Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[Mithalwen]

Well quite which is why I posted my contrary one... personal experience can be deceptive while of course still being true. It happens that after graduating i got a job as an English language tutor at a university near paris and made a flying visit in the intervening summer. Now I was literally there just one day going on one overnight ferry and back on the next but mt ticket was checked on every last train, bus, light rail and metro journey at least once and so I got home with th e impression that they were super obsessed about catching fare dodgers since there were already a lot of automated barriers. Then iwent to live there and I doubt anyone checked my ticket so many times in the year. I had clearly happened on some sort of crackdown on my daytrip.
!

[Lotrelf]

I'm one of those who first saw movies (both LotR & The Hobbit) and then read the books(haven't finished the Hobbit yet). I felt disappointed from the movie's part. Movies actually dragged a lot in Hobbit. I felt disappointed about LotR too, but the movies are good and PJ proves himself to be true to Tolkien's world, if not his story, completely. The Hobbit book is simple and sweet. A Children's Tale. But I didn't see that simplicity in the first movie (haven't seen the second one).

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

I'm one of those who first saw movies (both LotR & The Hobbit) and then read the books(haven't finished the Hobbit yet). I felt disappointed from the movie's part. Movies actually dragged a lot in Hobbit. I felt disappointed about LotR too, but the movies are good and PJ proves himself to be true to Tolkien's world, if not his story, completely. The Hobbit book is simple and sweet. A Children's Tale. But I didn't see that simplicity in the first movie (haven't seen the second one).

The most damning critique of Peter Jackson came from Christopher Tolkien himself:

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

The full interview from Le Monde can be read here:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-s.../#.UyjGfKhdXTp

I don't agree with apologists who make the imbecilic claim that film is a different medium than books, and therefore license must be allowed for offering the story as a visual presentation. This half-hearted defense for making a mockery of a movie does not stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

Time compression is a necessary fact of movie adaptations; one can't expect to cram all the minutiae from a book into a series of films (even with films bloated to 3+ hours). However, Jackson does not remove elements of the original story merely to offer a tighter plot, he adds inane fan-fiction in place of what was edited out, he amps up gratuitous violence and CGI effects to ludicrous levels, and, worst of all, demeans characters and dumbs down significant elements of the story so that only the oblivious would appreciate the obvious.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I don't agree with apologists who make the imbecilic claim that film is a different medium than books, and therefore license must be allowed for offering the story as a visual presentation. This half-hearted defense for making a mockery of a movie does not stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

The apologism I've noticed most prominently in recent months is that The Hobbit is too light/short/whimsical/childish/delete-where-applicable to be rendered successfully on screen, but I think that entirely depends on how the responder treats the material, in their own imagination or on film. Peter Jackson and the faceless executives at Warner Bros. seem to me to have a similar perception of the books, however, and the means by which they can most profitably be exploited. I once saw someone outraged at the suggestion that these were "Hollywood" films, despite the fact that this means produced by Hollywood companies and funded with Hollywood money, because the films were made in New Zealand by a New Zealand director. So in my experience people often simply don't know what they're talking about, but shared public ignorance has its own impact. In this case it is seemingly a belief that Jackson's way is the best and only way that Tolkien could be realised onscreen. The intrusion of the films into our culture has, I would argue, exposed the books to a certain potential degree of damage in terms of how their content is perceived as certain fans of the films resort to attacking the book to justify the changes.

One might also consider the Facebook pages of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the books, the books mind you, which are currently asking fans trivia questions to advertise some smartphone app, and after a while the questions shifted to entirely being film-based questions, sometimes in complete contradiction of the books, e.g. what instrument does Bofur play? The clarinet of course, but the only correct answer is 'the flute' because that's what he plays in the films. This is on the book page, and there is no disclaimer that this is film material. The film adaptation in the minds of the mainstream audience pastes over the top of the book. It is a palimpsest effect.

To return to the matter of the tone of the book versus the tone of the films, the idea which strikes me considering The Hobbit is the presentation of the narrative and design. I think that in the film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, for all their numerous failings, we might just barely glimpse, through a glass, darkly, as it were, an image of the high seriousness of the original text. This is perhaps only something I feel in hindsight in contrast to the film adaptations of The Hobbit, which replace the arguably childish tone of the book with a bizarre sense of the grotesque. Everything in The Hobbit is overtly, whether pleasant or ugly, strange: the Dwarves (especially their bizarre attire and weapons), Radagast, Goblin-town, Dol Guldur, and Esgaroth come to mind. The narrative does the same thing, of course, with additions like Ringwraith-tombs and Orc hunts and stories of 'forbidden love'. Yet I think in the book that seriousness is there, and increases as the tale progresses. The films, to me, feel out of place in regards to both the book and Peter Jackson's earlier films.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

. . . .

