Three Times The Hobbit?

[Bêthberry]

None of the Tolkien trilogy movies made any of the lists of "Ten Greatest Movies" of the last decade.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Film critic Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/pete...or_geek_opium/

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

As most informed persons know, Tolkien re-wrote sections of The Hobbit -- especially the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter -- so as to make the earlier book conform to the Lord of the Rings as it developed later. So Peter Jackson certainly has grounds for thinking that Tolkien wanted the two works to seamlessly merge into the larger mythology of Middle Earth. Still, everything hinges on preventing the inclusion of so much background history -- especially Gandalf's geopolitical grand strategy vis-a-vis Sauron -- from submerging and marginalizing the individual story of Bilbo Baggins, "the" hobbit. Another danger lies in the temptation to prevent this marginalization by making Bilbo Baggins more significant to the larger story than his natural character and essential innocence will bear. Creative opportunities exist, certainly, but just as many for bloated, commercial disaster as for refined enhancement of an already good and sufficient story.

I have other hopes and fears, but these will do for the present.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

I'd have shelved my love of Tolkien and put aliens into Middle-Earth if it kept me from my crushing debt. PJ made FOTR accessible to me when I was 14. I fell in love with Middle-earth thanks to him. Either see the movie or don't. At least reserve some judgement for when it actually comes out. /rant

i fell in love with Middle Earth thanks to Bernard Cribbens reading the hobbit in five short instalments. One voice in an hour or two. This seems like overkill. If I were vto go it would be to take my godson but I can not imagine it will hold his attention span over o long.

For me Jackson demeans my favourite books. first the rings then the lovely bones. If he gets his hands on film rights to The Snow Child I may have to form a posse.

apogies for typos using kindle as puter jiggered and this is in about threepoint type

[Mithalwen]

Oh and i dont see why the sceptics must reserve judgement while the if jackson does it of course it must be wonderful crew are not. if there is to be a moratorium it should be across the board!

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Film critic Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com weighs in:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/pete...or_geek_opium/

I love this line from that story...

It sounds a bit – just a bit, mind you – like a case of someone who has held the Ring in his hands and now wants it back.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Profit over quality - you'll hardly see a clearer example. I was very interested to see Del Toro's Hobbit; my enthusiasm waned somewhat when Jackson was brought back in; and it really dropped when they decided they were going to split it into two separate films.

Now this. Fantastic. I'll no doubt borrow the DVDs a few years from now and complain about them on here.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

EDIT: You watch the movies maybe two times in your life...one time in the cinemas and one time by downloading it and check it out when you're bored...or you watch some shorts on youtube. They're not that great...just like Avatar wasn't that great. Soo much hype around these movies...

Hmmm, I went to see all the films at least twice at the cinema, and have the 'plain' and the extended versions on DVD. I've probably seen each film a couple of dozen times. I enjoy them more than I hate them - I simply treat them as films, and I don't watch films for Art, I watch for Fun. Speaking as someone with a thirty year history of being a Tolkien nut. Who has read all of the books (including the Histories and just about any essay about Tolkien laid down on paper) more times than is good for me. I don't get the impression that Tolkien Society members get especially aereated about the films either, and you always see old timers happily wandering about in film inspired costumes at Oxonmoot etc.

I think if the criticism centres around the making of more cash (which is entirely valid a criticism) then we should look at Tolkien fandom as a whole, which I've had my eyes opened to as being a massive cash cow. After collecting probably 30-40 different editions of the books I twigged that the reason the publishers seem to release a new edition every 18 months is because of sad saps like me ("Ooooh, it has a new cover!"). And that's before I even get into things like Tolkien Studies which always retails at about £5,000 per edition. Jackson isn't any more greedy than the publishers. But...there's no going back now. It will be a rip roaring success, just as much as a new edition with one new illustration is.

[Boromir88]

I knew HP was going to try to one-up The Hobbit!

http://www.theonion.com/video/final-...-be-spl,20528/

Boom! Ball is back in your court now Mr. Jackson.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Sounds like "Final" Destination 6 to me. You've just got to love that "finality" thing, formerly known as "ending."

"Glad to have you with me, Samwise Gamgee, here at the continuation of all things."

