The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by radagast

Just listen to the radio adaptation the BBC did of LOTR. It was condensed but kept the tone and the feel of the books MUCH better than Jackson and company did.

An excellent production! I highly recommend the BBC recordings for anyone who is interested in the story.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

An excellent production! I highly recommend the BBC recordings for anyone who is interested in the story.

Can they be found on iTunes?

[Brightstar]

I got The Hobbit in the post today am gonna start reading it

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

I got The Hobbit in the post today am gonna start reading it

You'll have a grand undiluted time

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by radagast

First of all Christopher Tolkien doesn't need the money and to suggest that he would put money or commercial success over his father's literary legacy is crass and an insult. There are more important things than money.

And I've said it many times before - with all the positive things that can be said for the movies, the scripts could have been a LOT better. Just listen to the radio adaptation the BBC did of LOTR. It was condensed but kept the tone and the feel of the books MUCH better than Jackson and company did.

I didn't suggest that he needed the money at all, simply that a by-product of such 'rampant commercialization' would be the original source material selling faster. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, since CT has said himself that he wishes more people would read his father's work.

I don't understand what this personal vengeance thing is all about -- you're just replying to people who have said negative things about the books. Here's an unpopular opinion with you, I guess: as influential and intelligent as the LoTR books are, they're frustratingly over-detailed and difficult to enjoy (for me).

Originally Posted by spanky87

You sound like you don't enjoy these movies much. And sounds like you will be watching Hobbit part 2 in theaters waiting to pick out all the changes instead of trying to enjoy it.

+1.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Can they be found on iTunes?

I'm not sure about iTunes, but it available on YouTube, for example, here is the link to Fellowship of the Rings (Ian Holm, the "old Bilbo" in The Hobbit movie is the voice of Frodo):

BBC: The Lord Of The Rings - The Fellowship Of The Ring - YouTube

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by radagast

And it still burns me that one of the script writers had the temerity to claim that they improved Tolkien's story. RUBBISH! Maybe that bothers Christopher also. It should.

That was Philippa Boyens, on the FOTR commentary, discussing how they improved Boromir's death scene, and she started to get into her perception of Tolkien's failings as a writer, before Peter Jackson wisely changed the subject.

[MoulinBlu]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

You guys can bad mouth and call Christopher Tolkein names all you want. However without him there is a hell of a lot of unreleased Tolkien material that NEVER sees the light of day.

.

For the record, I meant no disrespect to Christopher Tolkein, just saying you don't see Rowling complaining about WB monumentally magnifying public interest in and the value of her creation, not to mention making her a billionaire, one of the wealthiest authors in the world, practically overnight. And the HP films omit a lot more from the original work than LotRs.

I can appreciate the desire for fidelity, but whether CT is completely ignorant of the films or not, he has no justification for being insultingly dismissive of all the attention they have brought to the original work. Assuming what's been posted here is true, that's about as ungrateful as a child pitching a tantrum because they're having hamburgers instead of pizza for dinner - you'd expect an adult to be a bit wiser, if not more mature.

There are plenty of people who disagree with you.

No. You must be joking! People disagree on the internet? Surely that can't happen, especially not in the land of anonymity.

[Monolithium]

I think Christopher Tolkien is angry that Peter Jackson might be making more money of his father's work than he is.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

I think Christopher Tolkien is angry that Peter Jackson might be making more money of his father's work than he is.

Hardly, he's just protective of his father's literary legacy.

[ac4155]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Hardly, he's just protective of his father's literary legacy.

I personally think that he should never have allowed the films to be made. It's been we'll recorded of Tolkien's belief into not wanting films to be made of the books as he thought the story and characters would be changed too much (well changed at all really).

For him to allow the films to be made and then complain seems a bit off. Instead, he could ignore the films and focus on promoting the books and the rest of his fathers work as the true, unchanged work for what it is.

I love the books and Tolkien is one of my favourite authors, but I also really love the films. To me, the films are seen as having been drawn and adapted from the books which is shown with the changes, rather than ever having been a film of the exact events of the books.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by ac4155

I personally think that he should never have allowed the films to be made. It's been we'll recorded of Tolkien's belief into not wanting films to be made of the books as he thought the story and characters would be changed too much (well changed at all really).

For him to allow the films to be made and then complain seems a bit off. Instead, he could ignore the films and focus on promoting the books and the rest of his fathers work as the true, unchanged work for what it is.

It's not Christopher you should be having a go at here if that's how you feel - it's JRR himself. He's the one who sold the rights to the films and, though his responses to some proposals of the films have been recorded, it's also been recorded that he would have welcomed a version of the films and though they could be done quite well (if not in the same style as the books).

The film rights are out of Christopher's hands - if he had control over them then we would not have seen these films, as shown by his refusal to let any further rights be signed over for works not covered by his father's original agreements.

EDIT: Here's a very good piece on JRR's various thoughts on film versions of his works that shows he may have questioned them a lot but was never completely against a film version.

[drichter33]

Originally Posted by MoulinBlu

Really? Despite all the money that was put into it, all the money they made off of it, and how well it was received, not to mention the renewed attention it brought the books? I know it's not verbatim, but as movie adaptations go, it's about as close to the original work as movies come. I'd love to hear his thoughts on it.

He is just being a bitter old d--k. No matter what happened, he was opposed to it and never was going to support it. He deserves no more attention.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Here's[/URL] a very good piece on JRR's various thoughts on film versions of his works that shows he may have questioned them a lot but was never completely against a film version.