One might also consider the Facebook pages of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for the books, the books mind you, which are currently asking fans trivia questions to advertise some smartphone app, and after a while the questions shifted to entirely being film-based questions, sometimes in complete contradiction of the books, e.g. what instrument does Bofur play? The clarinet of course, but the only correct answer is 'the flute' because that's what he plays in the films. This is on the book page, and there is no disclaimer that this is film material. The film adaptation in the minds of the mainstream audience pastes over the top of the book. It is a palimpsest effect.

Zigûr, good metaphor about the palimpsest effect.


btw, do you know there is a Barrow Downs group of our dead wights on FB? Care to join?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

btw, do you know there is a Barrow Downs group of our dead wights on FB? Care to join?

I wasn't aware. I'll check it out. Thanks!

I feel like I ought to emphasise in light of my comments that while I think the films are potentially damaging to the books, especially the long struggle to have Professor Tolkien taken seriously as one of the major authors of the twentieth century, my issue is largely not with appreciation of the film per se but rather that attitude which attacks the books to defend the films.

[Lotrelf]

You guys are way too harsh on Jackson. One day on Facebook, I asked a question: What would have been Tolkien's reaction after watching the LOTR movies?
My thoughts were that he won't be much happy. If I'm not wrong, Tolkien did not want to make movies based on his books. I don't bash PJ, perhaps, because I'm grateful. Had it not been for his movies, I'd missed these books too. None of my friends read books, of any kind (they think it's a time waste!). CT is right about the books and the movies. I'd have acted the same way, if I had read the books first. In Thorin's case, I feel, PJ exaggerated his "bad-guy" side.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

You guys are way too harsh on Jackson.

I disagree. If they had to adapt the books to film, it could have been done without alienating so many long term print devotees.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

My thoughts were that he won't be much happy. If I'm not wrong, Tolkien did not want to make movies based on his books.

Tolkien said in a letter that he thought the books "unsuitable for dramatisation". Seeing how he castigated a proposed animated adaptation for doing things like having the Eagles carry the Fellowship early in the Quest, and describing Lórien as in line with "the gimcrack of modern fairy tales", I do think he would have been severely unimpressed; though not necessarily with the omissions in the films, but the outright alterations, some of which, like Faramir trying to take Frodo to Minas Tirith, are downright obscene.

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Had it not been for his movies, I'd missed these books too. None of my friends read books, of any kind (they think it's a time waste!). CT is right about the books and the movies. I'd have acted the same way, if I had read the books first.

The inducement into reading the books is the sole benefit to the movies, in my opinion. I only wish you were not in the minority, as I fear.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I disagree. If they had to adapt the books to film, it could have been done without alienating so many long term print devotees.



Tolkien said in a letter that he thought the books "unsuitable for dramatisation". Seeing how he castigated a proposed animated adaptation for doing things like having the Eagles carry the Fellowship early in the Quest, and describing L¨®rien as in line with "the gimcrack of modern fairy tales", I do think he would have been severely unimpressed; though not necessarily with the omissions in the films, but the outright alterations, some of which, like Faramir trying to take Frodo to Minas Tirith, are downright obscene.



The inducement into reading the books is the sole benefit to the movies, in my opinion. I only wish you were not in the minority, as I fear.

Yes, I am in minority of those who read books after watching the films. Reading the books decreased my enthusiasm for the movies. I dislike PJ for spoiling Frodo & Faramir like he did. Tolkien said Faramir was the character that Tollie identified most with, and Jackson spoiled him! I know, he'd say that he did this all to make movies more interesting. His representation of the characters gave them a bad name. Frodo is known as whimp. Though I never heard Faramir hatred thing. But I had disliked him in the movies, but he became my favorite in the books. Hobbit movies have repeated the History, if I'm not wrong.




Movies' plus point has always been its starcast. In LotR & The Hobbit, actors are brilliant, and I guess their performances cannot be shrugged off.

[Zigûr]

Here's the latest bewildering "The Hobbit Official Visual Companion App" question as presented on the Facebook page for The Hobbit. Note that this Facebook page specifically labels itself in the category 'Book' and claims to be "The Hobbit fan page, managed by the publishers." Behold the question.