[Mumriken]

The triology isn't bad...but it's not really good either. I really enjoyed the small hints of the history of middle earth we get to see. The whole Balrog scene was handled beautifully, I also really liked the black riders chasing Eowyn. Or like 10 seconds of that chase maybe...the ents marching against Isengard for like 10 seconds was also quite amazingly done. Of course all the props and the look of it all was great, but most of the scenes and script/camera work were badly handled. Most of it's just action and battle...I watched them like 5 years ago and recently watched them again and they are starting to look dated in terms of special effects and when the special effects aren't shining...one sees much clearer what a overrated piece of work it is. (As a movie)

[Galadriel55]

I used to think that despite all my complaining I would still be running to the movie theatres when TH comes out, and would, despite all the plot and character changes, enjoy the film, least of all because of the music and scenery.

Now I think I would join Inzil in passing the movie theatre hype and all that. I mean, I still haven't watched the latest Harry Potter. I'll survive the Hobbit hype. Maybe possibly potentially perhaps I'll get it at the library in another couple years...

Except that I would be bugged every day by hearing all those Downers who have seen the movie discuss it...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Now I think I would join Inzil in passing the movie theatre hype and all that. I mean, I still haven't watched the latest Harry Potter. I'll survive the Hobbit hype. Maybe possibly potentially perhaps I'll get it at the library in another couple years...

I've become a right grouch when it comes to film adaptations. Thought the Harry Potter films were severely lacking in any sort of spark. Wouldn't bother watching Game of Thrones if it was up to me (although since the DVDs are in my house I'll no doubt have to see them sooner or later). And though I did enjoy them when they first came out, I can't really imagine sitting down and watching the LotR films again.

I do still love the soundtrack, though.

[Mithalwen]

Oh I liked the soundtrack in the cinema but I don't think it transfers well to a domestic setting. To me it sounds well, soupy but not in a good way. But then I feel that about the films in general that it doesn't work on TV. I have only managed to sit through FOTR in its entirety more than once continuously. ~I just get bored and annoyed to the point that washing up looks more fun and if you knesw what a slattern I am...

[Mumriken]

I really liked this scene, especially if you contrast it with our current society. I'd love to see ents just walk into our suburbs and cities and just rid the world of all the filth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FL...&v=opykS-JrXhc (Not in a hippie way)

[Glorthelion]

I know I'm certainly saying some Tolkien blasphemy, but I think it is an interesting idea to have the hobbit divided into 3 parts, instead of just one whole movie. Some source said they would include some material from the appendices. I consider that interesting. Taking a look the last book of some teenage fiction books are being divided into 2 parts like HG, HP, and Twilight. I know I'm the black sheep here but it's just my opinion.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Glorthelion

I know I'm certainly saying some Tolkien blasphemy, but I think it is an interesting idea to have the hobbit divided into 3 parts, instead of just one whole movie. Some source said they would include some material from the appendices. I consider that interesting. Taking a look the last book of some teenage fiction books are being divided into 2 parts like HG, HP, and Twilight. I know I'm the black sheep here but it's just my opinion.

No "blasphemy". You've got your own view, that's all.

The article I referenced makes a connection between PJ's decision and the recent trend in cinema to divide adaptations of single books into multiple movies.

My question for PJ is this: would three movies be necessary if he didn't put in bits that aren't in the book? (*cough*, Tauriel)

[Bêthberry]

I'm still holding out for Tom and Goldberry, but I'm not holding my breath.

[skip spence]

As a principle I don't mind there being three films with lots of original plotting and characters, as opposed to more straight-forward adaptation that follows closely to the narrative in the book. I mean, I've already read the book and know what's in it, and prefer going to theatre not knowing exactly how every event will play out.
You may see it as a very ambitious and extremely well-funded fan-fiction project. They are going to make up a lot of new stuff based on snippets or out of thin air. That's how it was always going to be, with three films or not, and I don't see anything inherently bad in that. It may be bad, but not necessarily so. You know, like that old poster Sauron something always said, a big-budget (Hollywood) film is something altogether different to a book, like it or not.

Hopefully I will be positively surprised. At least in a technical sense I expect improvements. More than ten years have passed since FOTR came out, and the SFX people surely have learnt a few new fancy tricks. Not so hopeful when it comes to the scripting and story-telling, which is all the more important. And with three films, what will be the climax of each? One should think that defeating the dragon is a fabulous end to a film. But you can you end the second film with that, and then directly go to the aftermath with the battle of five armies as the grand finale? Will the first end with Sauron defeated in Dol Guldur? And what appendices material will get most screen-time? Well, I'm actually pretty curious to find out. If the first instalment turns out crap, I'd probably sit out the rest. But let us at least wait until we see it before we trash it, eh?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I mean, I still haven't watched the latest Harry Potter.

