The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

[Onhell]

For the most part I agree with LC, specially about Riddles in the Dark. HOWEVER. The "addition" of the necromancer felt muddled at best and the "addition" of the Brown Wizard was just stupid. Just like people had a counter for how often Frodo fell (at times for no reason), one can have a counter (or drinking game) of how often Gandalf said, "RUUUUUN!" Very annoying. Anyway, may be nitpicking, but still annoying. The one part I truly HATED... yes, HATED was the battle with the goblins. It was fucking cartoonish and silly. Might as well have added the Benny Hill Theme as soundtrack. There was nothing serious, daunting or dramatic about that battle. At least in the LotR the mood for the battles was set amazingly well and for the most part you felt the characters were in true danger, something lacking completely in The Hobbit.

 

[LooseCannon]

Have you read the Hobbit? It's a children's book, and written from a more relaxed, ridiculous standpoint.

 

[Black Wizard]

Really looking foward to the next part of The Hobbit, but I wish they'd just stick to the basic plot of the book. There was enough in there to make a two-parter at the very least.

I get the feeling that the Tolkein nerds hate it but everyone else loves it.

 

[Forostar]

Yes, I also didn't like these Fraggle Rock scenes (more on previous pages) and there are other aspects in the story that I didn't find that good. I love Tolkien's books very much, way more than the films. But that doesn't mean that I dislike the films. I appreciate both and I am very curious how it all looks, made by someone else.

The books gave lots of room for my own imagination and a film never takes that experience away. It is something else. A new look on it. An addition.

This comment I found on theonering.net and it sums up my thoughts pretty well:

... film and book are two fundamentally different media. What works as the written word does not necessarily translate directly in to film and vice versa. What is one the screen is Peter Jackson's (and Del Toro, Walsh and Boyens) synthesis of his own interpretation of The Hobbit, The Quest of Erebor and various other items drawn from Unfinished Tales and the appendices in The Lord of the Rings. Just because Tolkien didn't include them in one single narrative, or even - in some cases - write them does not invalidate their presence in the film. The Hobbit was written as a stand-alone story for children and subsequently amended to tie in with the War of the Ring. But as a film it is following the Lord of the Rings, being exclusively faithful to the original text would probably satisfy the purists, but ...wouldn't necessarily appeal to the majority. And where do you draw the line? Should the film be faithful to the first edition where the Ring is just a magic ring and the Necromancer is just a a nasty wizard; or to the second edition which Tolkien amended to better fit with the LotR? After all, the first edition stood by itself for the best part of 15 years, and was only updated in 1951 as Tolkien was writing LotR? I think this exercise would be better were your "cons" more detailed than a simple "Tolkien didn't write it". After all, Tolkien was an author not a film maker, and Jackson's no novelist. Unless we could somehow find a screenplay written by JRRT, we'll never know what he would have thought, though as someone always revisiting existing tales I suspect he would have been happy enough with the majority of the changes.

 

[Brigantium]

Whoah...full-blown Hobbit debate!

I enjoyed the first film tremendously, and I liked the fact it came out near my birthday/Christmas. It was like a big kiddie treat, so I'm looking forward to the next part. I actually thought I was a Tolkien nerd, but maybe not. Maybe I'm a demi-nerd (something like a half-orc, I guess).

What I really liked about the film was that it wasn't a million miles from how I imagined things from reading the book, the first time I read it. The songs, the scenery, the voices, yeah, they weren't at all far off how I remember this book, it was magical. The best scene of the book, in my opinion, Riddles in the Dark, was carried off incredibly well in the film. I don't think they could have made a better choice than Martin Freeman, too - I'm seeing all kinds of character similarities between Bilbo Baggins and Arthur Dent now!

As for the other bits thrown into the film, all well and good, they were fun, but I just felt they made the film a bit long, and complicated what was actually a straightforward plot - not good for the kids.

 

[Forostar]

I am also a bit of a Tolkien nerd (not so much in comparison with some diehards), and I still criticize several aspects of the film. E.g.:

I don't get why the film ended with a "the dragon is aware that the party is coming"-moment. Boooh, scary. Beware everybody! I find it a bit stupid, because the whole suspense of the dragon scenes in the book (before he discovers Bilbo) is built around the fact that it did not know that they're there. "Let's hope they won't be discovered", I constantly thought. That made for a thrilling read. Children book or not, that was hauntingly exciting.

