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?
Steve wrote: "I loved the LOTR movies, but what Jackson is doing to the Hobbit is blasphemy."I agree he ruined them for me.
It doesn't take much imagination to see the death struggle between Britain and Germany in two world wars in Tolkien's second and third ages and the horrific evil of Hitler represented by Sauron. Even the endings are similar. Hitler called upon all his fanatical nazis to fight to the bitter end, leaving nothing value for Germany's victors, and Sauron calling all his orcs to him as he dies. About the only thing Tolkien didn't anticipate was the flash of light in the far east brighter than the sun itself, which promised to end it all for everyone forever.
Those of us who survived it all still pinch ourselves occasionally to prove we're still alive.
Despite there being similarities between real world events and the novel, the novel was not about the real events. I believe we need to distance ourselves from making too close a correlation between the two, but certainly, undeniably, WWII's conflict wormed its way into the theme and plot of LOTR.As for the elfen/dwarfish love diangle, what is particularly irksome is not so much the improbability of the sexual attraction but the crudity of language.
The dialogue is more appropriate to a Morgan Fairchild/Tom Selleck pickup bar scene in a current megapolis than a dignified Tolkein storyline. The tone of their discourse and the bawdy banter is out of place in the asexual world of JRR Tolkein and the mythic tale we love so much. I am not offended by their talk as I find it attractive in itself, myself being guilty of conversing like Killiem, but it mars the spirit of the book and the world Tolkein constructed.
One hundred years ago, the armies of Europe were locked in a death struggle that would last for four more years, killing millions of soldiers, causing the collapse of the German, Austrian and Ottoman empires and setting the stage for another even greater war two decades later.In the 'between" years, the Great War haunted the minds of everyone in Europe who feared a repetition.. Their nightmare became reality in 1939, 21 years after the end of WW1.
It's another way of saying that a great war or a threat of a great war was Europe dominated European thinking in the 20th Century. Tolkien was no exception, all his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
And I am proud to be with the EAGLES and their metaphorical stars.
TREASON TO TOLKIEN!!!!!!!!!!
I haven't watched "The Hobbit" yet and I doubt that I will. This post definitely made that occurrence unlikely. Jackson made a mishmash of "The Lord of the Rings" that left so many plot holes that you could have ridden an Oliphant through. Helms deep was interminable and the elf additions ridiculous. He is a lousy interpreter of Tolkien's masterpiece.
Davydd wrote: "I haven't watched "The Hobbit" yet and I doubt that I will. This post definitely made that occurrence unlikely. Jackson made a mishmash of "The Lord of the Rings" that left so many plot holes that ..."
In general I agree, but it was 100 times better than the Rankin/Bass animation version we had when I was a kid.
In general I agree, but it was 100 times better than the Rankin/Bass animation version we had when I was a kid.
Ha! I loved that animated version as a kid. It inspired me to read the books. I haven't watched it again as an adult so your points are most likely legit.
Davydd wrote: " He is a lousy interpreter of Tolkien's masterpiece. " Agreed!
I agree that the Rankin/Bass production was pretty bad as was the attempt at "The Lord of the Rings". I'm not sure if they ever released part II after the bad reviews part I received.
Oral storytelling predates the telling of stories by writing them in books and filming them in movies by millennia. The Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowulf and The Epic of Gilgamesh all began their lives orally. And none of them sprang into being whole cloth, that is, complete in their modern form. One can easily envision someone (Homer?) telling about a love affair between Paris and Helen one evening and the next adding her husband's revenge. Over a period of years, and maybe generations, you eventually get the version we read today.
The thing about oral storytelling is that the storyteller alters his/her story depending on the reaction of the audience. You embellish the parts the audience likes and dispense with, or alter, the parts they don't like.
Neither writers nor filmmakers go from start to finished product without editing their work. Tolkien didn't do so and neither did Jackson.
I would imagine that Tolkien added in and edited out a number of characters while writing his saga of Middle Earth. (Aside from creating it in the first place.) Peter Jackson is continuing the tradition—telling a story according to his personal vision to reach those he considers his audience using his chosen medium as he sees fit.
