Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

The Lord of theRings is one of the top selling books of all time and was voted book of the 20th century by readers. That is quite successful whatever the literati may have thought fifty or sixty years ago. Most authors and publishers would be happy with that.

Many younger academics find him quite worthy of their attention. Some of them even post here. I like the Harry Potter books though I think Order of the phoenix could have lost a hundred pages. I also think Rowling really loves language as the raw material of her work and knowa her mythology but maybe since I read her as an adult I don't find her world aa engaging.

Academics are probably wising up to the fact that it's now a market out there and students want to study works they feel they will get something out of as opposed to those they are told they should get something out of - and as forums like this prove, there's actually endless picking to be had from Tolkien's work. It will go on regardless.

JK Rowling's Harry Potter books are very under-rated by a lot of adults, but her work too stands up to digging. Just one thing I realised the other day was how she pays homage to Tolkien by using some of his Hobbit surnames. I love Order of the Phoenix for the pin sharp satire on the Civil Service, and maybe a worse enemy even than Voldemort, Dolores Umbridge.

[Rhod the Red]

My memory is strongest about treatment of the first two HP films that the critics were kindest then. However the transfer to film of the latter ones seemed to have irked many, as if Rowling made a mistake getting more serious and darker in the latter books. While I didn't see it as a mistake, because a storyline without flow feels plastic & artificial to me

I guess Rowling was correct that people wayyyy underestimate children's ability to absorb serious issues or events. As if they couldn't hack the latter books & they aren't forced to in their lives, which is rot. Children in Western societies don't life a perfect life in a bubble that can only be pierced by dark books & films; the literary critics perhaps ought to open their minds more.....ahem, lol.

[Lalwendë]

A very nice colleague of mine today crept over and said "Look what I've decided to give another go!" It was an old, but very unbattered copy of Lord of the Rings. A while back she had said to me that she absolutely could not stand the way Tolkien writes, she'd tried to read it and failed. But she went to watch The Hobbit over the Christmas break and now she's been inspired to give Tolkien another go.

I was quite pleased with this.

[littlemanpoet]

I don't know if this applies as an answer to the question in the title, but this may provide indication that the movies will do damage to the themes of the books.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/joeljmi...-of-the-rings/

[Ulvenok]

I think the hobbit will kill the popularity of the genre. People who love it will still love it, but I doubt it will remain popular worldwide, it will have a niche audience like it was meant to have. The lord of the rings movies introduced many to Tolkien, likewise I think the hobbit will de-introduce many to Tolkien. It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know. How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.

In the last years of his life, Tolkien became greatly disappointed by some of the liturgical reforms and changes implemented after the Second Vatican Council, as his grandson Simon Tolkien recalls:

I vividly remember going to church with him in Bournemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn't agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious. He simply had to do what he believed to be right.

As for how Tolkien would have liked this abomination that is the hobbit, I'll let him speak for himself:

However, Tolkien was not fond of all the artistic representation of his works that were produced in his lifetime, and was sometimes harshly disapproving. In 1946, he rejected suggestions for illustrations by Horus Engels for the German edition of The Hobbit as "too Disnified ... Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of".

Tolkien was sceptical of the emerging Tolkien fandom in the United States, and in 1954 he returned proposals for the dust jackets of the American edition of The Lord of the Rings:

Thank you for sending me the projected 'blurbs', which I return. The Americans are not as a rule at all amenable to criticism or correction; but I think their effort is so poor that I feel constrained to make some effort to improve it.

He had dismissed dramatic representations of fantasy in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", first presented in 1939:

In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. [...] Drama is naturally hostile to Fantasy. Fantasy, even of the simplest kind, hardly ever succeeds in Drama, when that is presented as it should be, visibly and audibly acted.

Especially this quote makes it sound like Tolkien would hate the movie.

On receiving a screenplay for a proposed film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings by Morton Grady Zimmerman, Tolkien wrote:

I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.

Tolkien went on to criticize the script scene by scene ("yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings").

From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

It will be cleaner

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know.

Then I guess you'll be leaving the forum then? Have a nice life.