 

[LooseCannon]

I don't get why the film ended with a "the dragon is aware that the party is coming"-moment. Boooh, scary. Beware everybody! I find it a bit stupid, because the whole suspense of the dragon scenes in the book (before he discovers Bilbo) is built around the fact that it did not know that they're there. "Let's hope they won't be discovered", I constantly thought. That made for a thrilling read. Children book or not, that was hauntingly exciting.

It didn't. the scene at the end was alluded to within the books, and has little to do with Smaug being aware they are coming - simply that he is coming close to waking, which is where he was in the Hobbit book.

 

[Black Wizard]

I just felt they made the film a bit long, and complicated what was actually a straightforward plot - not good for the kids.

My friend and I purposefully went a week before the schools finished so that there wouldn't be loads of kids in the cinema but it turned out that a couple of women had taken their young sons (who I'm sure should have been in school) to see it. The boys disappeared from the room for AGES (I wasn't complaining) until one of the women went out and brought them back in but they were incapable of sitting still and for the last half hour I could hear loads of thumping which my friend said was the boys running around.

I am also a bit of a Tolkien nerd (not so much in comparison with some diehards)

I thought you were diehard. You're the guy here who seems to know every little detail about his works and writes the longest posts about them.

 

[Forostar]

Diehard perhaps when it comes to "defending" the books I guess. But not fundamentalist enough to totally discard the films.

 

[Forostar]

It didn't. the scene at the end was alluded to within the books, and has little to do with Smaug being aware they are coming - simply that he is coming close to waking, which is where he was in the Hobbit book.

I thought he heard the bird, who gave a sign or something.

 

[Onhell]

Have you read the Hobbit? It's a children's book, and written from a more relaxed, ridiculous standpoint.

Did you read my review on the Now Reading Thread showing I did read the book and understand it is a children's book? The book is consistent, even with the rewriting of Riddles in the Dark to match the darker tone of LotR. Did you see the animated movie? While it was an ACTUAL cartoon not once did the action feel silly or "dumbed down." It was just done wrong IMO. It has nothing to do with the source material.

 

[LooseCannon]

I thought the entire animated movie was a stupid mess, to be honest with you - but I haven't seen it since I was about 14, so I can't say that opinion will hold today.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Have you seen the first Hobbit film?

Of course. I wouldn't comment on it otherwise...

My problem, really, is book-to-film adaptation generally. Adaptation is derivative; & when adaptation overshadows a clearly superior literary original (not necessarily the case with book-to-film adaptations) it's really bloody annoying. Forostar quotes from TheOneRing.net (TORN) a site formed around the release of Jackson's first LotRs instalment, along with it's partner in crime TheOneRing.com (TORC). These two sites are dedicated to Jackson's (film) presentation of Middle-earth, not J. R. R. Tolkien's; & as result they regularly mis-represent Tolkien's oeuvre. (Tolkien is like an unwelcome footnote.) It's noticeable that Forostar quoted from this site; online this is Tolkien.

In particular I have issue with the medium of film's representation of fantastic literature i.e. horror, the weird, supernatural fiction, fantasy, etc --which obviously includes Tolkien. These genres, in my opinion, translate poorly to film (for many reasons), & Tolkien is no exception. I'm not saying they're not good films (although, as far as films in general go, they're no masterpieces) --they just not a patch on the literary original.

1. The acting is fantastic.

Indeed, I loved Freeman's performance; it just doesn't change my opinion as expressed above.

2. The story is very good.

Yip, that would be because the story is Tolkien's.

I felt like Jackson picked a natural point for the denoument of the first part...

This division is his own, I'd hope he got it right.

3. Smaug looks awesome, and sounds awesome, and I can't wait to see that payoff.

Awesome? He's a dragon.

4. Riddles in the Dark. If you didn't absolutely love this scene from start to finish, then, well, I can't help you. It was perfect. Andy Serkis's Gollum is as iconic as ever, and Mr. Freeman did an utterly amazing job opposite him. The entire movie could have been a crapfest and it would have been saved by this single scene.

