The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
discussion
Extra characters in "The Hobbit"
date
newest »
newest »
Gollum came into the story randomly when Bilbo was in the cave.
My concern is not Jackson pulling from the massive background that is Middle Earth, left to us from a wonderful author, but his insistence on making the movie version Politically Correct. I understand that strong female characters are becoming the new hook in Hollywood and I welcome and applaud that in new endevours. However the Hobbit had no real strong female characters that really moved the story along and deviating from that in the movie version seems, at least to me, to be simply a money grab and nothing else.K.
Why make excuses for him? How about this really audacious idea: tell the story straight as it was from the book without any executive decisions; without jumbling in characters from other works; and without inserting or deleting anything that wasn't strictly there in the first place? Ought we not have expected that at all? Were we presumptuous in that expectation? To say nothing of his idea of what middle-earthen swords look like! I guess he really wanted to direct Star Wars instead.
K.V. wrote: "My concern is not Jackson pulling from the massive background that is Middle Earth, left to us from a wonderful author, but his insistence on making the movie version Politically Correct. I underst..."Bravo! One of the best insights I've seen on Goodreads in some time. In my opinion, Jackson began pulling this shyt back in 'Fellowship'. My god what a scumbag.
Feliks wrote: "K.V. wrote: "My concern is not Jackson pulling from the massive background that is Middle Earth, left to us from a wonderful author, but his insistence on making the movie version Politically Corre..."I too agree.....
K.
Feliks wrote: "How about this really audacious idea: tell the story straight as it was from the book without any executive decisions; without jumbling in characters from other works; and without inserting or deleting anything that wasn't strictly there in the first place?"Because it's an adaptation to another medium. Changes are inevitable as what works in print will not work in the same way on screen.
That said, I was underwhelmed by this adaptation; but those who insist that just shooting the book as is would result in a good film show, in my view, a lack of understanding of the differences between how film and books communicate with an audience.
@Robert:I have been in the entertainment business for years and have worked both infront of and behind the camara as well as both sides of the footlights. I do understand the meaning of adaptation.
That said, the problem we run into is when you do a beloved piece of literature after the author is dead and gone and has no say in your adaptation. I believe Feliks is right when he says that there is enough material present in the book to be faithful to the story without adding one's own characters into the story when they were never there.
This isn't a movie created from a Stephen King novel nor is it True Blood or Twilight, where the authors either sold their rights or worked on the finished adaptations.
I don't insist on just shooting the book but can we at least stick to a story that most of us know simply because we have read it and the author is no longer among us to put a stamp of approval on the end product?
K.
K.V. wrote: "@Robert:I have been in the entertainment business for years and have worked both infront of and behind the camara as well as both sides of the footlights. I do understand the meaning of adaptation..."
I think I agree with you here. I think that to respect his work it should at least be more similar to the book. Even if certain things have to be tweaked to make it translate better into a film adaptation (for instance I think that they shouldn't show the battle of five armies from descriptions from other characters) adding in characters left and right and giving them major roles to play is not... right. I don't object to the fact that there are no strong female roles because it was written in 1937 where there just wouldn't be.
However I think that some of the scenery and the costumes are really good, they did well on some aspects of those.
Feliks wrote: "K.V. wrote: "My concern is not Jackson pulling from the massive background that is Middle Earth, left to us from a wonderful author, but his insistence on making the movie version Politically Corre..."How about both is fine? One day we'll get another director's interpretation of both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and maybe they'll have an interpretation that your children will prefer. Maybe you'll direct them. J.R.R. Tolkein doesn't own the project anymore, and it's time for different people to give us the story as they see it. It isn't a once-off opportunity that has to be gotten 'right' (whatever that may be to different people), which must be definitive, and can never be reattempted.
Much as we would like to, we cannot ask the author, and the author in fact would never be able to have imagined the possibilities of modern special effects, so it's a bit fruitless to guess what he would have asked for. And anyway, who is to say that the author knows what is 'best'? There were plenty of problems with the writing in The Hobbit and LOTR. Maybe 'The Hobbit' directed by J.R.R. Tolkein would have failed to do service to what the audience expects too? Hooray for the democracy of cinema.
