The Hobbit in July 2007?

[Sauron the White]

William ... I find it revealing that the two scenes you lead with - the charge of the Rohirrim and the death speech of Boromir - have been listed as some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films. The beacons scene was almost universally praised (perhaps with exception from the sacred cadre of True Believers) for its beauty and scope.

But of course you are nitpicking at one or two tiles rather than the beauty of the entire mosaic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, I can nitpick for pages given time. Look, I'll credit PJ (and Shore) for the Beacons sequence itself- unlike some purists I'll forgive him the logistical absurdity and geographical deviation from the book for the sake of sheer visual drama. But why the hell did Pippin light them? Because Gandalf told him to- countermanding the orders of the lawful Lord and Steward! Who didn't want them lit because his character was rewritten (and, yes, dumbed down) to make him a stock-Hollywood demented ogre.

So why not have them lit as Gandalf and Pippin are riding south, as in the book? Because PJ thinks he can "improve" one of the great stories of the 20th century- and in the process push might-for-right in total contravention of the books' moral compass.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

[quote]some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films.[quote]

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

[Imladris]

Oh my goodness someone let the children out.

However, I'd like to say that it's rather silly to say that since PJ produced a dumbed down Hollywood-ised version of Lotr/a wonderful beautiful film of LotR that the Hobbit will be the same. After all, look at PJs old track record --~~ I think most will agree that LotR was quite a step up from his norm, and there are a lot of other examples as well, including Tolkien. Most people I talk to (and I share this opinion) think that the Silmarillion does not add up to LotR, and that The Hobbit is inferior or superior, etc.

[Sir Kohran]

[QUOTE=William Cloud Hickli;528249][quote]some of the fan favorite scenes in several polls. I remember one on another Tolkien web site, either board77.net or torc.com in which the Boromir scene was voted as the best scene in any of the 3 films.

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

He said Tolkien web site, not movie fanboys.

[Sauron the White]

from William

Do I sound like someone who gives a rat's heinie what movie fanboys think?

Obviously not - but that was never the point. Only that several of the scenes you were so disgusted with are the favorites of a much larger audience. And in this case an audience of Tolkien fans - not rabid fanboys as Kohran pointed out. You have every right to march out of step with the rest of the world. And you can even tell yourself that only you are marching properly. Thats freedom.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from William



Obviously not - but that was never the point. Only that several of the scenes you were so disgusted with are the favorites of a much larger audience. And in this case an audience of Tolkien fans - not rabid fanboys as Kohran pointed out. You have every right to march out of step with the rest of the world. And you can even tell yourself that only you are marching properly. Thats freedom.

Yes, but ...

We need to get some perspective here. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas. The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

[Sir Kohran]

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers.

No, that's Eragon. The LOTR trilogy was ground breaking because it was capable of making profit and being deep, thoughtful and powerful in a way most movies don't bother to be.

but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien.

Of course not. They're not books. They're not supposed to.

PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Again, more generalisations. If this was all the movies were made for then they could have made Independence Day or Pirates Of The Caribbean or some other mindless flick. The LOTR films are much more than that.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas.

Speaking for myself, I want to outlive everything. But lets hope you are correct. That would make me happy.

While you are making predictions as statements of fact would you be good enough to provide some winning lottery numbers for me?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

No, that's Eragon. The LOTR trilogy was ground breaking because it was capable of making profit and being deep, thoughtful and powerful in a way most movies don't bother to be.

Not to me. But perhaps our definitions of what constitutes depth, thoughtfulness & power are different. I found them overall shallow, thoughtless & weak. Any depth thought & power they contained - which was precious little - was lifted straight from the book. What they film-makers added was the nonsense, triviality & action movie idiocy. Whatever is in them that makes them at all bearable came from the books - & most of that was so messed up by the movie makers that if I hadn't already known the books I would have missed it.

[Sauron the White]

Lets be very frank here. There was stuff in the books that thank God did not make it into the films because it could have potentially stunk up the theater. Tom the Hippie Spiritgod leads the list. But the idea of Sam forever pawing and petting Frodo would have produced a good deal more than nervous titters and laughter had they kept that sort of thing in. Being faithful to the book could have been a disaster. If they had kept to the timeline and the hobbits took as long to leave the Shire as they did in the books, the theaters would have half emptied in boredom. Just a few examples.