We may or may not like what he did, or how he did it, but by "voicing" our opinions we are continuing the age old practice of criticism.
Personally, I like the addition.
Oral storytelling predates the telling of stories by writing them in books and filming them in movies by millennia.The Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowulf and The Epic of Gilgamesh all began their lives orally. And none of them sprang into being whole cloth, that is, complete in their modern form. One can easily envision someone (Homer?) telling about a love affair between Paris and Helen one evening and the next adding her husband's revenge. Over a period of years, and maybe generations, you eventually get the version we read today.
The thing about oral storytelling is that the storyteller alters his/her story depending on the reaction of the audience. You embellish the parts the audience likes and dispense with, or alter, the parts they don't like.
Neither writers nor filmmakers go from start to finished product without editing their work. Tolkien didn't do so and neither did Jackson.
I would imagine that Tolkien added in and edited out a number of characters while writing his saga of Middle Earth. (Aside from creating it in the first place.) Peter Jackson is continuing the tradition—telling a story according to his personal vision to reach those he considers his audience using his chosen medium as he sees fit.
We may or may not like what he did, or how he did it, but by "voicing" our opinions we are continuing the age-old practice of criticism.
Personally, I like the addition.
Joe wrote: "Oral storytelling predates the telling of stories by writing them in books and filming them in movies by millennia.The Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowulf and The Epic of Gilgamesh all began their lives ..."
That's the poorest excuse for butchering a masterpiece that I ever heard. Sorry. PJ is no match for Tolkien, he ruined the story.
Chanel wrote: "After reading these comments, I'm so glad I chose to read the book and not watch the movie!"When you have enjoyed the book, take your time to see the movies too. They do expand Tolkien's world visually and as a fan of the books I am amazed how beautiful PJ translated it to the big screen.
There is no comparison between Tolkien and Jackson, one being a master storyteller and the other is a master story teller in another medium.
I liked the movies fine. They are one person's depiction of the books. The movies are visually appealing, and if they take liberties with the story, we have to expect that.
I do not think Jackson’s films expand Tolkien’s Middle Earth. Maybe they expand TSR’s Dungeons and Dragons universe—or at least, Jackson’s interpretation of the Forgotten Realms, but to assume that this is the same Tolkien’s universe being expanded is to assume that the original hot water that DnD landed in with using so much of Tolkien’s universe was merely a result of his legal department not listening to the audience and changing the story to become what they wanted to hear. Maybe Jackson should put some Gnolls and bugbears in the next film to appease the D*20 fans.On a completely different note…
A few days ago on this thread somebody was talking about how the LOTR books were a retelling of Nazi times. I do not think so. Like all fantasy, they are a telling of human nature dressed up in new characters and settings. Human nature is eternal. I just had a conversation this morning about how the debate over limiting congressional terms (a hot debate in my area this election season) is likened to the ring of power that corrupts even the nicest, well-meaning politician once he or she spends too much time under the rotunda.
Sometimes, a vote for the incumbent starts to look like a vote for Gollum.
Jackson is a repulsive, egotistical scumbag who needs a hob-nailed boot shoved down his throat. Its as simple as that.
The movies needed more female roles. In The Lord of the Rings Shelob may not have been the most important or most shown female character, she was the most interesting female character.
Arbré wrote: "The movies needed more female roles. In The Lord of the Rings Shelob may not have been the most important or most shown female character, she was the most interesting female character."... She's a spider. Please explain to me how a f*cking spider is more interesting and well-developed than Tolkien's other female characters.
Feliks wrote: "Jackson is a repulsive, egotistical scumbag who needs a hob-nailed boot shoved down his throat. Its as simple as that."Repulsive I understand... the man's hygiene is less than stellar. But egotistical... isn't that the case with most directors?
If, in the interest of keeping the movie going, just one character was added I think that can be forgiven. But there is so much else that is horrible about Desolation of Smaug.Why is Legolas so prominent? Do we really need this dwarf/elf awkward flirtation? What is with Nazgul weapons being the only poison around? The Black arrow, I don't think we should go that deep. Too many liberties with a classic.
