The Sword and Laser discussion

201 views
TV, Movies and Games > Patrick Rothfuss' concern over the new Hobbit movie.

Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nick (new)

Nick (whyzen) | 1295 comments http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2012/...

He makes a interesting argument for why the new Peter Jackson Hobbit movie will be a good (or great) movie but probably just a moderately ok adaptation of the book.


message 2: by Michael (new)

Michael (michaelbetts) Ok, this begs the question.

If it turns out to be a great movie, who the flip cares if it's a good adaptation? Go read the book if you want a good adaptation :P


message 3: by Sean (new)

Sean O'Hara (seanohara) | 2365 comments Mike wrote: "Ok, this begs the question.

If it turns out to be a great movie, who the flip cares if it's a good adaptation? Go read the book if you want a good adaptation :P"


Many of the worst elements in the films were at the points where Jackson deviated from the original -- Aragorn going over the cliff and everyone thinking him dead, telegraphing that Aragorn was aboard the corsair ship, not having a final action sequence to break up the denouement.

But that said, Rothfuss fails to understand that a good film adaptation isn't one that clings to the original story, but rather one that alters the story as necessary for a new medium. The Wizard of Oz is nothing like the book, and that's what makes it a great adaptation.


message 4: by Michael (new)

Michael (michaelbetts) You're right about those aspects being the weaker parts of the films, but they were weak on their own terms and for their own reasons, not just because they deviated from the book. Which I know wasn't what you were saying, exactly.


message 5: by Remington (new)

Remington | 38 comments I agree with you Mike. Take the last few Harry Potter movies for example. The last three movies deviated the most from the books and they are generally considered the best movies in the series. What is important in an adaption is maintaining the spirit of the work that is being adapted because what works in a novel won't always work on the screen.


message 6: by Andy (new)

Andy (andy_m) | 311 comments Remington wrote: "I agree with you Mike. Take the last few Harry Potter movies for example. The last three movies deviated the most from the books and they are generally considered the best movies in the series. Wha..."

I agree 100%. Take the Dresden Files as another example - the books are great, I love them. The short lived tv show was also interesting, it deviated quite a bit from the books but it was good in its own ways.

I like what Patrick Rothfuss has to say, I just think that he and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one issue.


message 7: by Skip (new)

Skip | 517 comments I get his point, and it is always going to be an issue with movies made from books. Unless the book is very short, getting all of book covered in 90-180 minutes without giving you whiplash is next to impossible. Corners have to be cut and things have to be changed.

If you like movies, this is fine. It makes for a better movie many times, but if you like the book you are going to be disappointed. They are two very different media, and even a slavish film is going to be different than the book. What you want is the book you experienced, and you are never going to get that. Just like that girl you knew in high school, she's not the person she was back then either.


message 8: by A.J. (new)

A.J. (ajbobo) | 72 comments There's just no way to "convert" Tolkien's writing into a movie directly. If the Lord of the Rings movies had focused on the same things that he did in the books, half of the movie would have been shots of trees and Helm's Deep would have been about 5 minutes long. Oh, and Fellowship would have been a musical.

On the other hand, Jackson decided to focus on the action. Sure, it's a more shallow way to look at the story, but it makes it accessible. And those of us that care about the characters can see deeper into the movies.

Personally, I hope he sticks with the action for The Hobbit. I really, really want to see the Battle of the Five Armies. The last time I read it, I remember feeling cheated that we didn't actually see it.

As for Rothfuss's comparison with the girl from high school, I can see where he's coming from. But with a book you can go back in time and see her again. Pick it up and read it again. You can get the old emotions back. That's the rather magical thing about books.


message 9: by Sean (new)

Sean O'Hara (seanohara) | 2365 comments A.J. wrote: "As for Rothfuss's comparison with the girl from high school, I can see where he's coming from. "

Creepy stalker dude who can't get over the fact that his fantasy girl has a personality of her own that doesn't conform to his ideal of her?


message 10: by aldenoneil (new)

aldenoneil | 1000 comments Sean wrote: "Creepy stalker dude who can't get over the fact that his fantasy girl has a personality of her own that doesn't conform to his ideal of her?"

Get this man a Realdoll!


message 11: by Doug (new)

Doug (dougoftheabaci) As far as I'm concerned if it's treated in the same way he did the Lord of The Rings movies then, in all likelihood, I'm going to fall madly in love with it and start shouting very loudly at anyone who disagrees with me.


message 12: by Micah (new)

Micah (onemorebaker) | 1071 comments Doug wrote: "As far as I'm concerned if it's treated in the same way he did the Lord of The Rings movies then, in all likelihood, I'm going to fall madly in love with it and start shouting very loudly at anyone..."

That was Mr. Rothfuss's whole point. The movie would be great but that it wouldn't be the same story as the novel he has known and loved for so long.


message 13: by Michael (new)

Michael (michaelbetts) I understand the sentiment, and to a certain extent, I'm there with it. On the one hand, if it's not faithful to the book, what's the point? On the other hand, we nerds (myself included) act as if the book isn't still there to read, in its original state. On the other hand...


back to top