The oft repeated litany by the True Believers is that "if it was good it came from the book - it it was original it was bad" echoes here yet again. What about the death scene of Boromir? Lines of dialogue were added that were sheer poetry and very touching emotionally to much of the audience. In the book the death scene is sparse and simple - in the film its and emotional touchstone which was one of the highlights of the films.

This is an example of starting with the source material of JRRT and adding to it and tweaking it for film. That is the way it is suppose to work.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Lets be very frank here.

I do agree with this...

So some of us like action movies with overdramatisation and overheroisation that nears ridiculousness. And that's fine.

Some of us like more thoughtful movies that build the characters and express the emotions and the twists of the storyline in a more elaborate and delicate, in more nuanced way.

That wasn't a neutral formulation but let's follow the trend here.


I must say that I myself would have loved to see an original and "deep" interpretation of the books - even if it would have departed from the books a fair deal. To me it's more that they would be good as movies. For Tolkien's LotR I can always refer to the books on my shelf and a straight sentence by sentence rendering surely would be painful to look at. As I said earlier, movies and books are different things.

But I can't say PJ's filmatisation was anything near original or deep or having any other possible high qualities - except looking very beautiful indeed and the musical score was great as well. But just thinking about the directing (both the storyline and directing the actors), the added things (thence PJ's personal ideas) or the style with which he narrated the script (remember he didn't narrate the LotR but a script they had made from the books)... well not so far from Eragon or Kingdom of Heaven... or what say you?

Though you're right in saying that fex. Boromir's death was pretty well done... like indeed the cutback scene were Boromir and Faramir celebrated Osgiliath won back and then their father came... and there are some others. So yes, there were good moments. But having 10+ hours of film in our hands it would have been more than a disaster if they hadn't manage to make even a single decent scene...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

We need to get some perspective here.

Yes, a little perspective would be nice....

*The Dark Elf eyes the remainder of davem's post suspiciously*

Originally Posted by davem

The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien is a literary masterpiece which will outlast us all & will live alongside the works of Homer, Virgil, Malory & the Icelandic Sagas.

Hmmm....so much for perspective. I think perhaps even Tolkien would consider your statement to be presumptuous, if not a bit flippant. I am not as certain as you are in casting LotR in such august company, particularly since educators, editors and publishers (who, of course, write the textbooks and literary compilations) do not necessarily share your extreme position. One of my favorite texts is 'The Land and Literature of England (A Historical Account)' by Robert M. Adams, a witty and often profound literary commentator. Adams offers a one line mention of Tolkien in the book (in the same sentence as C.S. Lewis, coincidently):

Meanwhile, C.S. Lewis, long a belligerent conversationalist for Christianity, enjoyed fresh accesses of popularity for the witty apologetics of The Screwtape Letters (1942); and J.R.R. Tolkien, slowly meditating an entire new world out of his Anglo-Saxon studies, produced in The Lord of the Rings tetralogy a cosmos exotic in its coloring but deeply Christian in its structure.

It is an excellent summation for the tail-end of a compound sentence, don't you think? Meanwhile, Malory receives several pages of commentary, and I believe that's about it for Tolkien in the literary world...a footnote. When discussing British writers of the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell and James Joyce get far more critical comment. That's the reality of the literary situation the good professor is up against. I think LotR is categorized by many critics in the same manner as Watership Down, or The Once and Future King, which David Garnett, the formidable publisher, writer and member of the Bloomsbury Group, described as "one the curious classics of English literature". 'Curious' is used as almost a pejorative adjective.

Originally Posted by davem

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

These movies are pleasant enough entertainment if you want to spend a thought free few hours, but they can't be classed alongside the work of a literary artist like JRR Tolkien. Tolkien's work is for the ages. PJ's movies are for 3 hours with a pizza & a couple of beers.

Oh come now, you are being a little too hard on the movies, aren't you? First of all, I can't believe I am pressed into defending Peter Jackson (ah, the irony!), but for all the innumerable scripting/plot flaws (which I think everyone can agree are at the heart of vehement opposition), visually the films are astounding, and the cinematography and design work alone merits the critical acclaim the movies received (particularly the work of Alan Lee and John Howe). The films make the Star Wars debacles sophomoric (I would put up the Gollum characterization against Jar-Jar Binks any day). Technically speaking, Jackson trumps Lucas in nearly every aspect of filmmaking (not that it's hard, but critics always seem to use Star Wars as a comparative basis for films of the genre).