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.

I see Christians dress like biblical characters every Christmas season. People dress up like characters in Dickens novels and I don't know how often I've seen folks dressed up in Shakespearean garb. And then there are hundreds of Renaissance festivals all over the world. Your point is as pointless as Tolkien's was bemoaning losing control of his creation. If he were that adamant about retaining control of his works, then he wouldn't have sold the movie rights to pay tax bills. But he did sell the rights. He took the money. He spent the money. Oh well, so much for self-righteous indignation.

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

Yes, he would hate the films. But he has no one else to blame but himself. He also had no control of how his fans would react to his works. But it's a far sight better that they are dressing up as characters and collecting toys - and in the process buying millions of his books - than it would be if he never sold a single volume. Most starving or fledgling authors would fully welcome such adulation, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

I believe you should retract some of your statements here.

[Ulvenok]

Yes, he would hate the films. But he has no one else to blame but himself.

Really, I'm one of those that think it actually would be possible to make a proper adaption of the book. Jackson did a decent job with the lord of the rings, but he slaughtered the hobbit.

Then I guess you'll be leaving the forum then? Have a nice life.

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff.

That's so interesting. Your interest (from the number of impassioned posts) seems at odds with your shame.

From my point of view, if you can't be true to yourself, why bother? I'd say, Man up!, but that might be considered racist as you might be an elf or dwarf or hobbit or dragon or talking fox or ent or...well, you get the drift.

I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

Wow! Again, you do know that we're discussing movies based (loosely ) on books, not religious or political beliefs, where one states an opinion (sometimes supported by data) and sees what others think? I can remember my first few LotR movies posts ; then when I took a breathe, learned that there were other points of view that, though different from mine, helped me understand the movies so much better.

Anyway, still haven't seen the Hobbit. Might takes the kids some day; probably should read the book to them first.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.

Actually, if my books end up going unread because of the movies, they're likely to see increased longevity.

On the other hand, if the movies bring new readers to Tolkien, some books are likely to take quite a beating.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

I collect toys. I've got almost all of the action figures released with the LotR films. I've been buying the Lego sets lately. I made a seven foot long Nazgul cloak and swanned around in it at Birmingham 2005 and got drunk and laughed at people dressed as Gandalf and the Balrog playing 'Golfimbul' with a fake sword and a doll's head. I also collect the books and have many different editions - we have three different sets of the History of Middle-earth. I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive because I find both of them enjoyable. I'll be the first to admit that I'm being ripped off somewhere along the line and I should probably have invested the cash in a pension or something (dull) instead of helping fill the coffers of the Estate and toy manufacturers, but no, I enjoy it. And I don't care if anyone thinks I'm a fool for that. Geek Pride

[Ulvenok]

Wow! Again, you do know that we're discussing movies based (loosely ) on books, not religious or political beliefs

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.

I collect toys. I've got almost all of the action figures released with the LotR films. I've been buying the Lego sets lately. I made a seven foot long Nazgul cloak and swanned around in it at Birmingham 2005.

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.

Geek Pride

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.

Okay. Others may think that there's a BIG difference, and you may want to understand that difference so that you understand people better.

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.

Sorry if this old man (ancient of days, it seems) chortles at your statement. Ah youth...

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

Hoot! Maybe, Ulvenok, you learn that, with the exception of being rude to or flaming another member, people here are pretty accepting. Heck, I can even post side by side someone who thinks that PJ's Witch King could best Gandalf. I think them completely and utterly wrong, and I tell them so, but I (try) never to get nasty about it.

To each their own. Go ahead, live a little...dress up as Sebastian.

[Rhod the Red]

Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.

He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done.

But then this is half a century later, when film-making has more applicability.

Sir Christopher Lee met Tolkein, did he ever relay a movie-making ever position? No, just frustration at the early attempts.

There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film. That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? For people that see these films first, for many it'll ensure they'll read the books. Whereas if they never saw it in the cinema probably would never have read them even if you recommend them as a friend or something.