Potter wins.

Originally Posted by skip spence

You may see it as a very ambitious and extremely well-funded fan-fiction project. They are going to make up a lot of new stuff based on snippets or out of thin air. That's how it was always going to be, with three films or not, and I don't see anything inherently bad in that. It may be bad, but not necessarily so. You know, like that old poster Sauron something always said, a big-budget (Hollywood) film is something altogether different to a book, like it or not.

Great point of view.

The Star Wars prequels had tons of money to use/throw at the entire project, and yet the story falls flat. Hopefully any new 'Hobbit' material, regardless of source, will tell an even better story than what we find in the book's pages.

[Mumriken]

I'm still holding out for Tom and Goldberry, but I'm not holding my breath.

Peter would never be able to give the characters justice. Goldberry and Tom doesn't belong in a action movie, in order to give them and much of the interesting non action parts of middle earth justice one would need another director. I have always wondered what a Ingmar Bergman movie would look like if it had a proper budget and the technology of today backing it up. Imagine the scene when the knight is talking to death but with today's CGI and colour grading etc...it would be quite incredible...

[Kuruharan]

I have something of an issue with the idea that it is "ok" for Jackson to be making a glorified bit of fan fiction with all kinds of original characters and events. My problem is Tolkien's name will be attached to it. Jackson is taking his own characters and ideas and then attaching the name of Tolkien to them when Tolkien didn't have anything to do with it. I consider this worse than normal fan fiction because most fan fic authors have the honesty and humility to not pass their work off as some kind of representation of what Tolkien wrote. Jackson is trying to do this.

If Jackson wants to do his own fantasy series, by all means, more power to him, let him do it! But, the catch with that is he would have to put his own name on it and the odds are Peter Jackson's Mayor of the Foozles is not going to attract the attention, the respect and most importantly the revenue of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. These movies are not just a glorified piece of fan fiction. He is claiming the mantle of Tolkien in order to make himself buckets and buckets of money because he knows nothing that could come out of his own brain could be nearly as successful. Maddeningly he is trashing Tolkien's stories in the process. Jackson would be nothing without Tolkien. Most likely comparatively few people in the world would have heard of him as I am firmly convinced he is only a middling storyteller, at best, on his own.

I don't have a problem in the world with someone trying to make something of themselves (I will admit to a certain level of unhappiness that he did it by virtue of pulling himself up by Tolkien's bootstraps). However, I do have serious problems with the grandiose levels of greed, cynicism and outright and blatant manipulation in which Jackson is currently indulging himself. I find it disgusting and revolting.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

He is claiming the mantle of Tolkien in order to make himself buckets and buckets of money because he knows nothing that could come out of his own brain could be nearly as successful. Maddeningly he is trashing Tolkien's stories in the process. Jackson would be nothing without Tolkien.

While these are quite strong terms they do reflect some of my own frustrations, mostly with the incredible hysteria which surrounds the films. It is almost as if at some point Professor Tolkien became the background figure while Peter Jackson is the "genius bringing Middle-earth to life" or what have you. I feel like more praise is owed to the Professor; it is as if the filmmakers have snatched his life's work out of his hands and run off with it to gather all the kudos while he gets left behind. Yes, the films were very successful, but at the end of the day it's Professor Tolkien who should be praised moreso than them. I don't know if this is the case, but I really hope that Jackson and co regularly express their gratitude to Professor Tolkien for being the origin of their success.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

My problem is Tolkien's name will be attached to it. Jackson is taking his own characters and ideas and then attaching the name of Tolkien to them when Tolkien didn't have anything to do with it. I consider this worse than normal fan fiction because most fan fic authors have the honesty and humility to not pass their work off as some kind of representation of what Tolkien wrote. Jackson is trying to do this.

Sadly, Kuru, I'm not sure this time they are acknowledging Tolkien at all. The poster that was released for Comic Con 2012 says that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is "from the director of the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. But it doesn't any where mention the name Tolkien. (I don't think I've ever used three smilies in a row here on the Downs.)

Hobbit movie poster

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I don't know if this is the case, but I really hope that Jackson and co regularly express their gratitude to Professor Tolkien for being the origin of their success.

I certainly agree with you in spirit. However, I fear I am so jaded that I would probably think they were just saying the politically correct thing rather than having actual respect for Tolkien's works.