I think the major problem with "added content" for a film/TV show boils down to this: most of the writers are hacks. An elaboration on GRRT's world by PJ just isn't going to be up to par because PJ is a half-assed writer and artist. He just doesn't have the chops.So, when people say things like "movies are never EXACTLY like the books" they are missing the point. One film maker's vision is going to differ from another's when it comes to adaptation, and no one is going to capture the same vision as a reader of the books.
However, we're not talking about a few changes to the dialogue or a cuts to the plot for time. We're talking about adding what really is little more than fanfic. Fanfic is fine... but if we're honest, in most cases, there's really more reason for someone to write it than there is for anyone to read it.
And that's the case for PJ's additions to the Tolkienverse. They are often derivative of Gygax level fandom. And, again, that'd be fine if that's all they were. There are D&D level products out there that people enjoy. Those things aren't personally to my taste, but they have an audience. Essentially, however, there's just not a lot of legitimacy to writing fanfic and calling it "added content" when it has little bearing on the thing that it is supposedly adding to. PJ could go out and make his own PJ world: Muddle-Earth. And he could populate it with Shmelves and Dwerves, Orgs and Globlins, Dwagons and Balrugs. He could have Bimbo the Quarterling go on a quest to find the Won Ring, blah, blah, blah. It'd have the same Weird Al Yancovic quality that his films have. At this point, he's not a making anything other than a referential, lip-synced version of JRRT. It's the adaptation equivalent of Milli Vanilli.
Gary wrote: "I think the major problem with "added content" for a film/TV show boils down to this: most of the writers are hacks. An elaboration on GRRT's world by PJ just isn't going to be up to par because P..."You mean JRRT right? You said GRRT the first time, by which I can only assume you were thinking of GRRM.
Matt wrote: "If, in the interest of keeping the movie going, just one character was added I think that can be forgiven. But there is so much else that is horrible about Desolation of Smaug.Why is Legolas so pr..."
Agreed, Matt! I want to FantasyCon in Salt Lake City and much of the Lord of the Ring panels not counting the ones with the actors in The Hobbit, felt the same way
Matthew wrote: "You mean JRRT right?"Right. My mistake.
Gary wrote: "I think the major problem with "added content" for a film/TV show boils down to this: most of the writers are hacks. An elaboration on GRRT's world by PJ just isn't going to be up to par because P..."The guys in Milli Vanilli would be offended.
Davydd wrote: "The guys in Milli Vanilli would be offended."As well they should be. Someone's stolen their schtick!
Christine wrote: "Arbré wrote: "The movies needed more female roles. In The Lord of the Rings Shelob may not have been the most important or most shown female character, she was the most interesting female character..."He didn't have well developed female characters and did his best to avoid them. Even the Ents were missing their female Entwives and Entmaidens. The female roles that he added were not very developed. Galadriel was the closest he ever came to developing a character and she was rather flat. Shelob on the other hand was part of a previously introduced evil that was outside of Sauron's power yet not outside of his influence. She was not there for long but she gave a lasting impression.
I do not think that he should add a girl elf! I had such high hopes for the movie, but it was nowhere near as good as I had expected. But still okay.
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..."
AMEN!
I don't think it was such a great idea. I think Jackson added it just so there was a formulaic love story in the midst of all the would-have-been all male characters. I am not complaining there are women on this movie series (Galadriel is a welcome addition for me in Hobbit) but I felt he went too "what's popular. Oh, Twilight!" and I almost lost respect for him.
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 was stand in sunset watching Gandalf watch her while sh..."I agree with you. It's nice to see a strong female character in a series that really only relates to men. I like that Turiel can fight and that she's a tough cookie. My problem with her role is the weird love traingle she's in (prior to the release of the third film) with Kili and Legolas. I have a strong inkling that she is going to be killed off as it is the only way to fulfill the love story in a way that makes sense (especially since she is not in or referenced in TLOTR.)
