The Hobbit movie compared to The Hobbit book discussion

[Grand Bob]

Although the debut of the movie is still three months away, enough material has been released to begin a comparison of the book and the movie. I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread to address a comparison between the two, since discussions involving the book can get off-topic in the other (movie-based) thread.

For starters, a potential positive difference is that Jackson seems to be infusing most of the movie Dwarves with more personality than those of the book. In the novel, Dwarves such as Bifur, Bofur, Ori, and Nori went through the story relatively unmentioned and were quickly forgotten upon finishing the book.

On the other hand, from the scenes released to date, the movie undoubtedly has an entirely different "feel" than the book. Some may find this to be an improvement, but others may lament the lighter, children's story intent of the author. Although I am personally reserving judgement until I see the movies, I am wary of the liberties that Jackson and Boyens make take with the material (especially the LotR appendices material) to make it appealing to an attention-deficit general audience.

[Blu-Benny]

I’m gonna have to follow this thread a little more closely than the LOTR book vs. movie discussion thread.

[Mahatma]

Makes me wonder how one can simplify that book any further.Don't get me wrong,love the book,but it looks to me rather the other way around.Like they're putting on a storywise fatsuit

But will go into this with a different state of mind than LotR.Some scenes must be breathtaking,and them being released as three,maybe one can pick the first and last if the middle is slighly longish.Maybe that's heresyThink this will heat up come releasedate

[Josh]

Regarding the tone of the film compared to the tone of the book:

Tolkien began a new version in 1960, attempting to adjust the tone of The Hobbit to its sequel. He abandoned the new revision at chapter three after he received criticism that it "just wasn't The Hobbit", implying it had lost much of its light-hearted tone and quick pace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit#Revisions

I believe Peter Jackson's tone for the film mirror's the effort of Tolkien, with the exception being that Tolkien was hampered in his effort because of the success of The Hobbit, where as Jackson is granted liberty because of the success of The Lord of the Rings.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Josh

Regarding the tone of the film compared to the tone of the book:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit#Revisions

I believe Peter Jackson's tone for the film mirror's the effort of Tolkien, with the exception being that Tolkien was hampered in his effort because of the success of The Hobbit, where as Jackson is granted liberty because of the success of The Lord of the Rings.

I wouldn't mind seeing two versions of the Hobbit,but think their difference is what makes them such good companions.

[JTStarkiller]

I'm reading the book for the first time, so I'll be very interested in this thread as well in the coming months. +1 to subscribe.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Josh

Regarding the tone of the film compared to the tone of the book:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit#Revisions

I believe Peter Jackson's tone for the film mirror's the effort of Tolkien, with the exception being that Tolkien was hampered in his effort because of the success of The Hobbit, where as Jackson is granted liberty because of the success of The Lord of the Rings.

Originally Posted by Mahatma

I wouldn't mind seeing two versions of the Hobbit,but think their difference is what makes them such good companions.

In his letters, Tolkien states that he struggled with the idea of revising The Hobbit to give it an atmosphere equivalent to Lord of the Rings. Likewise, he had the same difficulty when he tried to write a story that happened after the events of Lord of the Rings - and also abandoned it after writing the first chapter. The story was entitled "The New Shadow", and is included in The Peoples of Middle Earth (which I think you may have, Josh). Of course, Tolkien was a perfectionist and very obsessed with the tiniest details of his stories. Perhaps if he hadn't waited until late in life, he might have persisted and tried to accomplish The Hobbit revision.

Jackson will not be worried about the same details, and as Josh points out will be "granted liberty" as a result of success of LotR. Of course, this is where he has to be careful, because the major weaknesses in his LotR movies occurred when he and Boyens strayed from the plot and thematic intentions of the original story. If his Hobbit/LotR Appendices history remains true to the original (at least concerning the major details), these could be excellent movies that as Mahatma states, are "good companions", satisfying to the general public as well as the Tolkien fan-base.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Josh

Regarding the tone of the film compared to the tone of the book:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit#Revisions

I believe Peter Jackson's tone for the film mirror's the effort of Tolkien, with the exception being that Tolkien was hampered in his effort because of the success of The Hobbit, where as Jackson is granted liberty because of the success of The Lord of the Rings.