Originally Posted by The Hobbit Facebook page

Which Dwarve is nicknamed ‘the Apothecary’?

'Dwarve.'

"Dwarve."

Singular.

Putting aside the fact that this is a characteristic the filmmakers gave to Óin with no basis in the book, which the page fails to disclaim, they make an error which can only derive from a fundamental disregard for the very product they are supporting. Additionally, they reposted this link because (according to the comments, I of course did not click it) the first time the link didn't work, but they did not correct 'Dwarve.'

Accidentally writing 'Dwarfs' instead of 'Dwarves' is common (if tiresome): but 'Dwarve'? Seriously?

When someone corrected it as 'Dwarf' in the comments for the identical post on the corresponding page for The Lord of the Rings someone in all seriousness replied with this:

Originally Posted by Facebook replier

Its not *Dwarf, because Tolkien specifically used that spelling to highlight that he meant Dwarve not Dwarf and these two things are different in folk and Tolkien lore.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: the lazy, ignorant, corporate (neoliberal) exploitation of our culture which spreads misinformation that people actually believe and are willing to defend, and so erases and writes over that culture. Note that when someone asks for proof from the abover commenter, another replied "appendices of LOTR." I pray they were mocking the filmmakers' "it's all in the Appendices" attitude but somehow I doubt it.

[Morthoron]

Philologically-speaking, "apothecary" would be an incorrect term for Óin the "Dwarf", and I don't believe Tolkien would use it. The word first arose in Middle-English (see Chaucer), and derives from the Old French "apotecaire" (which would be strike one), and the Old French variant derived in turn from the Latin apothecarius, which means "shopkeeper", and that came from the Greek ἀποθήκη (apothēkē, “a repository, storehouse”).

Tolkien used his words carefully, and even a Khuzdul or Icelandic translation would not come to this ill-conceived title, for what essentially would be termed an "herbalist".

[Zigûr]

To touch upon a recurring issue of mine, once again the Facebook pages for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings give damning evidence of how the films are bulldozing the books in the popular consciousness. Both pages, which are for the books and run by the very publishers of those books, posted in accompaniment to Professor Tolkien's illustration of Rivendell:

"There is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for."
-J.R.R. Tolkien

Balderdash. As some right-thinking commenters have pointed out in the comments section, this line is only from the film script. I might tolerate that, barely (although it would still be frustrating to see it from the Facebook page for the books) but the fact that it is misattributed to Professor Tolkien is firstly a disservice to the man, who would not have written such a cliché or in such a trite idiom, and secondly is evidence of how incompetently handled his life's work is by its very publishers. This is not the first time they have posted this film quote and attributed it to the Professor either.

Interestingly in the comments it is mentioned that according to certain DVD special features this was a line the filmmakers deliberated over at length and included, allegedly, even though they considered it to be hackneyed and cliché, which adds insult to injury when it's misattributed to the Professor himself in my opinion. This may seem like an overreaction but I think this kind of thing is both appallingly unprofessional and genuine evidence of the adverse affect the films have had by corrupting knowledge about the books.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Big, big thumb up for Zigur.

And Morthoron not only is entirely correct on the linguistic point, but there is also the cultural issue as to whether any Dwarf would be versed in herb-lore. Dwarves on the whole were unconcerned with growing things, as befitted troglodytes, and never farmed if they could possibly buy foodstuffs via trade in manufactured goods or products of mining, or even manual labor of the sort thwey preferred, masonry and roadbuilding etc.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Interestingly in the comments it is mentioned that according to certain DVD special features this was a line the filmmakers deliberated over at length and included, allegedly, even though they considered it to be hackneyed and cliché, which adds insult to injury when it's misattributed to the Professor himself in my opinion. This may seem like an overreaction but I think this kind of thing is both appallingly unprofessional and genuine evidence of the adverse affect the films have had by corrupting knowledge about the books.

Hackneyed and clichéd are attributes that to me the LOTR films struggle mightily to avoid in general. Where they succeed, it is in spite of the filmmakers' best efforts otherwise.
I was always irked by that "even the smallest person can change the future", that sounded more apt for a Disney cartoon.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

And Morthoron not only is entirely correct on the linguistic point, but there is also the cultural issue as to whether any Dwarf would be versed in herb-lore. Dwarves on the whole were unconcerned with growing things, as befitted troglodytes, and never farmed if they could possibly buy foodstuffs via trade in manufactured goods or products of mining, or even manual labor of the sort thwey preferred, masonry and roadbuilding etc.