Literally word-for-word Tolkien. The reason it works, is because it's a great (iconic) scene in the book.

For the most part I agree with LC, specially about Riddles in the Dark. HOWEVER. The "addition" of the necromancer felt muddled at best and the "addition" of the Brown Wizard was just stupid. Just like people had a counter for how often Frodo fell (at times for no reason), one can have a counter (or drinking game) of how often Gandalf said, "RUUUUUN!" Very annoying. Anyway, may be nitpicking, but still annoying. The one part I truly HATED... yes, HATED was the battle with the goblins. It was fucking cartoonish and silly. Might as well have added the Benny Hill Theme as soundtrack. There was nothing serious, daunting or dramatic about that battle. At least in the LotR the mood for the battles was set amazingly well and for the most part you felt the characters were in true danger, something lacking completely in The Hobbit.

This hits quite a lot of nails on the head for me. Setting my own misgivings around adaptation aside, the film is full of clichés & film tropes (--& far more so than the LotRs films). As someone who saw Jackson's FR about six times at the cinema (i.e. I was super "engaged" in these releases), I was pretty disappointed with the first part of Jackson's Hobbit to be honest...

 

[Onhell]

I thought the entire animated movie was a stupid mess, to be honest with you - but I haven't seen it since I was about 14, so I can't say that opinion will hold today.

Fair enough. First few times I saw it I must've been 7-8. The last time I saw it I too was about 14/15, but already looking at it with nostalgia so my judgement of it was already biased. I may need to see it again more objectively.

 

[LooseCannon]

Yes, Tolkien wrote the story - nobody here, certainly not myself, is saying Jackson wrote this masterpiece on his own. But taking iconic scenes and characters and stories and bringing them to the big screen is at best difficult. Riddles in the Dark was easier to do wrong, in such a way that would leave any Tolkien fan - not just fanatic - out cold. If they got that one scene wrong they could never have recovered from it. That comes down to the actors and the director and everyone inbetween - and they nailed it.

If I give you a script and Onhell a script and Foro a script with the same lines and intonations and ask you to act it out I will get three different interpretations of it. Three different enactments. Crafting a scene to come as close as possible to the mood of the book is an art form. The genius of Tolkien is writing a scene that looks good in each of our perspective imaginations. The genius of Jackson is bringing that scene to life in a way that works with our respective and previously established interpretations.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Easy on the word genius: Jackson isn't even a movie genius.

 

[Perun]

If somebody who knows how to enter a password on a Mac is considered a genius, then even I would call Jackson a super genius.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Yes, Tolkien wrote the story - nobody here, certainly not myself, is saying Jackson wrote this masterpiece on his own.

I think it's an exageration to suggest any of his movies are film masterpieces.

But taking iconic scenes and characters and stories and bringing them to the big screen is at best difficult.

Agreed. I'd argue it's nigh on impossible in respect to some genres. Attempt it if you want though, I just don't think the finished product is worth spending hundreds of millions on. His films are not an artistic success in my eyes.

But by making a movie with wide appeal...

My problem with the medium of film: I don't care about wide appeal. And I'm not particularly interested in those who's aim is to make something with mass appeal. The foundation for this aim is, ultimately, commercial.

If I give you a script and Onhell a script and Foro a script with the same lines and intonations and ask you to act it out I will get three different interpretations of it. Three different enactments.

I'm not interested in everyone having their tuppence worth. I'm interested in the books J. R. R. Tolkien wrote & published, & the rest of his Legendarium.

Crafting a scene to come as close as possible to the mood of the book is an art form.

My biggest problem with Jackson: mood. The idea that Jackson has managed to capture the "feel" of Tolkien is laughable.

The genius of Jackson is bringing that scene to life in a way that works with our respective and previously established interpretations.

As I said, I don't believe Jackson is any kind of artistic genius.

 

[Forostar]

Strong own opinions, Cried. I am afraid you'll have to suffer a bit more when part 2 comes out.

Of course. I wouldn't comment on it otherwise...

You didn't show a sign of having seen the film, especially when I read your Unfinished Tales comments. I'd say read that book, or at least the parts that come back in the film, and you might remember what you have seen.