I remember reading that before--probably in the LOTR thread here. Shame he abandoned it. I don't like The Hobbit book nearly as much as I do the LOTR books because I prefer the more serious/adult tone of the latter, the richness of the language and descriptions of the world and it's history etc.

So I'm happy personally that Jackson is making the tone of his movie adaptation match that of his LOTR films rather than doing this as a light hearted kid's film to match the tone of the book.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I remember reading that before--probably in the LOTR thread here. Shame he abandoned it. I don't like The Hobbit book nearly as much as I do the LOTR books because I prefer the more serious/adult tone of the latter, the richness of the language and descriptions of the world and it's history etc.

So I'm happy personally that Jackson is making the tone of his movie adaptation match that of his LOTR films rather than doing this as a light hearted kid's film to match the tone of the book.

I have to agree about the films. I have the chapters. Part of me wishes Tolkien had finished revising The Hobbit. Maybe it could have been published as Book Zero in a one volume set of LOTR or in a boxed set of LOTR.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Makes me wonder how one can simplify that book any further.Don't get me wrong,love the book,but it looks to me rather the other way around.Like they're putting on a storywise fatsuit

It was fatsuit enough at two, and now there's rumors of three, just to keep up with peer pressure.
FWIR, in the book, Gandalf disappears for huge passages, basically leaving Bilbo and the company on their own for the middle third of the book, and only reappearing where convenient-ex-machina. (Eg. the trolls.)

At the end, Gandalf explains he was off communing with his fellow council about the rediscovery of the "Ring of the Necromancer" (which name Tolkien would later change), so it's likely we'll see a lot more of Ian McKellen in the movies, as we follow him in subplots/side-scenes to see where the heck Gandalf WAS going and who the heck he was talking to. (As I don't seem to recall Galadriel being in the book. )
Since, obviously, we have the benefit of knowing what Tolkien didn't when he wrote it.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by EricJ

we have the benefit of knowing what Tolkien didn't when he wrote it.

That pretty much sums it up. Tolkien invented his Middle-earth mythology as a means to give life to the languages he began creating twenty years prior the publication of The Hobbit. His major interest was The Silmarillion, a story that (due to its complexity) has still not made much of an impact on the mainstream, but it read mostly by Tolkien enthusiasts. As he describes it:

"The Hobbit ... was quite indepently conceived: I did not know as I began it that it belonged [to the mythology]. But it proved to be the discovery of the completion to the whole, its mode of descent to earth... by the time the Hobbit appeared (1937) this 'matter of the Elder Days' [The Silmarillion mythology] was in coherent form. The Hobbit was not intended to have anything to do with it. I had the habit while my children were still young of inventing 'children's stories' for their private amusement... The Hobbit was intended to be one of them. It...naturally became attracted towards this dominant construction in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded. Even so, it could really stand quite apart, except for references to the Fall of Gondolin, the quarrel of King Thingol with the Dwarves, ... the matter of the Dwarves, Durin their prime ancestor, and Moria; and Elrond."

Many readers have observed that The Hobbit becomes increasingly mature in tone and more involved with the overall history of Middle-earth as the story progresses. For example, Paul Edmund Thomas notes:

"that no obvious addresses to the reader occur in the last six chapters of the novel. Also, in Chapter 14 ['Fire and Water'], which recounts the attack of Smaug and his death, Bilbo and the Dwarves were omitted entirely, and the narrator presents the action from more points of view than in any other chapter... These constitute major changes in the narrative voice. It is no coincidence that these changes occur as the language of the dialogue becomes more elevated and focused on subjects like the debate over the property claims to Smaug's treasure and the debate over political rights in Esgaroth. It is no coincidence that these changes occur as the plot turns to violent action and swells from the onslaught of Smaug towards the Battle of Five Armies. And it is no coincidence that these changes occur as the scope of the narrator's view abandons the domestic and provincial perspective of Bilbo and begins to sweep over great distances ... This is the narrator of a prose epic. This is a whisper from the narrator who speaks in full voice in The Lord of the Rings."