Well, there were Mîm and his sons foraging for their "root bread", which it was claimed even the Green-Elves were unaware of. That sort of behavior does indeed seem to be lacking among Third Age Dwarves in the west of Middle-earth, though.

[littlemanpoet]

Maybe this is not harsh enough, but after viewing Hobbit 2 by PJ, my sense was "hyper Baroque". Plastered thick. So dense with extra stuff, none of it needed, that you can barely see the architectural design underneath. A pity, since the architecture is of such high quality.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Maybe this is not harsh enough, but after viewing Hobbit 2 by PJ, my sense was "hyper Baroque". Plastered thick. So dense with extra stuff, none of it needed, that you can barely see the architectural design underneath. A pity, since the architecture is of such high quality.

Yes, if it aint Baroque, don't fix it.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Yes, if it aint Baroque, don't fix it.

Still, I rather wish Arthur Nouveau had directed these films, although that's just my impressionism from seeing the trailers.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Would it really have been too much to ask, or to expect, that when somebody finally made a serious attempt to film Tolkien the goal would have been cinema that fell into the category which might be roughly defined as "cerebral epic" or "big-budget art film," a category which would include, say, 2001, Apocalypse Now and Ran?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Would it really have been too much to ask, or to expect, that when somebody finally made a serious attempt to film Tolkien the goal would have been cinema that fell into the category which might be roughly defined as "cerebral epic" or "big-budget art film," a category which would include, say, 2001, Apocalypse Now and Ran?

Your query resonates with me. It would require the right kind of director. I just can't imagine those who do art film being interested in LotR.

[Mithalwen]

How about Ang Lee?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Yes, if it aint Baroque, don't fix it.

And if you do, at least don't make a hobbit of it!

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Would it really have been too much to ask, or to expect, that when somebody finally made a serious attempt to film Tolkien the goal would have been cinema that fell into the category which might be roughly defined as "cerebral epic" or "big-budget art film," a category which would include, say, 2001, Apocalypse Now and Ran?

I never wanted these big time PJ blockbusters made because it was clear from the start, with all the merchandising buzz even before filming was complete, that giving the movies the feel of the books was not in the least a goal. It was about "translation" and "adaptation", and to this day I feel that those who have only seen the films have no inkling of the deep meaning and real resonance of the books, infused by the author.
I fervently hope they never get the rights for Beren and Lúthien, or anything else to do with Middle-earth or Tolkien.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

How about Ang Lee?

Want to ask him if he'll do it in about twenty years? Or will he be dead by then?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

How about Ang Lee?

How about Spike Lee? I can see it now:

The Lord of the Rings: Do the Wight Thing

[FerniesApple]

will the Hobbit movies do damage to the books? yep I think they will. All this cheap merchandising, lacklustre publicity, cash grabbing worthless EE versions, the garbage coming from Jackson and Boyens as regards the appendices, 'female energy' clap trap coming from E. Lilly, the actual movies themselves, that abysmal travesty, it all adds up to a pile of steaming poo.

Pity the poor fool who first watches those films and then buys the book thinking its about a Dwarve called Thorin and his dreary quest to reclaim his homeland. Why on earth did Tolkien call it the Hobbit? I hear him/her ask. Theres hardly any Hobbit in the movies.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

How about Spike Lee? I can see it now:

The Lord of the Rings: Do the Wight Thing

Funny.

[Smug the Fabulous]

In answer to the question, if the way people are responding to these films are right, then yes. And when I say people, I mean the people I've seen commenting on Peter Jackson's Facebook page. And possibly TORN. Not that I look on that website often, if at all (but the stuff I've read on here). But I'm think The Hobbit will just be one of those one time phenomenons. Once it's been and gone, that will be it. People will simply walk away. And in several years, what we'll have left is a charming little book from the late 1930s about a hobbit who joined a wizard and a band of dwarves on a grand adventure and discovered a wider world beyond his little home.
At least, that's what I'm thinking optimistically.

On the subject of directors, I just wondered what The Lord of the Rings would be like if Werner Herzog did it? Well, since we're talking the director of Aguirre, the Wrath of God and Fitzcarraldo, I like to imagine it using practical effects and locations, long uninterrupted takes, an ambient score with some classical music, and I imagine Herzog would cast actual actors with dwarfism as hobbits and dwarves and have the actors playing Frodo and Sam going up an actual volcano.

[FerniesApple]

I would like to see The Hobbit directed by Lech Majewski, The Mill and the Cross was mind blowing, a painting come to life, haunting, faerie.

