The Hobbit will be a trilogy...
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
all you have to do if someone says something on a forum is type it in yourself. if something's all over the news, the person starting the thread doesn't really need to cite a link
that third link is the best example as to how much material is actually in this one book, and why it's perfectly acceptable for this to be three movies
You probably misread the title of the article.
It's proof that Jackson is INVENTING things to stuff up the movie. Things that do NOT originate from Tolkien's mind and are probably completely inadequate with the Universe he wanted.
The only thing he 'invented' was Kili's love interest.
The rest of it is all in the books.
(warning: this is a bit ranty)
I have a ton of respect for the work Christopher Tolkien has done over the years (editing his father's work). And they genuinely got screwed by hollywood accounting...something they went to court over and WON. The experience seems to have left Mr. Tolkien a bitter man.
I recognize that in the Two Towers the battle of Helm's Deep fills considerably less pages than the Jog Across Rohan, or any of the excessive descriptions of camping. Faramir sort of got the shaft (coming across as Borimir II, and getting Sam's best monologue in an attempt to show the depth of his character), but in the extended versions, he certainly fixed that. The Hobbit will certainly be that way as well...the Battle of Five Armies takes what, 5 pages or so? I can't imagine Jackson (or anyone watching) wanting to see the setup to such an epic conflict and then fading to black as Bilbo gets knocked out. It works in the book, but books and movies are different. So, yeah, lots more action (and a better movie for it) but to say that "eviscerated" the book? Really? Why, because Tom Bombadil got cut? Because the depth of cultures, language and history wasn't shown...oh, wait, it was! My favorite bit:
So, let me get this straight. Tons of people, as the movies were coming out, bought the books and (presumably) read them. The film was merchandised, but not the books because Tolkien didn't want to (and New Line did). From that we take a WILD AND UNSUBSTANTIATED leap that authors are drawing inspiration from the film rather than the book. Huh? The book is not suddenly lost and forgotten, 25 million copies were sold in three years! Decades after they were first released! People are still reading them, and being inspired by them.
Oh, and also a choice bit from the interviewer:
Bah. Crankyjosh. Anyway, the books will always be there, and I can always read them. I thought Jackson did a good job of the previous adaptation, and I think he'll do a good job with this one. Yes, it will (and should) be different. But the Tolkien-purist attitude drives me nuts sometimes. Like he didn't spend a good deal of time adapting myths and cultures into something different....
I have a ton of respect for the work Christopher Tolkien has done over the years (editing his father's work). And they genuinely got screwed by hollywood accounting...something they went to court over and WON. The experience seems to have left Mr. Tolkien a bitter man.
I recognize that in the Two Towers the battle of Helm's Deep fills considerably less pages than the Jog Across Rohan, or any of the excessive descriptions of camping. Faramir sort of got the shaft (coming across as Borimir II, and getting Sam's best monologue in an attempt to show the depth of his character), but in the extended versions, he certainly fixed that. The Hobbit will certainly be that way as well...the Battle of Five Armies takes what, 5 pages or so? I can't imagine Jackson (or anyone watching) wanting to see the setup to such an epic conflict and then fading to black as Bilbo gets knocked out. It works in the book, but books and movies are different. So, yeah, lots more action (and a better movie for it) but to say that "eviscerated" the book? Really? Why, because Tom Bombadil got cut? Because the depth of cultures, language and history wasn't shown...oh, wait, it was! My favorite bit:
So, let me get this straight. Tons of people, as the movies were coming out, bought the books and (presumably) read them. The film was merchandised, but not the books because Tolkien didn't want to (and New Line did). From that we take a WILD AND UNSUBSTANTIATED leap that authors are drawing inspiration from the film rather than the book. Huh? The book is not suddenly lost and forgotten, 25 million copies were sold in three years! Decades after they were first released! People are still reading them, and being inspired by them.
Oh, and also a choice bit from the interviewer:
Wow, can you come across as more misogynistic! Oh noes! Putting more womens in! Odd, given that Tolkien wrote some strong female characters (Lúthien, Galadriel, Eowyn). Expanding Arwen's role in LOTR was necessary (in-universe gripe. I want to slap anyone who compares Arwen to Lúthien. She was constantly bailing Beren out, wheras Arwen just sorta hung around Rivendell, waiting for Aragorn to be king). When LOTR was being filmed, I remember and UPROAR over the concept of Lurtz. An Uruk-hai with a name that Tolkien didn't state! Blasphemy! Of course, the name wasn't even used in the film, and having a character in the hoard the viewers can latch on to was effective and smart. But they made it up for the movie, so it has to be bad.
Bah. Crankyjosh. Anyway, the books will always be there, and I can always read them. I thought Jackson did a good job of the previous adaptation, and I think he'll do a good job with this one. Yes, it will (and should) be different. But the Tolkien-purist attitude drives me nuts sometimes. Like he didn't spend a good deal of time adapting myths and cultures into something different....
Dude this is Tolkien "himself", it's not puritanism.
Also, what's Chris is trying to push forward is that there's a lot more to Middle Earth than LOTR and The Hobbit. And the movies do not take that into account.
Basically, it's not just about having millions of fans. If you're gonna like me over a false or incomplete image I'd rather you not know me. And that's how Christopher feels about it. Since he is the closest person on Earth to Middle Earth's lore, I can't understand how one can argue with him.
I haven't read the Hobbit since I was a kid, but I definitely liked it then.