Speaking of Gollum, I believe his portrayal was superb, and there are numerous moments throughout the films that literally mirror Middle-earth in splendor and awe (I always crank the DTS 6.1 when the balrog squares off against Gandalf). The Shire and Bag-end are just as I pictured it (and the repartee between Sir Ian Mckellan and Sir Ian Holm is a pleasure).

Is it the best film ever made, or in my top 50? No, not by a long shot, but I could place it at the rear of my top 100 somewhere, and that's saying something (for me anyway). But like so many others I bemoan the fact that if Jackson had not been so heavyhanded with his script changes (as I stated elsewhere, most of which were utterly unnecessary), then the LotR films would be much higher in my esteem. Had Jackson maintained the (somewhat) lore appropriate nature of FotR for the balance of the last two movies, the effect would have been much greater. Such scope and sheer will! It was a monumental and exhausting undertaking for Jackson, I am sure; unfortunately, it seems his ego grew with each successive film.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm....so much for perspective. I think perhaps even Tolkien would consider your statement to be presumptuous, if not a bit flippant. I am not as certain as you are in casting LotR in such august company, particularly since educators, editors and publishers (who, of course, write the textbooks and literary compilations) do not necessarily share your extreme position. One of my favorite texts is 'The Land and Literature of England (A Historical Account)' by Robert M. Adams, a witty and often profound literary commentator. Adams offers a one line mention of Tolkien in the book (in the same sentence as C.S. Lewis, coincidently):

I'd never heard of Mr Adams before. I can only say that LotR is not a 'tetralogy' & certainly isn't 'Christian in its structure' As Robert Cook points out re Njal's Saga in his introduction to the Penguin edition:

Such a view is based on a false opposition between Pagan & Christian; it overlooks the fact that there are other Pagan virtues than heroism & pride, & that humility & willingness to make peace are among them....(the writer) is not preaching a sermon, nor writing a theological treatise, for he knows that the two systems are in many ways compatible.

I think that statement could be applied to Tolkien's Legendarium. For Mr Adams to misunderstand Tolkien's work so profoundly & dismiss it so curtly doesn't inspire me with any faith in his other opinions.

It is an excellent summation for the tail-end of a compound sentence, don't you think? Meanwhile, Malory receives several pages of commentary, and I believe that's about it for Tolkien in the literary world...a footnote. When discussing British writers of the first half of the 20th Century, George Orwell and James Joyce get far more critical comment. That's the reality of the literary situation the good professor is up against. I think LotR is categorized by many critics in the same manner as Watership Down, or The Once and Future King, which David Garnett, the formidable publisher, writer and member of the Bloomsbury Group, described as "one the curious classics of English literature". 'Curious' is used as almost a pejorative adjective.

I know that the 'literary world' doesn't care for Tolkien. The literati are so far up their own fundamentals that the resemble an ouroboros. I honestly don't care what David Garnett thinks of Watership Down. Why are you telling me about these psople? Who are they? Are they still alive, or do I have to dig them up to throw stones at them?

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by davem

They are clearly all wrong if they found the LotR movies anything more than standard Hollywood fare. Overblown, dumbed down & tiresome.

Overblown- yes, I agree. With the technology we have, everything in film is overblown these days. But honestly, I think if the scenes of LotR weren't overblown, the film would be boring to most audience members, including myself (I admit it...I love the overblown stuff ).

Dumbed-down- well, I don't think the entire movies are...but I agree that certain scenes are dumbed-down. But let's face it: most people are idiots, and most have not read the books. The film is targeted towards not only book fans, but everyone else who enjoys watching movies (including those who have not read the books). *gasp* And therefore, some scenes must be dumbed-down in order to make sense for these ignorant audience members. It sucks, but it's true.

Tiresome- now this I don't really understand. Do you mean tiresome in the Hollywood sense? But I don't really see how LotR could have not been Hollywoodish...with the big budget and all, if that's what you mean. Because honestly, a low-budget independent LotR would've been terrible without the great casting and effects.

Originally Posted by davem

The LotR movies by Peter Jackson were made to bump up studio profits & flog popcorn to teenagers. If it wasn't for the possibility of a Hobbit movie the LotR movies would by now have faded into obscurity.