I don't believe the characters that people are up in arms about (Legolas and the female Elf captain) are inconsistent with Tolkien's vision. Legolas is the son of the Elf king, and so would certainly be there for the Dwarves "visit." And just because Tolkien never described the character of the Captain of the Elven army doesn't mean there wasn't one--in fact, they would have had to add one at some point just to help with POVs during the battle. So I don't have a problem with that.Azog....This is a bit of a departure. They tell the story of Azog in the book, briefly, except that he dies at the end of it. His son then shows up at the Battle of the Five Armies, and if I'm not mistaken he and Thorin go at it, which is where Thorin is fatally wounded. So combining these two characters into one is a small change, and makes good cinematic sense. As was said above, the page and the screen are different media and work differently.
I also don't have a problem with the fact that they are adding the Necromancer, but I am very frustrated that they are doing it wrong. In the film the Necromancer is just first taking hold of Mirkwood, prompting Gandalf and the rest of the White Council to act. In Tolkien's vision he was long established--even the sheltered hobbit Bilbo was aware of his evil. It was implied at one point in another source that Gandalf had been lobbying to move against him for some time, but Saruman was more interested in secretly seeking the Ring until he decided that he needed to search too close to the Necromancer's borders for comfort. Minor thing? Everyone else seems to think so, so maybe I'm crazy.
(Its possible that my Necromancer knowledge is tainted by non-Tolkien material from the Games Workshop tabletop wargaming manual on the subject. On the whole they tried to stay pretty close to Tolkien's vision, but they have been known to take liberties....)
I have to agree. The Hobbit has stood a test of time so it obviously wasn't lacking in any area. I also understand a previous comment about Jackson wanting to bring the feel for a strong female figure into the story. I honestly can't say that she ruined the story, but she has changed it and that just wasn't necessary.
I'm not arguing that Jackson's Hobbit part 1 is a good adaptation. My opinion (based, of course, on having only seen 1 of 3 parts of a whole story) is that it was pretty poorly done. Mostly due to inconsistencies in tone, failure to balance humor within a dramatic story, etc.What I am advocating, in general, is Jackson's right to adapt it to his artistic vision as he sees fit. It worked (for me) in LOTR, just not so much here. Too many people, here and in other threads, seem to be of a position that Tolkien is some sort of sacred text that should not be altered in any way. Ever. And I don't see that as a workable way to adapt a book to the screen.
And I don't think it matters whether an author is alive or dead, involved intimately with the film or only at a distance, had any kind of input or not. In most cases, even living authors have very little control once they sell the rights. It takes a very powerful one to get any kind of script or casting approval or actual say in the final product.
There are plenty points to discuss the (poor) choices Jackson made for part 1. I'm just a little frustrated with the "The Hobbit was perfect as a book so he shouldn't have changed anything for the movie" position.
To take this more on that track:
• I like that they included material that was dropped from LOTR (showing parts of this story that were explained in the Counsel of Elrond in the book, but dropped from that movie) or existed in the appendices
• I think that they failed to balance the lighter, sometimes humorous tone of the Hobbit with the goal of making it seem part of the same world/tone established in the LOTR. Tolkien could ignore this in book form, for the most part, the filmmakers had more of a challenge with it.
• As much as I longed to finally see Radagast ...rabbit sled. Really?
• Technical advances and production necessities aside, why do the dwarves seem to have a distinctly different race design than Gimli had in LOTR?
• At least on the small screen (I only saw this on DVD) most of the scenes underground seemed too dark and poorly edited to follow what was going on.
• I like Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Though he's not being well served by the script.
• On the other hand, was it just me or did Hugo Weaving & Cate Blanchett seem utterly bored to be in this film? Which was not the case in LOTR. It seemed like, "hey, Pete, we owe you, but we're gonna phone this in if that's OK."
• Which is not the case with Ian, who seems to love being Gandalf, even in this Ewok's Adventure mess of a film.
• Is there music in this film? Because I can't remember it, other than some really bad dwarf and goblin songs. One of the strongest parts of LOTR was Howard Shore's score. Here, utterly forgettable.