My real problem with the movie is the ridiculous story line of Azog and how that has taken over the whole film. Granted I think they had to do something to spice it up to keep viewers interested for 3 hours but it completely takes away from the original point and essence of the story. The Hobbit is supposed to be about Bilbo finding himself and having an adventure not about the dwarves and their ancient beef with the orcs. And Sauron coming back in the second film? Don't even get me started!!
CJ wrote: "I don't think it was such a great idea. I think Jackson added it just so there was a formulaic love story in the midst of all the would-have-been all male characters."Not that I want to defend Jackson too much here as his changes make me gag...but the love interest was a demand of the studio. Now, the studio was smart enough to stand out of the way for LOTR so I don't know why they felt the need to interfere here.
John wrote: "Not that I want to defend Jackson too much here as his changes make me gag...but the love interest was a demand of the studio. Now, the studio was smart enough to stand out of the way for LOTR so I don't know why they felt the need to interfere here."That's an interesting question. It's hard to say how much of that was the studio and how much PJ. Studios demand a lot of things. They suggest a lot of things. They intimate a lot of things. It's often hard to tell which they are doing at any particular time. Even what would be viewed as ironclad contractual obligations in any other industry are "renegotiated" all the time. So, it's just as likely that the studio had a team of lawyers on the case as they put something in a note during the scripting process and PJ ran with it, claiming that it was an obligation the whole time. It's an industry of illusion and invention, so one always has to be skeptical about the "facts" as presented by its participants.
That said, I think the origin probably came from criticism of how he handled the Galadriel/Gimli romance in LotR, which was more or less gutted. Tolkien actually did present more content on that relationship than PJ did in his films, which makes his addition of a new character and a love triangle all the more odd IMO. I think he's trying to give that another shot, but it's already been passed over, so retreading the idea seems overworked.
I hate it. The first movie was an okay movie, but it was not the hobbit. The second movie wasn't even good as a movie. You guys don't want to hear my analogy/metaphor about Peter Jackson and a Dwarf.
@Madeline, I'm intrigued now and I kind of do! ;) lol
Vicki wrote: "@Madeline, I'm intrigued now and I kind of do! ;) lol"Oh gosh. Sorry people, but this is long and annoying.
So
oh, also SPOILER ALERT (for the book. I don't even know if it will stay in the movie's anymore)
THE DWARF (dwarves)
Thorin began with the desire to re-create something beautiful and amazing. Something that he loved and cared for. Something that mattered to him. Something that mattered to his friends. Then after a while, he began to seek money and power. Wanting more and more money. Willing to shatter something beautiful, something he had said he loved, willing to shatter it for money.
PETER JACKSON
He began with LOTR, re-creating something beautiful, something that he loved and cared for. Something that mattered. Something that mattered to his friends. Then, after he had tasted fame and power, he began to seek money and power. Wanting mor and mor money. Willing to shatter something beautiful, something he had said he love, willing to shatter it for money.
Thorin wanted to recreate the beauty or Erebor, PJ, the beauty of Middle Earth and LOTR.
Thorin truly loved Bilbo after he understood him. He cared for him. He wanted to help him. PJ Truly loved LOTR after he had read it. He cared for it, and wanted to recreate it and teach others to love it for what it was.
Thorin tasted the power of being King under the Mountain, then all he wanted was power. Dragon lust consumed him. PJ tasted the power of fame and fortune, and thousands of fans cheering him on. Fame lust consumed him.
Thorin wanted the gold and power so much, that Bilbo (who he had loved) he was willing to destroy to gain what he wanted. PJ wanted the fame and power so much, that Middle Earth and The Hobbit (which he had loved and cared for) he was willing to destroy to gain what he wanted.
Ta da!
@Madeline, oh my gosh! Bravo!! Spot on! I love it, thanks for taking the time to share! :)
I don't get it. Dwarves and Elves can mate? Have offspring? Would it be something similar to horses and zebras, with offspring that look like striped fillies? Their offspring would be short, fat with pointed ears? Would it be a genetic dead end? Their offspring couldn't have offspring? If so, they wouldn't be able to look forward to seeing the grand kids frolicking in their old age.And what would one call the offspring? Dwelves? Elvarves?
