They're two under...":)
My first thought was "why must there always be a love triangle?" when I found out about the Tauriel character. While I'm all for adding things or changing events if it benefits the story, I thought the whole Killi thing just made things awkward. Her interest in him just seemed like something they shoehorned in just to have the excuse to have Tauriel and Legolas at Lake Town.
My spouse felt violated by Peter Jackson's fan fic re-writing. The book is awesome; the movie a disappointment.
Having a strong female character wouldn't hurt so much in this modern adaptation in my opinion. So I'm actually not that concerned. However for people who are I completely understand your opinions as they do make sense.
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..."hahaha that about sums it up. I too hated that dumb snowboarding segment, but that's nothing compared to what he did with the Hobbit. I think PJ made the Hobbit for people who think that Tolkien is some computer game.
yes I agree its a book that's been loved for a long time and a stand alone classic for children until now whatever characters are added to beef up a 280 page book is down who sold the rights to PJ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I really enjoyed part 2 of the hobbit I`m sorry to say
I think more than anything, the problem with The Hobbit was not the addition or deletion of any particular character, but rather that the feel of the adaptation was off. I understand that, in the wake of the LotR adaptations, that PJ might have wanted to make the Hobbit more serious or less "fairy tale" in nature, but I've overall been very disappointed.You have the issue with the rabbit sled, but then we have nearly melodramatic moments ("this is our fight") etc. Then, parts that are part of the actual storyline, such as Beorn, are minimized to the point where they hardly make sense, while you have this inflated storyline with Azog.
It's almost like you have two stories crammed into one, and it hardly works. I wouldn't have had TOO much of a problem with Tauriel (I understand that they wanted a female character--I don't think it's a huge deal, but that's up to them to decide), but it completely detracted from other parts of the story.
I'm not totally against changes in book adaptations to film. For example, I thought that having Legolas there was a good touch--it helps to further tie the Hobbit back in with LOTR. And it's actually logical. In LOTR, I was fine with where they moved the scene with Anduril-I thought it added a nice, dramatic effect.
However, I have a huge problem when directors suddenly shift the focus of a movie to either a minor plot line, or to a plot line that didn't even exist in the book at the expense of major parts in the book. To hop out of the series, a "good" example of this can be found in Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where the director introduced this storyline with the green mist, but cut out a large part of the storyline on the Lone Islands, which was one of the best parts of the story.
I guess what I'm trying to say with that huge long article is that I didn't have a problem with Tauriel herself(maybe a bit with the love triangle, as others have mentioned), I just had a problem with the fact that other parts of the original work were sacrificed in order to fit in foreign ideas. Furthermore, I don't think it was done well enough to feel like it was meant to actually be one cohesive storyline.
The Lord of the Rings was carried by the story of Froddo`s task of saving middle earth from the evil of Sauron parallels of Hitler and WW2 evident . There is no story line in the Hobbit to compete with that, Every time I watch the trilogy I have to watch til the very end to make sure that Froddo completes his task . There is no storyline in The Hobbit that could inspire that kind of passion.
John wrote: I agree that someone had to lead the army and putting a face/name on that leader doesn't..."Thank you for pointing out how Political Correctness methodically ruins all good stories. I wonder is there even contemporary fantasy book that isn't tainted with this idiocy?
Jeanette wrote: "The Lord of the Rings was carried by the story of Froddo`s task of saving middle earth from the evil of Sauron parallels of Hitler and WW2 evident . There is no story line in the Hobbit to compete..."I agree wholeheartedly. That's why the new characters and plot lines were introduced. The Hobbit is a classic but there is significantly less going on and to root for.
I enjoyed The Desolation of Smaug much more than An Unexpected Journey. It just had more going on that caught my attention, no matter how far fetched or unlike the book it was.
Peter Jackson needs to go write his own stories and film them instead of ruining Tolkien's genius. He's a putz in my estimation.If you take a hard look at Hollywood these days, it's pretty self-evident that most people working in film don't have a creative bone in their body. Technical wizards, yes, but they're mostly either adapting already existing work (endless remakes, comic book heroes, etc), or writing brutish little nihilistic scripts that have all the creativity of a well-chewed piece of sugar-free bubble gum. When they do tinker with a great story, like Jackson tinkering with the Hobbit, they invariably make the story worse.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I liked Eowyn, but I did think the adaptation made her a bit more mousy than she needed to be (or than Tolkien indicated in his prose) in order to do a little compare/contrast thing later in the film. It's been a while, though, so my memory could be faulty....