• Props for an expanded Hobbiton. One of my regrets from LOTR was how much of the action there (& elsewhere in the Shire) had be dropped.
So, I throw those out there to chew on. Personally, I'd much rather dissect what did or didn't work than continue the butyoucantchangeasingleword discussion.
McKellen appeared to parody himself, Blanchett may be hitting the Botox-although she is supposed to be younger than she is in the earlier films, and why are ALL the orcs now CGI? As for the dwarve's makeup, the young dwarves just looked like guys, and the older ones got all the prosthetics.
A specific set of problems exists in the editing and construction of the film. It is too d*** long, even for the whole story, let alone just part one.Establishing shots that go on forever. So they spent a lot of time and money creating these huge scenic montages; edit them! They don't have to remain on the screen for dozens of seconds. In fact two or three seconds would work just as well.
The pacing and visual flow (again mostly editing related) are poor in The Hobbit. Some of this is directly related to scripting issues.
The film was massively disappointing. By itself. All alone.
Compared to what Jackson accomplished with LOTR, it is dreadful.
Now the story line. Well, we need not wast time with that as it just, so far, doesn't work. Would the 'original' story be better? That's hard to say and in term of adapting it to the screen. Jackson and his team were the proven person ones.
So sad it didn't work out. They had a great story. Instead they are trying to use something else and sell it as; "The Hobbit, sort of".
At first I was particularly annoyed by Gandalf as he was not the impassioned, confident character we see in LOTR. But then it made sense as we now have a wizard a little greener behind his ears and not as driven by the impending doom of Sauron`s imperialistic quests. I congratulate Jackson for subtly downplaying G.s confidence in the earlier story.
I think that the crew behind the Hobbit are actually putting a lot of work and effort into new characters. I honestly don't mind the adding of characters or plot points if the initial story is the same (unlike the Percy Jackson Sea of Monsters movie!) I really like the new Hobbit trilogy.
Geoffrey wrote: "...But then it made sense as we now have a wizard a little greener behind his ears and..."While I hate to bust the bubble of someone defending the film on here (I had a couple issues, but not any of the ones these guys are hung up on), Gandalf may be 60ish years younger here but he shouldn't be any greener....in perspective to the nearly two thousand years he's already spent in Middle Earth, that's insignificant. Though I suppose you could argue for the experience of taking on the Necromancer (either the screwed-up version of the quest we'll see in the film or how it was originally conceived), who is of course Sauron, being a learning experience for him....It may have given him the confidence he always lacked that he could actually beat Sauron. (Before the Istari were sent, Gandalf had initially refused because he feared he was no match for Sauron) So after having typed this all out....turns out I agree with Geoffrey after all :-P
I don't really see the problem. Where is it written that an adaptation must be a translation? Book to film often needs a few pluses and minuses to engage a visual audience. Are there some add-ons that feel unnecessary, yes, absolutely, but are they there to enhance the story, yes to that as well.Azog is a nice add-in. He gives the story a darker edge that frankly it needed. I think we all read the book _The Hobbit_ as children (or at least I did) and loved it. I'm reading it now as an adult, and while I'm still loving it, I can see how this is a story for children, and not YA, I mean little kids. So for Jackson to actually make a true to book translation would have been financially ruinous. (hollywood is more than a place, it's an industry, you can't get mad at a billion dollar industry that employs millions of people for wanting to turn a profit can you?)
And as far as going PC and giving us ONE female character that we female readers can relate to.. well, excuse the hell out of me and my ovaries for wanting to be represented in a book. It's 2013. And if Tolkien were alive and writing today, he'd probably give the ladies a nod and give us a role model.
I don't mind changes being made to a book when it is filmed, as long as it's a good movie. See Wuthering Heights. But The Hobbit displeased many who never read the book, and this is the only book-to-film translation where the main complaint is not that they cut too much out, but that they put too much in that wasn't there in the first place. This could have been a really superb single film (and one less than 3 hrs), but, so far, this is the most egregious case of padding andstretching I've ever seen. I hope the second film, with less exposition, is better. (By the way, many complained that THE HOBBIT film took 45m to get out of Bilbo's house. So does THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, but it's a much better film, so nobody minded.)