Now this here, I have to disagree with. First of all, New Line may have taken on LotR for the profit, but that wasn't PJ's primary reason. Yes, ultimately he does want to make money; he's a director...that's his job. But PJ was an LotR fan from childhood and no director could've spent the amount of time that he did without some heart.

Secondly, I believe LotR will remain a legacy for decades to come...perhaps in a similar way Star Wars has. I hear the film discussed by others quite frequently, and a lot of the people I overhear or talk about it with aren't hardcore fans and aren't completely aware that The Hobbit is even expected to come out. I'm a film major, and already in one of my classes, I recall my professor using LotR as an example when he taught a brief lesson on screenwriting. And that wasn't the only class where the films were discussed. LotR revolutionized the visual effects world...particularly with Gollum. Really, the trilogy has made quite an impact on the film industry...in many ways. So, I don't think they'll be forgotten anytime soon.

Personally, (and right now I feel like I'm the only one) I love the films. I mean, I won't say every second is perfect...there were certain scenes I was quite upset about, but I thought as a whole PJ did a beautiful job. I have seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations, but this is not one of them. In fact, the incredible use of detail in the film and amazing post-production is what helped me decide my career path. How they created the sound and visual effects, plus the editing is just...wow. Of course, perhaps I think this way because I try not to spend to much time comparing the book and film and would rather appreciate a film by its quality alone (and I admit, it's not always easy to do when you've read the book first).

When it comes to The Hobbit, part of me would like to see a new director who could create a much lighter atmosphere to the story, but ultimately, I think I would choose PJ over that. Because with PJ, at least he has dedication and we will somewhat know what we're getting. Plus, with him, much of the cast and crew needed will most likely return...and it is those other people we need the most in order for this film to work. While some of you may not like the LotR films, just remember: it could be a lot worse. There are more directors out there who could potentially completely botch The Hobbit rather than create a masterpiece, and I'd rather not let them get their grimy hands on it.

A film adaptation will never be as good as its book...there will always be cuts and changes, as much as any fan will hate it. But as I said, a film should be judged as a film regardless of where the script came from. If you try too hard to compare its quality to the book, of course you'll hate the movie. If you can't separate the two versions from each other and appreciate them individually, then it's probably best not to see the film at all. Hey...at least it'll save you money....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

I'd never heard of Mr Adams before. I can only say that LotR is not a 'tetralogy' & certainly isn't 'Christian in its structure' As Robert Cook points out re Njal's Saga in his introduction to the Penguin edition: I think that statement could be applied to Tolkien's Legendarium. For Mr Adams to misunderstand Tolkien's work so profoundly & dismiss it so curtly doesn't inspire me with any faith in his other opinions.

You are missing the point. This is a college level textbook. Adams wasn't being dismissive per se, rather, in a general summation of English literature from Beowulf to the present a small blurb is all that Tolkien warrants. Unfortunate perhaps, but generally academics would not share in your placing LotR with The Iliad, Beowulf or the Völuspá.

Originally Posted by davem

I know that the 'literary world' doesn't care for Tolkien. The literati are so far up their own fundamentals that the resemble an ouroboros. I honestly don't care what David Garnett thinks of Watership Down. Why are you telling me about these psople? Who are they? Are they still alive, or do I have to dig them up to throw stones at them?

Please, do try to pay attention. You needn't dig anyone up to stone them back into their graves. I was referring to Garnett's review of The Once and Future King as a 'curious classic' because that is the manner in which most critics view books in the fantasy genre. I know you don't care really what they think, and I wasn't agreeing with them; you merely stated "We need to get some perspective here", and I offered some perspective.

[Nimrodel_9]

Oh my goodness someone let the children out.

Perhaps we shall create a new thread? I find this off-topic arguement very amusing.

I'm not taking sides. I love the movies. I thought PJ did a beautiful job. Yes, there are parts that he went a little overboard, but the films are beautiful nonetheless. As for the books, they are also works of art, but there are parts in them as well that make you fall asleep. Any book or movie is like this. Anyone who disagrees can write a book or direct a movie that is exciting the whole time.... you will be the only one who thinks so, but that's ok.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You are missing the point. This is a college level textbook. Adams wasn't being dismissive per se, rather, in a general summation of English literature from Beowulf to the present a small blurb is all that Tolkien warrants. Unfortunate perhaps, but generally academics would not share in your placing LotR with The Iliad, Beowulf or the Völuspá.