This was my position on the Harry Potter series. After seeing the 1978 rendition of TLotR I was determined to watch PJ's translation, even if it wasn't 100%; I was already a fan & understood the facts that had to be accepted. They hype about the HP series only was confirmed for me after I saw the first HP film in 2001. That's how some minds click. It's only fair to just accept it, not assume that all others don't really know or appreciate things. That's just snobbery

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.

You mean politics, religion, mythology and fantasy novels, surely?

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.

Me neither! Let us both rejoice! Down with the overweight and bespectacled!

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

Interesting. I'd have thought being ashamed to let anyone even know you visit a forum some members of which collect "toys and stuff" counts as "really caring", alright.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film.

Is there? I have never heard anyone (with the possible exception of Ulvenok here) express this view-I have, however, very often heard people accuse others of holding it, because they complain about lack of fidelity in an adaptation. Not the same thing.

That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? ??

You would if the clones turned out deformed monstrosities, surely? Not the best choice of analogy there, I think.

[Zigûr]

While I believe that the films would be far more dramatically effective if they hewed closer to the original texts I don't think that they're especially damaging in and of themselves. I think the main danger they pose is the potential to trivialise discourse on the subject of Professor Tolkien's work by having this Hollywood filter layered over the top. I don't mean to say that's a fact, just something I think might be a risk. The films are, in my view at least, rather shallow (thematically) compared to the source material and I am occasionally concerned about their presence in culture getting in the way of a deeper appreciation of Professor Tolkien's work, not in isolation necessarily but at least in terms of its own merits.
That being said I believe Professor Tolkien might possibly have been more agreeable to a film adaptation if in his time there had been the kind of modern techniques and technology which can bring Faerie to life on the screen today. His main objection seems to me to have been this attitude of changing things for no particular reason.
I suppose that's why I find An Unexpected Journey to be a good deal more disingenuous as an adaptation than the films of The Lord of the Rings: I can just imagine someone watching that film, deciding to read the book and being bewildered by how brief and utterly different in tone it is to the adaptation. The films of the LR make major changes in terms of plot and characterisation but the atmosphere and pacing are more comparable (in The Fellowship of the Ring at least). Actually maybe Fellowship is the only good example...

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I think the hobbit will kill the popularity of the genre. People who love it will still love it, but I doubt it will remain popular worldwide, it will have a niche audience like it was meant to have. The lord of the rings movies introduced many to Tolkien, likewise I think the hobbit will de-introduce many to Tolkien. It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know. How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.

As for how Tolkien would have liked this abomination that is the hobbit, I'll let him speak for himself:


Especially this quote makes it sound like Tolkien would hate the movie.

From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

It will be cleaner

Dear Lord where to start...

Well let's start with your first paragraph here,(Which later you contradict but claiming not to judge, by the way) Your first paragraph is probably the most on-topic of this diatribe. You claim that The Hobbit will "de-inroduce" many to tolkien. I disagree I think the Movie, being more action packed, will bring in more readers.

I think Tolkien's book is fantastic and works on paper on screen through if you think about it there are pretty good chunks of time in the book of really nothing occuring outside of Bilbo and Bombor complaining.

Now then you continue on calling people pathetic, for dressing up and enjoying their fandom. I actually owe my recent weight loss to geekness(a contradiction for sure) I was 245lbs(about... estimating 110-125 kilos something like that 2.2 lbs per kilo) now I'm at 202 because I wanted to dress up in a cool costume and look good in it.

More fans can mean more longegevity even in a fairly secluded forum such as this. Even you with your...shall we say... contreversial, opinions bring new conversation to the board. Without new comers how can we keep the conversations alive only so many times to go over whether or not balrogs have wings(they do deal with it)

Then you talk about religion as if it's on the same level as Tolkien. I'm assuming you were just trying to get a rise out of people.

You're ashamed to be a geek? You must still be in Junior High. Such distinctions have no real say in the real world. I consider my style Business Geek. looking at me I'm a very well kept and groomed guy but you look at my arms you'll see on the right a triforce/mad hatter tattoo on the other a video game spell/Dr who tattoo. Yet I'm a Manager at myplace of business and held in fairly high regard by the district managers.