If they never read the book how would they have known that there was padding, S? No, the problem was the tone of certain passages in the book. The rabbit sled and the insect in Stumblebum`s mouth was just plain, embarrassingly silly, as was the scene inside the mountain being chased by 1,000s of orcs.As for their 45 min. sojourn in Bilbo`s house, I thought that was a highlight of the film. Their antics had me intrigued for the entire time.
Geoffrey wrote: "If they never read the book how would they have known that there was padding, S? No, the problem was the tone of certain passages in the book. The rabbit sled and the insect in Stumblebum`s mouth w..."Those that never read the book did not know that the film was padded. However, they correctly complained that film was too long and boring. One person who never read the novel said that the film had "no story", which I think is oddly accurate-it didn't have enough story for 3 hrs.
Ed wrote: "I have to agree. The Hobbit has stood a test of time so it obviously wasn't lacking in any area. I also understand a previous comment about Jackson wanting to bring the feel for a strong female fig..."I agree.
Adding a she elf and romanance with Legolas seems a bit of a stretch.
I still hold hope that it will stay with the spirit of the book at least. I'm also waiting as to see if the movie will portray Bard the Bowman as in the book.
And of course since Legolas has so many female fans, Jackson had to put their high hopes to rest by giving him a love interest. Sorry ladies, that`s fiction. Couldn`t resist that odd bit of humor and punning.
Jordan wrote: "I don't believe the characters that people are up in arms about (Legolas and the female Elf captain) are inconsistent with Tolkien's vision. Legolas is the son of the Elf king, and so would certainly be there for the Dwarves "visit." And just because Tolkien never described the character of the Captain of the Elven army doesn't mean there wasn't one--in fact, they would have had to add one at some point just to help with POVs during the battle. So I don't have a problem with that.Azog....This is a bit of a departure. They tell the story of Azog in the book, briefly, except that he dies at the end of it. His son then shows up at the Battle of the Five Armies, and if I'm not mistaken he and Thorin go at it, which is where Thorin is fatally wounded. So combining these two characters into one is a small change, and makes good cinematic sense. As was said above, the page and the screen are different media and work differently.
I also don't have a problem with the fact that they are adding the Necromancer, but I am very frustrated that they are doing it wrong. In the film the Necromancer is just first taking hold of Mirkwood, prompting Gandalf and the rest of the White Council to act. In Tolkien's vision he was long established--even the sheltered hobbit Bilbo was aware of his evil. It was implied at one point in another source that Gandalf had been lobbying to move against him for some time, but Saruman was more interested in secretly seeking the Ring until he decided that he needed to search too close to the Necromancer's borders for comfort. Minor thing? Everyone else seems to think so, so maybe I'm crazy.
(Its possible that my Necromancer knowledge is tainted by non-Tolkien material from the Games Workshop tabletop wargaming manual on the subject. On the whole they tried to stay pretty close to Tolkien's vision, but they have been known to take liberties....)
jordan there was a elven captain of the guard thing is is that he was a man with a name, and legolas was not in mirkwood at the time,
Azog died long before the hobbit he was killed by dain, not thror did die but he died much earlier and he died differently, and thorin was wounded fighting against bolgs guards,
now Necromancer gandalf had already dealt with the Necromancer before the book,
in the movie they had radagast fight the witch king even though he did not,
and theres still more stuff they changed
@Nicholas:Okay, I'm unfamiliar with the extant Elven Captain then. Details? :-)
Alright, either I picked a REALLY bad time to get popcorn, you've seen the yet-unreleased films (I won't ask how), or you're making an assumption re: Radagast V. Witch King. Where are you getting this? Also, if you scroll back through, you'll see that however much I don't mind the female elf or Azog, everything Jackson screwed up with the Necromancer has me royally peeved.