From what I remember I don't even really see why it needs to be more than one film.
Movies and books are different just like real life and movies are different. With movies you focus on the action (and by action I don't just mean fight scenes) and you cut out the boring bits.
Personally, and you can take my opinion or leave it since I haven't read any LOTR, I thought the movies were booooring. I saw at least two of them around the time they came out, and tried re-watching them with Sean, who also hasn't read the books, a year or two ago. After the first half hour the conversation went something like this, and I think it sums it up for me:
[First LOTR movie is on, 30-40 minutes into it]
SEAN
So, what is this about again?
ME
They have to go to the volcano to destroy the ring.
SEAN
So what are the other two movies about?
ME
That's the whole trilogy.
SEAN
You're joking, right?
ME
...
SEAN
Fuck.
From what I remember I don't even really see why it needs to be more than one film.
Movies and books are different just like real life and movies are different. With movies you focus on the action (and by action I don't just mean fight scenes) and you cut out the boring bits.
Personally, and you can take my opinion or leave it since I haven't read any LOTR, I thought the movies were booooring. I saw at least two of them around the time they came out, and tried re-watching them with Sean, who also hasn't read the books, a year or two ago. After the first half hour the conversation went something like this, and I think it sums it up for me:
[First LOTR movie is on, 30-40 minutes into it]
SEAN
So, what is this about again?
ME
They have to go to the volcano to destroy the ring.
SEAN
So what are the other two movies about?
ME
That's the whole trilogy.
SEAN
You're joking, right?
ME
...
SEAN
Fuck.
It's easy to make anything sound stupid. You forgot to mention all the various plot-lines, battle sequences, and that half of the other movies aren't about the ring at all. It's an epic film, it has a whole lot more to it than your average movie. Like Star Wars (the good ones, which is just LOTR in space)
But I wasn't trying to make it sound stupid. I was giving my honest opinion. I understand a lot of people see something in the movies that I don't. I have no problems with other people having different taste than me.
But personally, all those other plot lines and battle sequences you mentioned bored the pants off me. So there's a guy who has to reclaim a throne. So there's evil creatures that live underground. So there are pretty elves. So there's a wizard who dies but then comes back. But that doesn't cover up (to me) the fact that it's about a whiney bitch going on a very long hike.
I understand you were bored, but summing it up that way makes it sound boring/stupid, when some people drool at the mouth over those things. That's what I meant by it's easy to make anything sound stupid.
!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU
I actually love the series. But yeah, it's got a pretty big plot-hole.
Yeah, you can make any movie sound boring.
On the topic of Tolkien, I almost feel like he doesn't think he's making enough money from it and so bashes it. I completely disagree with the assertion that they are action movies for 15 to 25 year olds.
Yes, there's more to the Middle Earth world than what's shown in the books, but IMO Jackson was as true to the books as anyone could be whilst still keeping the runtime <5 hours/movie.
Jackson looks at his films from the perspective of what the audience wants to see. There is more than to the world than that, but how amazing would these films be if the first movie consisted of two hours of Tom Bombadil and travelling to Rivendell? Great for fans of the book, but what about those others?
Also, whilst the rights sold for 'only' 100,000 pounds sterling, adjusting for inflation, that would be around 2million pounds by today's standards so that seems like a pretty decent fee to me.
It's merely the clash of the two worlds - Jackson's writing with the landscape of film in mind, and what's going to work on screen, and what audiences are going to watch, whereas all Tolkien has in mind is his father's 'world' which is great and it's a great world, but that doesn't mean it works perfectly on film.
This isn't Tolkien "himself" This is his SON. What seperates him from any other Tolkien scholar is he has notes he hasn't edited yet. Again, I appreciate the work he has done over the years, mostly editing and publishing stuff Tolkien would still be working on were he alive (he liked to play with his universe!)
And you're arguing the wrong side of the fence there. Chris is saying the films should be the text of the book and nothing else. Jackson is saying there's more to Middle Earth than in each individual work, so let's put that in the film too! He did it with LOTR...hell, that's the reason Arwen is in the film at all (other than the ending).
If Chris has access to information from unpublished notes that contradicts what Jackson and Co. are doing with the films, he has no one to blame but himself if the movies don't take that into account. He was asked to be involved from day one. He refused. So they got a hold of other Tolkien scholars to consult. And, most importantly, as jax_rox stated, film and books are two VERY different mediums (as I'm sure most people here would agree). What works in one doesn't necessarily work in the other.
But all and all, it's cool to disagree. It's fine to not even like the films/books at all, as Dready does. Personally, I like 'em! I choose to remain optimistic about the films. But it is fun discussing different perspectives!
Oh, and Cracker Funk? Some reading for you: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Eagles
This is not how I feel after reading that article. It says that they were extremely close, that the son would receive letters from his fathers to have his opinion, to show him new stuff. I don't think there is anyone on Earth who's better acquainted with Middle Earth than him. He grew up in that world.
I agree that he's kind of bitter about this. Precisely because he doesn't recognize his father's mythology in the movies. He feels there's way more to it than the aesthetics and action and I believe there is.
I'm not sure about being invited to have a say in the movies. He was in court against New Line for not paying him and to earn a say on anu future adaptation. You wouldn't go to court to ask for something you've been proposed.
I just don't trust Jackson, and even less now that he's trying to make The Hobbit into three films. It just feels like he's trying to make the most of the rights he has.