Let me give you some advice, don't be ashamed to like something, don't be afraid to admit you like something. Truth, truth is all that matters. If you're too scared to admit you like Lord of the Rings which is currently a fairly main stream interest(a theme park planned and everything) then you'll never be able to fully and whole heartedly pursue a more important dream. A more worthy goal.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

Really, I'm one of those that think it actually would be possible to make a proper adaption of the book. Jackson did a decent job with the lord of the rings, but he slaughtered the hobbit.

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

I also wanted to respond to this sorry for the double post.

Jackson didn't do too bad with LoTR though honestly I found his changes far more glaring in those movies than The Hobbit.

I still love the last March of the Ents in the bbok I was in awe but on Screen chills, literally. I was hypnotized by that scene.

Again heed my advice if you can't be honest about talking about Tolkien how can be honest about more important things? My wife knew the day nay the hour we met that I was a geek through and through I've been a geek since at least first grade got my first pair of glasses and was THRILLED(my favorite ranger being th blue ranger who wore glasses) Of course I met my wife when she bonked me in the head with a sword so the whole geek thing worked in the situation.

Again with the muslim/taliban comparison? Us liking LoTR and dressing like characters doesn't compare to blowing up cars and

Things of that nature. and frankly if us in costumes makes us the talibanm that makes you the "regular" muslim which mean you worship Tolkien 5 times a day is that really more sane? See how silly it sounds now.

Comicon in San Diego is HUGE. Bi Bang Theory one of the hottest shows on. Super Hero movies are blockbusters LoTR and TH BLock busters. Star Wars is EVERYWHERE. Harry Potter is a featured area in universal And J.K Rowling is the first person to become a Billionare from writing books.

Geekdom is no longer a niche. We're mainstream. You seem to just want to be the kid that hates Tolkien now because "he sold out man!"

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

I don't quite know how to break this to you, but calling people or the activities they engage in 'pathetic' is pretty much the definition of judging them.

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.

He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done.

I've got to disagree with you on two counts here. First, I wouldn't say that film making in Tolkien's time was crude. 'In Tolkien's time' would be up to 1973, so already you've got brilliant special effects pictures like 2001. But since the discussion is about the Zimmerman script, let's limit ourselves to pre-1958; still we're in a period where many cinematic masterpieces had been, or were being, made. Even before The Hobbit was written, you have pictures like King Kong that used special effects to depict monsters and fantastical creatures. Film-making was far from a primitive thing when Tolkien wrote his critique of the script; it was already a highly developed art form and a huge industry.

Second, I don't think it's correct to say that Tolkien dismissed attempts to film his work because he thought they could not be achieved technically. It wasn't that he didn't think the visual effects would be convincing; it was that he objected to the proposed changes to plot and character. None of the concerns that he mentioned, as far as I can recall, had anything to do with the technical aspects of film-making. So I can't imagine that the superior technology available today would have had any effect whatsoever on his opinions regarding cinematic adaptation.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Second, I don't think it's correct to say that Tolkien dismissed attempts to film his work because he thought they could not be achieved technically. It wasn't that he didn't think the visual effects would be convincing; it was that he objected to the proposed changes to plot and character. None of the concerns that he mentioned, as far as I can recall, had anything to do with the technical aspects of film-making. So I can't imagine that the superior technology available today would have had any effect whatsoever on his opinions regarding cinematic adaptation.

Agreed in fact it could be argued with available technology used as a crutch the writing would be even further off(I don't know what the zimmerman script looked like so I'm not positive on this.

[Rhod the Red]

Also inspired a lot of art. I recommend deviantart.com

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Also inspired a lot of art. I recommend deviantart.com

On the flipside what with the saturation of imagery from the films in our culture it can be very difficult to find book-inspired art on deviantart! It's always a nice surprise to find something which hews a bit more closely to the original text and its implied aesthetics.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

On the flipside what with the saturation of imagery from the films in our culture it can be very difficult to find book-inspired art on devianart!