John wrote: "Not that I want to defend Jackson too much here as his changes make me...Oh it was the studio's decision? They probably were hoping to bring back a LOTR feel but studios shouldn't interfere like this sometimes.
Blade Runner nearly flopped in the theaters and people found out only many years later it had an alternate non-Hollywood ending and the director after some time took out the forced-to-do-it Harrison Ford narrations. These terrible decisions to mess with the film before Ridley Scott had any say when the film entered theaters were probably all movie studio ideas. And those big changes would have maybe cost Scott's reputation as a rising director as far as I figure.
On the other hand sometimes the producers make excellent decisions, otherwise Ben Gazzarra would have been the Midnight Cowboy, not Jon Voigt.
Geoffrey wrote: "I don't get it. Dwarves and Elves can mate? Have offspring? Would it be something similar to horses and zebras, with offspring that look like striped fillies? Their offspring would be short, fat wi..."LOL, Geoffrey, you just made my day :) Dwelves...lol
Geoffrey wrote: "I don't get it. Dwarves and Elves can mate? Have offspring? Would it be something similar to horses and zebras, with offspring that look like striped fillies? Their offspring would be short, fat wi..."Ha ha, you have a point there. Dwelves and Elvarves . . . :-0
Hated it. He did such a great job with the others as far as being loyal to the book. We won't be buying this one. What a waste.
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..."I agree. Peter Jackson was quoted as saying that he met Evangeline Lily at an event and he promised to find her a role in the Hobbit. THAT was why he did it. Stupid reason to take the movie version in a different direction.
Carolanne wrote: "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 c..."Oh gosh, that just makes me sick. And she wasn't even a great actor.
Feliks wrote: "Jackson is a repulsive, egotistical scumbag who needs a hob-nailed boot shoved down his throat. Its as simple as that."I would love to agree. Indeed, the more spunky side of me (much larger and rapidly winning out) does agree. And yet, the fact remains that Jackson is the man who created The Lord Of The Rings MOVIES. And for that I love him. Which makes me more sad than anything else. I do not hate him, so much as I pity him. My pet comparison is to Thorin, but I can match him to Saruman as well. He was once good and wise.
Anyway...
What bothers me the most is not that the movie was crap. Its that it COULD HAVE BEEN so good. And it wasn't. I feel as though I have been personally betrayed.
There goes that spunky side. I will shut up now.
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..."I couldn't agree more...well actually I could, but thats not the point...I understand that the LOTR books were long and had to be cut down to fit into even twelve hours. Thats good. You can pretty much take anything OUT of a book when making a movie adaptation. But to add things? The horror! Adding implies that you think you know the story better than its creator. That you know more about it and what it should be like. And that is wrong. Very wrong. I am actually convinced he has gone partly insane. I mean, from the LOTR movies to...rabbit drawn sleighs that would not only not work, but if they did work, are designed for SNOW. And now this.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I've read similar comments from Tolkien and I'm more than a little skeptical. I don't know why he wouldn't want people to make that association other than, perhaps, he didn't want people to dismiss his work for having "figured it out." When people do "figure it out" there is a tendency for some of them to discount that work.
But taking a myths that are essentially the same myths employed by Wagner and reinterpreting them in to a British/English context with the "little man" able to do his bit to fight the great evil? Denying that there's a connection to the context of the Nazis and WWII just doesn't seem plausible.
It's not as direct a relationship as the Japanese film Ran to King Lear in its inspiration. That is, I don't think we can say it's a derivative work. However, it wouldn't be over-stating things to say it was influenced by the time and events during which it was written in the same way that any number of other fantasy/sci-fi works are influenced by their time and events. We don't bash Frankenstein by Shelley because the author was living in a time when people were running electricity through corpses and observing the grotesque muscle contractions that resulted. Nobody claims the original Star Trek references to pop 60's culture were incidental and/or accidental.
Even if he didn't actively plot out the story based on the events he was living through, it seems to me that they were so big and tumultuous that they'd have to have worked on him as an artist, and manifest in his work. He'd have to have been living in a cave somewhere for that not to be the case.