My problem, really, is book-to-film adaptation generally. Adaptation is derivative; & when adaptation overshadows a clearly superior literary original (not necessarily the case with book-to-film adaptations) it's really bloody annoying.

It is very often the case. Sometimes a film is more successful but then you could say it had mass commercial appeal. Won't make you happy either.

Forostar quotes from TheOneRing.net (TORN) a site formed around the release of Jackson's first LotRs instalment, along with it's partner in crime TheOneRing.com (TORC). These two sites are dedicated to Jackson's (film) presentation of Middle-earth, not J. R. R. Tolkien's; & as result they regularly mis-represent Tolkien's oeuvre. (Tolkien is like an unwelcome footnote.) It's noticeable that Forostar quoted from this site; online this is Tolkien.

I quoted a comment someone made. From someone just like you or me. It's more about what this person said, not who or where.

In particular I have issue with the medium of film's representation of fantastic literature i.e. horror, the weird, supernatural fiction, fantasy, etc --which obviously includes Tolkien. These genres, in my opinion, translate poorly to film (for many reasons), & Tolkien is no exception. I'm not saying they're not good films (although, as far as films in general go, they're no masterpieces) --they just not a patch on the literary original.

I agree that I seldomly or never have seen a fantasy film that comes across better than the book. But that doesn't reduce the average fantasy film to Scheisse. That would be a too black and white view. "Because it is not as good: it sucks, and so does the director."

And I'm not particularly interested in those who's aim is to make something with mass appeal. The foundation for this aim is, ultimately, commercial.

I admit I also dislike some commercial reeking choices (the importance of Arwen in the LORD-trilogy). But...
If you really don't see the passion when Jackson is at work (a few making-ofs or documentaries or blogs are enough to see this), or if you (also) don't realize the immense quantity he needs to supervise, then I might understand that you're not impressed. What you are not aware of, is hard to appreciate.
I say that this passion can't come without a drive (aim) to put this story on film.

Your and mine and everyone's opinion on what is artistically successful is quite subjective. It's hard to measure. It can be explained somewhat, but it's connected to taste.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

You didn't show a sign of having seen the film, especially when I read your Unfinished Tales comments. I'd say read that book, or at least the parts that come back in the film, and you might remember what you have seen.

I know where you're coming from; I've read UT many times. I just meant to highlight that Jackson is skating on thin ice should he include material that is blatantly UT, or not covered at all in the appendices of LotRs; since this would be copyright infringement. But, as I said, I haven't really analysed the film content enough to know. I'll maybe get back to you on that one...

I quoted a comment someone made. From someone just like you or me. It's more about what this person said, not who or where.

Indeed. I just used this as a springboard to get on my hobbyhorse & lambast TORN & TORC!

I agree that I seldomly or never have seen a fantasy film that comes across better than the book. But that doesn't reduce the average fantasy film to Scheisse. That would be a too black and white view. "Because it is not as good: it sucks, and so does the director."

I'm not saying he sucks as a director. I know fuck all about directing. Is he a great director? I'm not in a position to judge that. But, as films, I just genuinely don't think they're that good.

I admit I also dislike some commercial reeking choices (the importance of Arwen in the LORD-trilogy). But...
If you really don't see the passion when Jackson is at work (a few "making of's" or documentary's or blogs are enough to see this), or if you (also) don't realize the immense quantity he needs to supervise, then I might understand that you're not impressed. What you are not aware of, is hard to appreciate.
I say that this passion can't come without a drive (aim) to put this story on film.

I've genuinely sat through all the documentaries & commentaries Forostar. I'm not saying he has no passion for film making or that making these wasn't a titanic amount of work. But, from watching them, I didn't personally see someone passionate about Tolkien or his body of work. I didn't see a guy who communicated to the viewer that he really understood anything about Tolkien's philosophical, philological, theological (etc etc) outlook; even that he understood Tolkien's narrow aesthetic in regard to fantastic literature, storytelling, & mythology. Okay, so maybe this stuff was unlikely to come across in some documentary --but it didn't (or hasn't) come across in any of the films either. Now, a guy like Del Toro on the other hand; this is a guy who is very, very well read in horror, fantasy & weird literature. So, even if he fails to deliver these genres on film, I know he knows his stuff. I never got that impression with Jackson or Boyens.