It can be very difficult to find art on deviantArt...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

On the flipside what with the saturation of imagery from the films in our culture it can be very difficult to find book-inspired art on deviantart! It's always a nice surprise to find something which hews a bit more closely to the original text and its implied aesthetics.

It saddens me when I see images that so clearly represent Viggo Mortensen or any of the other actors from the movies.

The joy of drawing Tolkien is to use one's own imagination from the words to create a unique visual image, rather than to replicate another image.

[Lalwendë]

To be fair, deviantart is used by a heck of a lot of young people, especially teens, to show off their work, and I remember spending a lot of time copying other images either outright or adapting them when I was learning to draw.

And then of course, there is slash art

[Bêthberry]

True enough. I remember when we saw the students copying the masterpieces at the Louvre--my kids were very small but they insisted they had to draw too. So my guidebook to the Louvre has their pencil sketches in it too, as I had no other paper.

But what really sparked my reply, and the mention of Viggo, was a picture I saw passed around on FB. It had exquisite technique but it was of a movie shot and it broke my heart that such talent was spent on a movie image rather than an original interpretation. It is true that we take our inspiration wherever we find it, and that everyone has the right of interpretation. Yet that does not mean we cannot also comment upon things. One does not cancel out the other.

[Rhod the Red]

There are variations, including non-film drawings. Like search Gandalf, Saruman & Radagast. Maybe half the results are non-film

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

True enough. I remember when we saw the students copying the masterpieces at the Louvre--my kids were very small but they insisted they had to draw too. So my guidebook to the Louvre has their pencil sketches in it too, as I had no other paper.

But what really sparked my reply, and the mention of Viggo, was a picture I saw passed around on FB. It had exquisite technique but it was of a movie shot and it broke my heart that such talent was spent on a movie image rather than an original interpretation. It is true that we take our inspiration wherever we find it, and that everyone has the right of interpretation. Yet that does not mean we cannot also comment upon things. One does not cancel out the other.

If someone has done their drawing practise by copying something they may be justly proud of the results - my Art teacher used to tell me off for copying pictures when I was drawing but I argued it was good practise, especially as life models aren't something you get in schools.

I often worry though, whether these exquisite drawings are genuine or done on one of these computer packages that turn your photos into sketches...and I'm not that impressed by pure skill if there's no originality behind it. It's nice, but is it Art?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I saw the film over the hols and thoroughly enjoyed it -- sure, it wasn't the book, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was very pleasantly surprised to see how much of the 'added' material was actually true to Tolkien's other writings and I also very much enjoyed how the 'tone' of the movie was more in keeping with how Tolkien himself wanted to revision the book after having written LotR. I could have done without several of the scenes (which were really just Jackson being self-indulgent and nobody having the authority or balls to tell him that they really needed to be cut -- the dwarves tidying Bilbo's table, Radagast nursing the hedgehog (I mean, really!) and about half the Council-scene at Rivendell) but for the rest it was very well done. I am quite excited about the sequels.

Oh, and for the people who have been complaining that the 48 fps makes it look 'fake'...it isn't real to begin with...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I saw the film over the hols and thoroughly enjoyed it -- sure, it wasn't the book, but I wasn't expecting it to be. I was very pleasantly surprised to see how much of the 'added' material was actually true to Tolkien's other writings and I also very much enjoyed how the 'tone' of the movie was more in keeping with how Tolkien himself wanted to revision the book after having written LotR. I could have done without several of the scenes (which were really just Jackson being self-indulgent and nobody having the authority or balls to tell him that they really needed to be cut -- the dwarves tidying Bilbo's table, Radagast nursing the hedgehog (I mean, really!) and about half the Council-scene at Rivendell) but for the rest it was very well done. I am quite excited about the sequels.

Oh, and for the people who have been complaining that the 48 fps makes it look 'fake'...it isn't real to begin with...

Am I seeing things? Is that really Fordim Hedgethistle back on the Downs? and using British slang?

Welcome back, Fordy.