To me, the best way for them to show respect for Tolkien is make a movie that reflects what Tolkien wrote.

Alas, Bethberry's point is relevant to this very issue.

Sadly, Kuru, I'm not sure this time they are acknowledging Tolkien at all.

[Snowdog]

Sadly, its what its come down to. The original is swamped in the movie and gaming hype. One can't talk Tolkien books without someone bringing the movies or even that games into it. The movies killed the Tolkien story legacy, and now is only a cult following. As for myself, I'm not even interested in these so-called Hobbit movies. PJ the usurper is using The Hobbit to pad his coffers, an the PJ movie worshippers are loving him for it. Me, I'll likelywatch the movies at some point, but I'm not getting sucked into the hype that got me interested in the Fellowship. I'm with Christopher on this one.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Sadly, its what its come down to. The original is swamped in the movie and gaming hype. One can't talk Tolkien books without someone bringing the movies or even that games into it. The movies killed the Tolkien story legacy, and now is only a cult following.

I'd like to see stats on how membership of sites like this took off following the films, and I suspect it would have boomed. And I don't know of any members here who first came to Tolkien via the films who disregard Tolkien's writing, quite the opposite! And in the UK, one unexpected bonus has also been the boom in SF literature, TV and film. The films may have made SF 'cool' or it may be that media types realised that the geek market was huge and hungry for more fun, but I strongly suspect that we'd have been without the Doctor Who revival or series like Being Human and Life On Mars without that sea-change.

I think Tolkien's writing is more than strong enough to weather any mere film

[Mithalwen]

I don't know.. maybe the ones who come here are the ones who might have found the books anyway - it is often forgotten that LOTR was the book of the century by popular vote before the films came out by those who seem to think Tolkien owes Jackson (seriously how many wnent to FOTR because they were mad about Heavenly Creatures compared to those because they were Tolkien fans?). The Hobbit is according to an article I kept but never got round to posting one of the handful of books all booksellers have permanently in stock and have had since it's publication.

I have met several people who have told me that they love Lord of the Rings and then said of course they haven't read the books... And everytime they say that an elf dies.....

[Lalwendë]

I doubt anyone would have gone to see FotR on the back of Heavenly Creatures, the audience is very different! I should imagine that many went because they wanted to see whether Jackson had managed to 'film the unfilmable'. But before the films came out there was an acknowledgement that they would have to secure the Tolkien fans' buy in if the films were to be a success.

Fan buy-in is always a known factor with this kind of film. And why these types of films which come on the back of a book with a massive cult following are incredibly hard to make. Look at the various films of Alan Moore's work (he famously refuses to have anything to do with them, he takes the Chris T approach!) - Watchmen secured the fans' approval and was a success, whereas The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was not, despite being a decent film if you were not already a fan of the comic book.

Then you also get the kinds of fans who will go and see them whether they are keen or not, it's just something they need to appraise for themselves. I'll go and see them even if they are bad films (and I think they will be very enjoyable, so I don't have that worry), just as I lap up Doctor Who even though I'm really not very keen on what Moffat is doing with it - it's just that I prefer RTD's work, much as I prefer the books to the films.

As for people who have only seen the films and think they speak with authority, that's just an ideal chance for me to spread the gospel

[Ninde Lossehelin]

I love the trilogy and can't wait for the Hobbit come december... I hope to read the whole entire trilogy very soon

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Ninde Lossehelin

I love the trilogy and can't wait for the Hobbit come december... I hope to read the whole entire trilogy very soon

I hope you are referring to the "trilogy" of the three books of the Lord of the Rings, as The Hobbit exists in book form as only one book, despite what Peter Jackson may be doing.

But be that as it may, I welcome you to the Downs. If you are seriously in need of Tolkien discussion, this be the place to come! Enjoy being dead.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I have met several people who have told me that they love Lord of the Rings and then said of course they haven't read the books... And everytime they say that an elf dies.....

I was introduced to a friend of a friend once, like so: "Come and meet ______, he's a LotR fan too!"

So obviously I said "Hey man! Nice to meet you. So, did Balrogs have wings?" *slight chuckle*

"What's a Balrog?"

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'd like to see stats on how membership of sites like this took off following the films, and I suspect it would have boomed. And I don't know of any members here who first came to Tolkien via the films who disregard Tolkien's writing, quite the opposite! And in the UK, one unexpected bonus has also been the boom in SF literature, TV and film. The films may have made SF 'cool' or it may be that media types realised that the geek market was huge and hungry for more fun, but I strongly suspect that we'd have been without the Doctor Who revival or series like Being Human and Life On Mars without that sea-change.