Yes, but I could list a bunch of academics like Tom Shippey, Michael Drout, Verlyn Flieger & Jane Chance (who is a also a professor but whose books on Tolkien aren't actually very good) who would hold the opposite opinion & consider Tolkien to be a major literary figure, & all of whom are contributors to the journal Tolkien Studies. So I wouldn't give too much credit to someone like Adams. There are Tolkien courses at a number of universities on both sides of the atlantic, so I don't think you can hold up Adams as 'typical'. In fact, as time goes by I suspect that he will be part of an incresingly tiny minority of critics who fail to understand or appreciate Tolkien's work.

Please, do try to pay attention. You needn't dig anyone up to stone them back into their graves. I was referring to Garnett's review of The Once and Future King as a 'curious classic' because that is the manner in which most critics view books in the fantasy genre. I know you don't care really what they think, and I wasn't agreeing with them; you merely stated "We need to get some perspective here", and I offered some perspective.

But I really think a great deal could be gained by throwing stones at them, & if I'm prepared to spend some of my precious spare time doing so I can't see why that's a problem.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But PJ was an LotR fan from childhood

That is simply untrue. PR flack bullhockety. Garden manure spread around to quell readers' suspicions. PJ read the book one time, on a train ride at 17.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

In fact, as time goes by I suspect that he will be part of an incresingly tiny minority of critics who fail to understand or appreciate Tolkien's work.

While the cynic in me doubts the reach of reason in academia or the literary world in general, I do applaud your enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by davem

But I really think a great deal could be gained by throwing stones at them, & if I'm prepared to spend some of my precious spare time doing so I can't see why that's a problem.

Well, Garnett is dead, so stoning him will not be much of a challenge; however, Adams, although in his 70's might prove a little bit more of a difficult target...just give him a bit of a running start.

Oh, and you'd might like to read Adams critique of the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works in general in a 1997 review in the New York Review of Books (Adams was a contributor to the Review from 1962 to 1995). I am sure it will lead you to start amassing a goodly amount of throwing stones for your new hobby...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8321

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by William

PJ read the book one time, on a train ride at 17.

Okay, I admit I thought him a bit younger, but nevertheless 17 is still a child. A very old child, but still technically a child. And it only takes one read to capture a fan...

[Morthoron]

Another thought, all this wrangling between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema et al, and whether or not the Hobbit will be ever filmed concerns the vast accretion of wealth (or the withholding of said filthy lucre as the case maybe) that The Hobbit is certain to amass. Isn't it a supreme irony that no one would have ever gotten the film rights to Tolkien's works if he had not been financially strapped and sold them out of desperation rather than conviction? It would seem the One Ring was not destroyed but melted down and minted into coinage for capitalistic endeavors.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Oh, and you'd might like to read Adams critique of the Silmarillion and Tolkien's works in general in a 1997 review in the New York Review of Books (Adams was a contributor to the Review from 1962 to 1995). I am sure it will lead you to start amassing a goodly amount of throwing stones for your new hobby...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8321

What a bone to give the stone throwers! That is a fascinating journey through Tolkien's texts and I'm sure it would even deserve its own thread for analysis.

For now, I am much entertained by this passage.

Originally Posted by Robert M. Adams

Above all, Tolkien has a fascination with names for their own sake that will probably seem excessive to anyone whose favorite light reading is not the first book of Chronicles.

>>>It came to pass [Chapter Ten informs us] during the second age of the captivity of Melkor that Dwarves came over the Blue Mountains of Ered Luin into Beleriand. Themselves they named Khazâd, but the Sindar called them Naugrim, the Stunted People, and Gonnhirrim, Masters of Stone. Far to the east were the most ancient dwellings of the Naugrim, but they had delved for themselves great halls and mansions, after the manner of their kind, in the eastern side of Ered Luin; and those cities were named in their own tongue Gabilgathol and Tumunzahar. To the north of the great height of Mount Dolmed was Gabilgathol, which the Elves interpreted in their tongue Belegost, that is Mickleburg; and southward was delved Tumunzahar, by the Elves named Nogrod, the Hollowbold. Greatest of all the mansions of the Dwarves was Khazad-dûm, the Dwarrowdelf, Hadhodrond in the Elvish tongue, that was afterwards in the days of its darkness called Moria; but it was far off in the Mountains of Mist beyond the wide leagues of Eriador, and to the Eldar came but as a name and a rumour from the words of the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains.<<<


Three or four names for each city of the Dwarves represent only a very small beginning; there is also an intricate genealogy of Elves to be mastered, a complete pantheon of Valar, various groups and combinations of men, plus a whole spectrum of special creatures—Ungoliant, Carcharoth, sundry Balrogs, Glaurungs, Maiars, and Periannath, the latter being, as it happens, Hobbits.