[Inziladun]

I ran across this brief review of DOS, penned by someone who's apparently not much of a Tolkien fan, so no 'purist' prejudice intrudes (though she seems to be familiar with the book).

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013 - DVD)

Many critics didn't like the first Hobbit movie, and I was one of the dissenters, but this one hit my breaking point rather early on. The dwarves go down white water rapids in barrels, fighting orcs along the way, and at no point does any barrel overturn or fill with water. Defenses I've seen of this scene are usually along the lines of, "But it's based on a children's book". Yeah, but the barrels were sealed shut in the book, and they weren't popping out of them and fighting orcs, then jumping back into the rapids just in time to land in a magically-appearing open barrel.

And then it's just, Legolas, Legolas, Legolas... I keep seeing people praising his inclusion here because it explains why he hated dwarves in the Lord of the Rings. Did I miss something? I thought it was Gimli who hated elves for no explained reason, not the other way around.

I feel like if I tried to describe the scene where they attempt to use a giant golden statue to kill Smaug, it would come across like Killdozer describing Bridget Jones's Diary, but I'm serious - that actually happens!

Really, Peter Jackson had enough time to add that ridiculously drawn out and pointless scene, but not enough to actually show the desolation caused by Smaug in a movie called "The Desolation of Smaug"??
Rating: 2.5/5

The author of that isn't always family-friendly about language on their site, so I didn't link to it.
Still, I think it's interesting what she notes as her gripes.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Still, I think it's interesting what she notes as her gripes.

Well, I guess common sense is a common thing... usually.

[Tar-Jêx]

I'm pretty sure that it won't cause people to go out and buy the book like the Lord of the Rings trilogy did, because the Hobbit is simply not nearly as good.

I'm really wondering why Jackson wanted to insult the source material with these discrepancies and squeeze out a 3rd movie for nothing to happen in, when you could easily fit it into 2 excellent, and accurate, movies.

[Lotrelf]

I saw the film- not finished- and was convinced with whatever has been said here. The movie has caused the damaged to the original material. The movies failed to create the curiosity in mind of the viewer. The book is simply amazing- the innocence, the beauty, the magic is undeniable while the second movie, to me, seemed like any other action film you can watch in Hollywood. It lacked the essence of the original story. AUJ was better- I'd liked Bilbo and Gollum's interaction and Gandalf's presence was enough for me to watch the film.
Rest, the movie is good as a "film" but kinda-okay as an adaptation.

[Mister Underhill]

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.

I guess the answer there depends upon how closely the adaptation is associated (by the consumer) with its source material.
For those who were already familiar with The Hobbit book, I think the association is likely to be less. For one who first experiences the movies, the greater.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Here's a thought -- which would do more damage to the book, a bad adaptation, or a spectacularly good adaptation? Bad film adaptations typically fade and are quickly forgotten, while the classic books that they're based on endure. Great film adaptations endure and can come to overshadow a book.

If the adaptation is 100% accurate, then it can harm, and help, the book. It can harm it, because the movie is exactly the same, and takes less time, and can help it, by people thinking, 'What an amazing movie' and buying the book.

A bad adaptation is similar. People may want to read the book to see if it's better, or they may want to just ignore it entirely because the movies weren't very good. Overall, I think this is worse, because it doesn't do justice to the book, and people will think the book is bad.

I'd be really excited to watch a movie that was 100% accurate to the book, because it would be so awesome. People who haven't read the book would also be excited, because it would be a really good movie. More people are happy this way, and non-readers would be able to talk to the book worms and not feel like they're at a disadvantage.

[Mister Underhill]

My usual reaction to this question used to be, "Damage the book? How could it? It's right there on my shelf, same as it ever was."

I think that mindset comes from the pre-internet days. As a young Tolkien fan I read and re-read TH and LotR, but I didn't really have anybody to talk about them with. Whatever I thought of a particular movie adaptation really only affected me. Fandom was a much more personal experience.

Along comes the internet, suddenly there's a virtual community -- well, actually more like a number of (sometimes) overlapping communities. And I think really the question now is about how movie adaptations affect the conversation about a particular story, and along what kind of timeline. Right now, today, if you are talking to someone and you both declare that you are fans of The Hobbit, some clarification is in order. You might be fans of two fairly radically different things.

Probably at some point there were (still are?) Hobbit fans who despaired over revisions that altered their favorite story, and for whom the Lord of the Rings sequels were unwanted and unnecessary. "Middle-earth is so dark and depressing and mundane now!" Some of us original Star Wars fans have undergone such a sea-change within our lifetimes.