That is a good article, but I think the situation would be simpler and less ambiguous were Tolkien still alive. He would have loved the production effort, locations, and the plot and character adaptions of Jackson's movies that were faithful to the text. I don't think he would have been too forgiving with regard to the deviations.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

That is a good article, but I think the situation would be simpler and less ambiguous were Tolkien still alive. He would have loved the production effort, locations, and the plot and character adaptions of Jackson's movies that were faithful to the text. I don't think he would have been too forgiving with regard to the deviations.

That's kind of what the piece says - that he might not have loved it and would have had problems with some of the choices but would probably have at least preferred it to the 50s version he looked at. I don't think he'd have been against all of the deviations though - the article points out that he'd have understood things such as the removal of Helm's Deep, showing he could at least the logic of some choices. I agree though that he would especially have loved the locations especially, as well as the designs. For instance, he may not have enjoyed the 'crossing the stairs' bit in Fellowship (though I'd argue it's as much a character piece as it is an action piece) but I can't see him being disappointed in seeing Moria come alive. Similarly, though the Shire wasn't built or filmed in its 'natural' home of England I couldn't imagine him not being impressed with its depiction.

The point of posting it was to show that he certainly wasn't against Middle-Earth films being made, just that he wanted either control over vetoing deviations or a lot of money.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

That's kind of what the piece says - that he might not have loved it and would have had problems with some of the choices but would probably have at least preferred it to the 50s version he looked at. I don't think he'd have been against all of the deviations though - the article points out that he'd have understood things such as the removal of Helm's Deep, showing he could at least the logic of some choices. I agree though that he would especially have loved the locations especially, as well as the designs. For instance, he may not have enjoyed the 'crossing the stairs' bit in Fellowship (though I'd argue it's as much a character piece as it is an action piece) but I can't see him being disappointed in seeing Moria come alive. Similarly, though the Shire wasn't built or filmed in its 'natural' home of England I couldn't imagine him not being impressed with its depiction.

The point of posting it was to show that he certainly wasn't against Middle-Earth films being made, just that he wanted either control over vetoing deviations or a lot of money.

Yes, I think most of us can agree that it is the major deviations we are referring to, although (as you are no doubt aware, Buddy) that he did not take kindly to even slight meddling with the characters - as was evident from his response to the proposed Morton Grady Zimmerman production. Christopher is probably the best overall indicator of his father's probable state of mind (as J.R.R.T. bounced most of his ideas off of Christopher while writing it), so it is unfortunate that he will not even grant the films a viewing. Most likely J.R.R.T. (similar to Christopher) would frown on the preference for "action over substance", and I think we can be reasonably certain that he would be against such plot twists as Faramir's selling out, Arwen's fate tied to the Ring, Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath, the Gandalf/Witch King confrontation, and all of the other "eye openers" to the Tolkien faithful (such as ourselves) that have been repeatedly addressed. In spite of that, I think Jackson has done an excellent job of translating difficult literary material into a film that the vast general-movie-going-public can enjoy. If the films had faithfully interpreted the text (less action, etc.), they would have had less general appeal. So, I think Jackson for the most part struck a successful balance with the LotR films. I am not convinced - yet - that he has done the same for The Hobbit.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Yes, I think most of us can agree that it is the major deviations we are referring to, although (as you are no doubt aware, Buddy) that he did not take kindly to even slight meddling with the characters - as was evident from his response to the proposed Morton Grady Zimmerman production. Christopher is probably the best overall indicator of his father's probable state of mind (as J.R.R.T. bounced most of his ideas off of Christopher while writing it), so it is unfortunate that he will not even grant the films a viewing. Most likely J.R.R.T. (similar to Christopher) would frown on the preference for "action over substance", and I think we can be reasonably certain that he would be against such plot twists as Faramir's selling out, Arwen's fate tied to the Ring, Frodo showing the Ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath, the Gandalf/Witch King confrontation, and all of the other "eye openers" to the Tolkien faithful (such as ourselves) that have been repeatedly addressed. In spite of that, I think Jackson has done an excellent job of translating difficult literary material into a film that the vast general-movie-going-public can enjoy. If the films had faithfully interpreted the text (less action, etc.), they would have had less general appeal. So, I think Jackson for the most part struck a successful balance with the LotR films. I am not convinced - yet - that he has done the same for The Hobbit.

Even though I have much less of a problem with the deviations mentioned (though, of the four, I do find the Arwen one just pointless and haphazardly handled) - I completely agree with all of that. Well put. Even though I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit I also agree, going by the debates the film has spurned, that the balance has not been as successful.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by spanky87

You sound like you don't enjoy these movies much. And sounds like you will be watching Hobbit part 2 in theaters waiting to pick out all the changes instead of trying to enjoy it.

I have a love-hate relationship with the movies. I won't have to look for the instances where the story is damaged - they'll slap me in the face. Like Radagast for instance. I'll enjoy the parts I can and criticize the parts I don't, like many other people here do with other movies.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That was Philippa Boyens, on the FOTR commentary, discussing how they improved Boromir's death scene, and she started to get into her perception of Tolkien's failings as a writer, before Peter Jackson wisely changed the subject.

Yes that's the one. They didn't improve anything. They dumbed it down for cinema and made it look like a 3 hour commercial for a video game.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

I think Christopher Tolkien is angry that Peter Jackson might be making more money of his father's work than he is.

Since he is making lots of money off the films as well, that is not at all likely. In fact, since he is more interested in his father's legacy more than the money, it shows what his priorities are.