Such a barricade of grotesque and semi-pronounceable names is no small obstacle to a venturesome reader; but in fact the names are also a good part of the book's reward. Like the portmanteau words of "Jabberwocky" or the deeper and more violent conglomerates of Finnegans Wake, many of them sink into the mind, disintegrating the smooth and accepted conventions of everyday English to memorable effect. The dragon Smaug, the wicked and menacing Nazgûl, the Ents of Fangorn—such rich and mouthy names keep the mind busy tangling and untangling their phonemes. But when one has to keep Elendë (which is a name of Eldamar) distinct from Elendil the son of Amandil, and both distinct from Elendur the son of Isildur, while Elrond, Elros, Eluréd, and Elurín hover in the neighborhood, the effect is an irritating blur.

Adams is clearly an astute enough and venturesome reader to tap into the very fountainhead of Tolkien's creativity, his philology. Whatever else Adams says, he is certainly to be commended for this.

By the by, this thread is entitled The Hobbit in July 2007. We've got two weeks left.

[davem]

Well, he should try reading some Icelandic sagas, where every other character's name seems to be a variation on 'Thor***' (Thorfinn, Thorgil, Thorolf, etc!)

[Elladan and Elrohir]

This thread has seen some interesting discussion (both civil and uncivil), but it has veered woefully off-topic. I would love to see the discussion continue on another thread, but it doesn't really have any place here.

In the meantime, I think it quite likely that there will in fact NOT be a Hobbit movie released in July 2007. There's my feeble attempt to get back on topic.

[narfforc]

Your attempt is not feeble Elladan and Elrohir, it is full of power, let he (she) that hath understanding read thy powerful runes. The Hobbit MOVIE!!!!! is something that the vast majority of us wish for, as much as I like The Sagas and all the other nicey things introduced herewith, we are not discussing the Making of Their Movie.

[davem]

Bit of a side-track, & I've pointed up this issue before but this could affect TH. Previously there have been calls for images of smoking to be banned in movies but now we see:

The Disney Studio has pledged to remove smoking from its family-oriented films.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6916293.stm

"We hope it's the beginning of a domino effect as other studios come into line," he told the BBC News website.

US anti-tobacco organisation The American Legacy Foundation said the announcement was "a good, solid step".

So, even though TH is not to be made by Disney, is this move is likely to be followed by other studios?

Could we really see Bilbo sitting outside Bag End sans Pipe? Personally I can't imagine Bilbo (let alone Gandalf!!!) without his pipe

Or maybe pipes will be excluded from the ban?

Mr Iger made the promise in a letter to US congressman Edward Markey. DVDs that show cigarettes will also carry anti-smoking announcements, he added.

Still, as long as they don't start banning all those cool guns & big explosions ...

[Lalwendë]

I know......it's quite alright to melt children's minds with images of near skeletal middle-aged women with the waist span of a six year old boy and so much plastic surgery and botox they look like the Stepford Wives dipped in plastic. And feed them product placement for greasy burgers and promote a lust for tacky bling. And drugs. And explosions. And assorted dodgy gubbins, but a cancer stick hanging out of someone's mouth is akin to showing them an Al-Qaeda training manual.

Still it will bring an interesting dimension of Thought Police to Tolkien's work to see Bilbo ripping his nictotine replacement patch from his arm as he collapses after the Unexpected Party at bedtime...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I know......it's quite alright to melt children's minds with images of near skeletal middle-aged women with the waist span of a six year old boy and so much plastic surgery and botox they look like the Stepford Wives dipped in plastic.

I've always wondered how these waifish Madame Tussaud replicants managed to use the microwave to thaw their Healthy Choice microwaveable dinners. There must be dangers inherent in having so much plastic in close approximation to a heating element.