Originally Posted by Lal

I often worry though, whether these exquisite drawings are genuine or done on one of these computer packages that turn your photos into sketches...and I'm not that impressed by pure skill if there's no originality behind it. It's nice, but is it Art?

There are computer packages that can do that?

But then Renaissance artists often had students finish their paintings or work on small areas, if I am not mistaken, so I suppose there have always been apps for artists.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Am I seeing things? Is that really Fordim Hedgethistle back on the Downs? and using British slang?

Welcome back, Fordy.



There are computer packages that can do that?

But then Renaissance artists often had students finish their paintings or work on small areas, if I am not mistaken, so I suppose there have always been apps for artists.

On a fairly related note. There are companies that do "between work" for cartoons that is the animators of the show make image a and e which are the main poses then they outsource the actual animation bits to another studio. King of the hill had theirs done in korea(yay for dvd commentary.

Also I think "non original" drawings are great ways to practice then you can expand into doing your own stuff.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

On a fairly related note. There are companies that do "between work" for cartoons that is the animators of the show make image a and e which are the main poses then they outsource the actual animation bits to another studio. King of the hill had theirs done in korea(yay for dvd commentary.

But it has always been the practice for lead animators to draw the key frames only while juniors do the "tweening"- sounds like you're describing a variant on that.

[Suldaledhel]

I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Suldaledhel

I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

Do my eyes deceive me? Talk about a blast from the past.

That's interesting about Dwarves in general being popular. What would be the cause, if that's the case?

[Kuruharan]

After seeing the movie, my wife is now reading The Hobbit for the first time in many years.

Her first comment after starting her re-read, "I'd forgotten how many things were different between the movie and the book."

[Suldaledhel]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Do my eyes deceive me? Talk about a blast from the past.

That's interesting about Dwarves in general being popular. What would be the cause, if that's the case?

'It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door,' he used to say. 'You step onto the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.'

Turns out Bilbo was right.

As for Dwarves, I am tempted to note the stout fellows' surge in popularity amongst the video game community over the past several years, including the antics of a particular bunch of (immensely popular) video game commentators. However, I do not believe this to be the cause of the trend.

I do think a (statistically) significant measure of their uptick in recent years comes as a reaction inspired by the present social climate in many Western nations. However, this is certainly not the thread - or the forum - for such musings, and I hope our esteemed moderators will pardon this brief foray into the thickets of Off-Topic.

To return On-Topic, I think there's something to the phrase that all press is good press. In my humble, anecdotal experience, the movie has served to entice those with a fleeting interest in Fantasy to actually pick up the book, while those with no interest remain unaffected. For what it's worth, I've yet to hear of anyone refusing to read the book as a direct result of watching the film.

[Aiwendil]

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

As far as I could see, though, there weren't many Dwarves in the movie at all - unless you mean those nearly-beardless, hoodless, too-handsome young men with their Hollywood-trope of a leader who so rudely ransacked Bilbo's pantries. But, having read the memoirs of this Mr. Baggins myself (translated into the English by a certain professor Tolkien - perhaps you've heard of him?), which deal extensively with Dwarves, I feel reasonably confident in asserting that those persons in the film were not Dwarves.

(Sorry. I didn't care for the film - can you tell?)

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Suldaledhel

I've had numerous relations practically begging for my copy of the book after seeing the movie, which is a phenomenon I did not experience during the release of any of the LoTR movies.

I was tempted to think it had to do with the general accessibility of The Hobbit vs. LoTR, but, honestly, I think people just really like dwarves these days.

Well my younger cousins who borrowed Lotr from me haven't bothered to see the hobbit despite still being in the supposed target demographic. The elder said I 've heard its a bit.. and pulled a face.....

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Well my younger cousins who borrowed Lotr from me haven't bothered to see the hobbit despite still being in the supposed target demographic. The elder said I 've heard its a bit.. and pulled a face.....

I can't say I've exactly had a steady stream of people beating my door down to get at my copy of The Hobbit since the film opened. Or indeed, so far, heard anyone talk about being inspired to read the book for the first time. However. I'm not sure how far you can extrapolate from personal experience in this case.