The real questions, for me, are, "How are the movies affecting the conversations I am having about Tolkien right now?" and with thoughts of my son in mind, "How will they affect those conversations going forward?"

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

The real questions, for me, are, "How are the movies affecting the conversations I am having about Tolkien right now?" and with thoughts of my son in mind, "How will they affect those conversations going forward?"

My own observation is that in this world, with its relentless drive for 'efficiency' and technology, reading is fast becoming an anachronism.
Of course, there are still those who enjoy quiet time with a book (and I daresay this forum is rife with them), but especially with the millennial generation and beyond, my fear is that PJ's films will in time become what the majority thinks of when they hear 'hobbit'.
Those of us who would like to put on the brakes a bit, at least in our own lives, can do what we can to transmit our love of reading to our offspring. I think I've made some progress with mine, though I've yet to convince her to read any Tolkien. Then again, she's just 10, so there's hope.

At the core of it, I don't think it's the movies themselves I deplore, but the seeming idea that they and boring, old-fashioned, CGI-less books simply cannot share a stage indefinitely, and that one or the other will fall by the wayside. My money is not on the books to win out. But as Gandalf said, ours isn't to master the tides of the world, but to do our part in our own small way.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

My own observation is that in this world, with its relentless drive for 'efficiency' and technology, reading is fast becoming an anachronism.
Of course, there are still those who enjoy quiet time with a book (and I daresay this forum is rife with them), but especially with the millennial generation and beyond, my fear is that PJ's films will in time become what the majority thinks of when they hear 'hobbit'.
Those of us who would like to put on the brakes a bit, at least in our own lives, can do what we can to transmit our love of reading to our offspring. I think I've made some progress with mine, though I've yet to convince her to read any Tolkien. Then again, she's just 10, so there's hope.

At the core of it, I don't think it's the movies themselves I deplore, but the seeming idea that they and boring, old-fashioned, CGI-less books simply cannot share a stage indefinitely, and that one or the other will fall by the wayside. My money is not on the books to win out. But as Gandalf said, ours isn't to master the tides of the world, but to do our part in our own small way.

As much as I hate to cite this as an example, but I think the frenzy surrounding George R.R. Martin's books might provide something of a rebuttal to your point about the ultimate fate of books.

Yes, we are adrift in a sea of idiots, but in many respects we always have been.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

As much as I hate to cite this as an example, but I think the frenzy surrounding George R.R. Martin's books might provide something of a rebuttal to your point about the ultimate fate of books.

Yes, we are adrift in a sea of idiots, but in many respects we always have been.

Well, I hope you're right.

I don't know anyone personally outside this forum who is into the Martin books, and few who are even generally as avid a reader as I.

You do see fandoms around book series like Twilight and The Hunger Games, but those seem more like purpose-designed commercial products rather than enduring works of literature. It's just hard to see a future in which books hold their own against high-tech, instant gratification entertainment.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

You do see fandoms around book series like Twilight and The Hunger Games, but those seem more like purpose-designed commercial products rather than enduring works of literature. It's just hard to see a future in which books hold their own against high-tech, instant gratification entertainment.

I have kept myself out of pop-culture, but it seems like books are being used being used to make money, rather than to be amazing. This is evident when considering fanfiction being turned into a book, and then a movie (50 Shades of Grey). This sort of mindless rubbish should never be written, because there are very few things a 'book' of that genre can do that visual representations can't.

I do despise these sort of things, where people do it to make money, rather than doing it out of personal enjoyment, or because they want to write high quality novels.


The Hobbit movies are already giving a bad representation of the book, and although people are buying the book, a lot of potential customers have been put of by the money-grab-ness of the movies. If the movies were better, and concise, the books would sell a lot more. I guess it just comes down to how the media is treating literature, and they aren't treating it respectfully.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The Hobbit movies are already giving a bad representation of the book, and although people are buying the book, a lot of potential customers have been put of by the money-grab-ness of the movies. If the movies were better, and concise, the books would sell a lot more. I guess it just comes down to how the media is treating literature, and they aren't treating it respectfully.

To me, one of the main problems with books today is that it seems potential for movie development instantly supersedes any consideration of the books themselves as stand-alone works. And that isn't good enough, either: it's required to mine well-loved books from the past that are well-written and moving, and subject them to the same treatment.

What really saps my hope for the future status of Tolkien's books in the mainstream is uselessness like this:



But hey, if it sells, go for it!