As far as Bilbo's pipe smoking, I find it interesting that Disney should wish to relegate smoking to the dustbin of political correctness, yet at the same time offer distorted views of princesses unable to find true satisfaction within their lives until their princes arrive to 'complete' them. On the other hand, I must applaud Disney on the fact that Captain Jack Sparrow -- although a murderer, a cheat and a liar -- does not smoke. We wouldn't wish to send the wrong message to our children.

[davem]

The reasoning seems to be that showing characters smoking will encourage impressionable movie goers to smoke. Seems to me that the lawyers could have a field day with this. Isn't it an admission that, despite all their earlier protests, movies do inspire copycat behaviour?

Is alcohol consumption to follow - no beer quaffing Hobbits in case it leads to alcoholism among movie goers?. No six meals a day for Hobbits in case it encourages over-eating & exacerbates the obesity problem?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

If we follow your reasoning, davem, we'd have to remove weapons and violence from all movies, or high school kids will be inspired to take guns to school and mass murder their teachers and fellow students...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

The reasoning seems to be that showing characters smoking will encourage impressionable movie goers to smoke. Seems to me that the lawyers could have a field day with this. Isn't it an admission that, despite all their earlier protests, movies do inspire copycat behaviour?

Is alcohol consumption to follow - no beer quaffing Hobbits in case it leads to alcoholism among movie goers?. No six meals a day for Hobbits in case it encourages over-eating & exacerbates the obesity problem?

Hmmm...I don't know about your TV viewing habits over in Britain, but when I was young we used to watch the Three Stooges (Larry, Moe and Curly) every day after school. To date I have never hit anyone in the head with a hammer, but then again I never considered mass-murder after listening to Black Sabbath albums, or hanging myself after seeing Alice Cooper in concert at age twelve (although I must admit that seeing Alice as a preteen was the motivating factor in purchasing my first guitar; therefore, Alice Cooper promotes music literacy ).

As I inferred earlier, I think the whole anti-smoking campaign in movies is more of a publicity stunt (a smoke screen?) rather than a true philanthropic effort to curb dangerous habits of impressionable youth. Why are they not more concerned about our society's seeming desensitization to excessive violence or the deluge of negative images dumped on young girls in order to rush them on the road to promiscuity? I am far more concerned for my daughter regarding 'Bratz Dolls' (which are banned from my house) than smoking in movies.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I don't know if anyone remembers but when Fellowship first came out, Michael Martinez wrote a heartfelt essay "protesting" the depiction of smoking in the movie. He had recently had a relative die from lung cancer and felt it should not have been included. I found that fairly surprising from someone who does have an idea of the context in which Tolkien wrote and the role of pipeweed in the Shire.

Disney is a private company and has the right to lay down whatever restrictions they want on their own products. However, I don't have to like it or agree with a policy like this. I say that as someone who has lost two close relatives to lung cancer as a result of smoking. If I'm uncomfortable with something in a movie, I'd prefer to exercise my personal discretion as a parent to steer my kids away from what our family finds "objectionable".

I used to be in charge of book selection in a large public library system so I know this whole business is a terribly slippery slope. One person would object to "X" and another to "Y" and, before you know it, you've laid down rules that gut out the heart of a piece of literature or art. But, at the rate we're going in getting The Hobbit onto the screen (whether or not you like that idea), it seems as if we aren't going to have to worry about specifics like this for a while!

[Lalwendë]

I think (but I don't know - he shall have to verify it ) davem would agree with me that more or less, films, books and so forth are not quite the sinister influence some think they are. My personal view is that if someone is stupid enough to think smoking is cool because someone in a Hollywood film does it then it's Darwinism working at it's finest The irony of course is that Hollywood claims films are not a bad influence and so it can get away with showing kids indulging in violent things (Home Alone - a kid messing with a shotgun for example), yet it seems to think they are at the same time a bad influence and we must not show the evil cancer sticks. So which is it, Hollywood?

[davem]

OF course its annoying. And of course it starts with something 'bad', but it never ends there. I'm reminded of Gandalf's statement that he would take the Ring in order to do good, but that it wouldn't stop there...

If smoking is banned in the movie in case it encourages children & teens to start smoking, what about the books?

Its as if smoking has crossed over from being potentially dangerous to being immoral. I wonder how long smoking in the books will be acceptable? TH is a 'children's' book, but it seems an increasingly non-PC one. There's nothing in the book(s) that implies that smoking is wrong or 'dangerous'. Bilbo smokes & lives to over a hundred, & so do many of the other Hobbits & children read this! I wonder whether there are parents out there who do warn their children about the smoking in the book? I suspect that if TH was offered to a publisher today the smoking would not make it past the editor - it would be a case of 'If you want us to publish this the pipeweed will have to go!'