So, per EricJ's statement, Jackson has the advantage of applying this hindsight and telling the whole tale from the beginning with a mature perspective. The history of Middle-earth (at least as far as Tolkien is concerned) is now finished, and those elements can be used to fill in the incomplete, or "missing", parts of The Hobbit story. A fair amount of leeway exists with some of the history (e.g. The White Council, Moria) and characters (e.g. Galadriel, Radagast). The danger lies with the question, "Will Jackson and Boyens dumb the story down with unnecessary tangent plots (e.g. Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath in Lord of the Rings, Frodo sending Sam home, etc.) or characters (e.g. "Tauriel")?

[Agent Bond]

There's only 3 things I want to see onscreen:

Riddles In The Dark conversation

Smaug

The Battle Of Five Armies

[Buddy Ackerman]

If there's one thing I think the first trailer managed it was to suggest that there is a nice balance of the whimsy and sweetness of The Hobbit (all the Shire scenes, especially the sights of the dwarves doing the dishes) and the more epic nature of The Lord of the Rings. Of course this is just a trailer but the trailer for me did a fantastic job of presenting it as still being The Hobbit everyone knows and loves, just The Hobbit: Expanded.

And the shot of the two stories meeting where Bilbo looks upon the Shards of Narsil still, after 50 or 60 views, makes my hair stand on end.

[Show spoiler]

I can't wait to see what Jackson has in store for us, changes and all. I may not like all of them but I look forward to being surprised at how ths story unfolds.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

That pretty much sums it up. Tolkien invented his Middle-earth mythology as a means to give life to the languages he began creating twenty years prior the publication of The Hobbit. His major interest was The Silmarillion, a story that (due to its complexity) has still not made much of an impact on the mainstream, but it read mostly by Tolkien enthusiasts. As he describes it:

"The Hobbit ... was quite indepently conceived: I did not know as I began it that it belonged [to the mythology]. But it proved to be the discovery of the completion to the whole, its mode of descent to earth... by the time the Hobbit appeared (1937) this 'matter of the Elder Days' [The Silmarillion mythology] was in coherent form. The Hobbit was not intended to have anything to do with it. I had the habit while my children were still young of inventing 'children's stories' for their private amusement... The Hobbit was intended to be one of them. It...naturally became attracted towards this dominant construction in my mind, causing the tale to become larger and more heroic as it proceeded. Even so, it could really stand quite apart, except for references to the Fall of Gondolin, the quarrel of King Thingol with the Dwarves, ... the matter of the Dwarves, Durin their prime ancestor, and Moria; and Elrond."

Many readers have observed that The Hobbit becomes increasingly mature in tone and more involved with the overall history of Middle-earth as the story progresses. For example, Paul Edmund Thomas notes:

"that no obvious addresses to the reader occur in the last six chapters of the novel. Also, in Chapter 14 ['Fire and Water'], which recounts the attack of Smaug and his death, Bilbo and the Dwarves were omitted entirely, and the narrator presents the action from more points of view than in any other chapter... These constitute major changes in the narrative voice. It is no coincidence that these changes occur as the language of the dialogue becomes more elevated and focused on subjects like the debate over the property claims to Smaug's treasure and the debate over political rights in Esgaroth. It is no coincidence that these changes occur as the plot turns to violent action and swells from the onslaught of Smaug towards the Battle of Five Armies. And it is no coincidence that these changes occur as the scope of the narrator's view abandons the domestic and provincial perspective of Bilbo and begins to sweep over great distances ... This is the narrator of a prose epic. This is a whisper from the narrator who speaks in full voice in The Lord of the Rings."

So, per EricJ's statement, Jackson has the advantage of applying this hindsight and telling the whole tale from the beginning with a mature perspective. The history of Middle-earth (at least as far as Tolkien is concerned) is now finished, and those elements can be used to fill in the incomplete, or "missing", parts of The Hobbit story. A fair amount of leeway exists with some of the history (e.g. The White Council, Moria) and characters (e.g. Galadriel, Radagast). The danger lies with the question, "Will Jackson and Boyens dumb the story down with unnecessary tangent plots (e.g. Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath in Lord of the Rings, Frodo sending Sam home, etc.) or characters (e.g. "Tauriel")?

Perhaps Tolkien could have rewritten just the first few chapters and left the rest (that was heavier in tone) alone.