I think Tolkien's writing is more than strong enough to weather any mere film

Very good point. I have been "into" the fantasy genre from the time I first started collecting Conan the Barbarian comics in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 90s, fantasy was not widely popular, and you did not have the kind of large-scale interest in it that there is nowadays. I think the LOTR trilogy did increase interest in the fantasy genre. Yes, there are problems with the films, but they are certainly of better quality than most other fantasy films out there.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

Yes, there are problems with the films, but they are certainly of better quality than most other fantasy films out there.

In my view, this is more of a sad indictment of the fantasy film genre than anything else.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

Very good point. I have been "into" the fantasy genre from the time I first started collecting Conan the Barbarian comics in the 1970s. In the 1980s and 90s, fantasy was not widely popular, and you did not have the kind of large-scale interest in it that there is nowadays. I think the LOTR trilogy did increase interest in the fantasy genre. Yes, there are problems with the films, but they are certainly of better quality than most other fantasy films out there.

I always think of the period between the end of the 70s and 2000 as the Dark Ages of Fantasy, because it was seen as deeply uncool to the point of ridicule to be a fantasy fan (even though lots of us still were). There's something to be said for being non-mainstream, but it went beyond that during that period. And aside from rare examples, the films that were made during that period were also bad.

I almost feel like an old geek veteran with me war wounds having weathered being a Tolkien fan all through those dark years.

[Mumriken]

Yeah Fantasy in general was popularized with the coming of the internet. It's not geeky to be a fan of fiction. That is just stupid, just like people say it's geeky to be steve jobs or geeky to be an author or geeky to be an artist or a scientist. The geek label has been put on smart people by dumb people...as we all know there are more dumb people than smart people in this world. It's quite likely that some of you reading this reply are above average when it comes to intelligence in your neighborhood.

I think the internet should be a like puttin on a piece of classical music, you start it up and voila you're in the company of sophisticated artists and then one could exchange information and improve the world. However this might actually happen if the people who currently use the internet keep using it as much as they do now into their 70s 80s. I'm very curious what the internet will look like when the people who are young today use it when they're old. Like if I ever get a child there is no way I'd allow him/her to use it freely. I think adults today don't really understand the internet...with time it will probably change.

Sorry off topic.

[Boromir88]

There is off topic and then there is egregiously off topic. Simply saying "Sorry off topic" is not a reason to go on a ramble and make an off topic post. Especially, since there are many religious members who use this site and probably don't like being lumped in with people you believe should not be on the internet.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Even if the internet has recognized fiction and people who like fiction to be the greatest and most creative people in our society. Sadly even the stupid people have now gained access to the internet. The internet was predicted to be a place of high culture, but no it's not. I actuall think one should introduce some kind of license for people that want to use the internet. You can be anonymouse but some way to make sure you're not a complete retard. Like for example I'd be very happy if these people could take a break from the internet:

-Pedophiles
-Religious people
-People who dress up and pretend they are animals
-People who dress up as their favorite characters in manga comic books
-People who watch sports
-People who listen to rap, pop, punk all that stuff
-People who are "nerdy" or "geeky" in a stupid way. (Watching manga porn, or posting bad drawings of their imaginary characters etc.
-People who have blogs...

You seem awfully sure you'd pass that retard-filter yourself. To be honest, if we'd come to that there are many who'd call for the inclusion of this category too, I wager:

-People who think they are better than other people without any discernible justification.

Really, are you serious?

[Mumriken]

I don't think I'm better than anyone else, I just recognize high culture while many don't. I'd pass for sure, since I actually enjoy much of what one would put in the "high culture" category. There would be a place for serious discussion on Tolkien that is for sure. But all these fans that dress up as the characters and like pulls Tolkien's work down with all the people who dress up as pokemon and who knows what else. Well the best way to kill off this sillyness is to simply ban it. I'm for some degree of control on the internet.

Just like I'd be for banning all unhealthy food in the supermarkets...however it's in human nature to enjoy unhealthy food...I don't know I just think there has to be some way to simply tame the human condition. You know slap some of your people in the face a bit? The internet is anarchy, we need to introduce some order on here. Start by banning religious people and pedophiles

[alatar]

Someone perhaps dressing up like a troll, hmmm?