If smoking is not shown in the movie that's a clear statement about smoking in the book.

To me this is a bigger issue than whether smoking is dangerous & should be discouraged. Its about Hobbits as a people. Hobbits smoke, drink, eat too much & spend a lot of their time doing not very much - like going for long walks. They're a very laid back type of folk - adventures are 'nasty' & inconvenient because they 'make you late for dinner'.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I agree with you, davem. Smoking is part of Middle-earth, whether it's Gandalf, Aragorn, or the Hornblowers doing it. I remember that Michael Martinez raised a big stink about the smoking in the first two films in his initial reviews of them. I can certainly understand where people like him are coming from, and I do agree that smoking should not be portrayed in a positive light in most films. The Lord of the Rings, however, is not most films.

[davem]

My hero....

Of course numberless Americans smoke numberless cigars; a great many others eat cigars, which seems to me a more occult pleasure. But there does exist an extraordinary idea that ethics are involved in some way; and many who smoke really disapprove of smoking. I remember once receiving two American interviewers on the same afternoon; there was a box of cigars in front of me and I offered one to each in turn. Their reaction (as they would probably call it) was very curious to watch. The first journalist stiffened suddenly and silently declined in a very cold voice. He could not have conveyed more plainly that I had attempted to corrupt an honorable man with a foul and infamous indulgence; as if I were the Old Man of the Mountain offering him hashish that would turn him into an assassin. The second reaction was even more remarkable. The second journalist first looked doubtful; then looked sly; then seemed to glance about him nervously, as if wondering whether we were alone, and then said with a sort of crestfallen and covert smile: “Well, Mr. Chesterton, I’m afraid I have the habit.”

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had “no standard of abstract right or wrong”; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar.

—G.K. Chesterton

from “On American Morals”

[Lalwendë]

It'd be interesting to see if there was any smoking in the Harry Potter books. One of the things about those which intrigues me is how often the underage witches and wizards wander into the local pubs of Hogsmeade and have a Butterbeer. No wonder they're always duelling with Draco Malfoy, they're all tanked up on alcopops. I suppose this refelcts contemporary British society where if you do not drink then you are viewed as somehow suspect, yet if you manage the herculean task of ten pints of Stella or two bottles of Pinot Grigio in a night and manage to come to work next day you are hailed as an all-conquering hero. I can't even count the number of women I work with who turn psychotic if someone smokes near them, exist on a lettuce leaf at lunchtime and yet have slightly yellow, hollow faces because they drink a whole bottle of wine every evening. Bizarre.

If anyone in modern society today behaved like a Hobbit they'd have the thought police onto them in no time.

It might be unpalatable to many but Tolkien's pleasures in life included good beer, stodgy food and smoking. He then gave these same indulgences to his happiest, jolliest race of people - and what's more, made them quite evangelistic about these joys. Gloriously un-PC.

Of course, Tolkien used to even smoke his pipe when riding his bike around Oxford. That's how keen he was on the habit.

[Sauron the White]

Smoking in real life and smoking in depictions of Middle-earth are two different things. Why cannot some people keep that straight? Smoking throws hundreds of noxious chemicals and poisons into the air and is a public health hazard. Governments, groups and individuals are correct to take proper and legal measures to discourage it, prevent it and get rid of it. Films and books are an art form and deserve the protections accorded all art. Tolkien was a smoker - immaterial. But was is material is that many of his characters were avid smokers in his creations. Nothing wrong with that if it is understood as part of the culture of that world and people which inhabit it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Smoking throws hundreds of noxious chemicals and poisons into the air and is a public health hazard. Governments, groups and individuals are correct to take proper and legal measures to discourage it, prevent it and get rid of it. .

Same goes for the 'infernal' combustion engine - only that's far, far worse. Car exhausts smell far worse & produce far more carcinogens than tobacco. Will the studios ban those exciting car chases? Mustn't show smoking to be cool, or we may encourage them to start, but its fine to show those cool dudes (in shades, natch) racing through the streets, or blasting the bad guys with mach 10's. Gun's 'r' cool. Fast cars 'r' cool. This whole thing is either a cash in or its hypocrisy.