I realize they changed Azog. My point was that while they were changing details and lumping several other Orc characters together for his character, I can forgive them for this because it makes cinematic and narrative sense--they're tying the various unconnected plot points together with a single villain, and giving him a deeper emotional connection to Thorin. True to the book? Not exactly. Good moviemaking? With apologies, I submit that it is. I can forgive Jackson for this much more readily than I can his screwing up the Necromancer backstory.
So from the first film in which Gandalf is a bit groggy with Blanchett`s beauty, we`ve got a second with romance. What will happen in the third? An act for the final act?
radagast fought the witch king in the first movie
it was his ghost
the captain of the elven guard was referred to as the chief and the captain in the hobbit book
its been a year since i've read that book
Tauriel is the captain and chief of the elven guard created for the next hobbit films to put a female fighting character in the film,
I don't think they actually fought....Radagast kind of saw him and beat it. Unless I'm remembering it poorly--haven't seen it since it was released in theatres.I get that adding Tauriel is a change. I just don't think it's a change that matters that much, in the scope of what else they've changed for the worst (Necromancer).
are you serios your fine with gender bending a character, and radagst had a staff and sword fight with the witch king
More a case of replacing a background character who, to my knowledge, is only ever referred to by his job description, with a fleshed-out character who has a name and a story. That said character is female matters not a bit, to me anyway. Could this be poorly done? Sure. But I'm witholding judgement until the film is released. It's only slightly different from having Arwen fill the roll Glorfindel played in The Fellowship Of The Ring, rescuing Frodo from the Wraiths. I can certainly understand their reasons for the decision, from a filmmaker's perspective. Sometimes you have to make a change--what works on the page doesn't work on the screen.Huh. Forgot about that....At any rate, I've expressed deep frustration with everything surrounding the Necromancer subplot.
I don't think this generation of storytellers understands the impact of Tolkein's "bigger world" into which the Hobbit took place. Much of the alure of Tolkein's published works were from his off-hand mentions of far away places and unelaborated events. From the very beginning of chapter one we are given the sense of a bigger world into which Bilbo is only a small part. There's many a vague mention of fairies and were-worms and far away places, and then there's the vague mention of Gandalf's many, un-affiliated adventures that eventually led to this one through his chance encounter with Thrain in the necromancer's dungeon.The entire world of Dungeons and Dragons was built upon these vague nods within Tolkein's then-published works. I know there was a law suit many years ago that forced DnD to create a different version of Middle Earth that has slowly evolved into the fantasy universe it is today, but the original game was inspired by the LARGENESS of Tolkien's world. In the same way, the lure of the Star Wars galaxy was its largeness. When George Lucas shrunk it all down to revolve around RTD2 and C3PO, it suddenly became very small and unappealing. Jackson has done the same thing here. By re-using characters and consolidating all important events into the hands of a very small cast, he shrinks the world into something too small for most of us old-school fantasy-lovers to want to get lost in.
Personally, I think adding Tauriel wasn't a bad idea: some feminine energy is always helpful. But the love triangle thing was just ridiculous. If she was more Elf-like, more hateful of dwarves and more 'with the elves', then it would have made more sense. Legolas could work as well, but if there was an Elf-rebel, it should have been him. After all, we see clearly in Lord of the Rings that he is more willing to fight for the world than his father is. This is just my opinion, but it is how I would have done it.Oh and also, why is Tauriel's hare red? No Elf in Middle Earth has red hair... rip-off from Merida? If she was blonde, it could have worked better.
I'm still baffled that Peter Jackson decided to make such a small story a trilogy! The "it's an adaptation" excuse just doesn't cut it for such a massive amount of changes. What an embarrassment of a film.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Well, I am here to set things straight as best I can! These characters/plots were not made up by Jackson & his team. They occured during the same time frame, but were not mentioned directly in "the Hobbit." If you read other Tolkien canon, you will find out that the story of Azog, and the story of Necromancer are true to Tolkien. These stories can be found throughout the LOTR trilogy, as well as the appendices found in the 50th Anniversary addition, and other Tolkien canon.
Also, you have to keep in mind, that "The Hobbit," was written as a children's bedtime story. This is why it's plot may be seen as childish, hence the addition of new plots.
that's all. I hope this helps.