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.

[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.

[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.

[Toscaclarinet]

I've read the 3 chapters of 'The New Hobbit' and I agree with whoever Tolkien's friend was that criticised it. So much of the original book is the whimsical Tolkien storytelling that I love and it just feels like 'Lord of the Rings' but less interesting when that disappears. I really like the fact that the two are quite different, and how the first few chapters of the sequel start off in a similar narrative style and then change (yes, yes I know that in story this is explained by the difference between Bilbo and Frodo's narration). I just really don't like the way this film is going tone wise.

[jbig31]

This "Granted Liberty" is what scares me.

[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.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

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

Riddles In The Dark conversation

Smaug

The Battle Of Five Armies

Something to look forward to in every film for you then!

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

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.

I do have that book, and I will have to check that out tonight when I get home. So that is a story that happens after LOTR? What was the difficulty he had in completing the story?

As some have already pointed out, I have posted that same line many times in the Hobbit thread because the first argument against what Jackson has shown so far is because the tone of The Hobbit is so whimsical and the film is very reminicent of LOTR. I continue to argue that Tolkien not only would approve of the tone, but also tried to rewrite The Hobbit to match the tone himself. I see this film as Jackson realizing the intent of Tolkien with this film.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Josh

I do have that book, and I will have to check that out tonight when I get home. So that is a story that happens after LOTR? What was the difficulty he had in completing the story?

According to the Lord of the Rings wiki (I know but these guys seem to know their stuff)

Tolkien felt that nothing in the Fourth Age would be enchanting or incredible the way the tales of older books were. Also, with both Melkor and Sauron defeated, there was no manifestation of evil in the world.

And the plot, for anyone interested:

[Show spoiler]

The story starts in Gondor with Borlas. This created a problem with timing because the book is during the reign of Eldarion (EDIT: Aragorn's son), making Borlas around 200 years old.

Borlas becomes concerned with a secret society formed among the boys of Gondor. They have taken to dressing up like Orcs and doing Orcish things such as cutting down trees with no reason. There are also rumors about a man called Herumor, which is Quenya for "Dark Lord", the leader of the cult. Tolkien called it a Satanic cult, so it was presumably a revival of the worship of Morgoth, Sauron, or both.

The story continues to a point where Borlas receives an invitation from Saelon, a young man his son grew up with, to attend a secret meeting. The meeting is presumably with the cult, though it's unknown whether Saelon is a member or wants help to destroy it.

Sounds interesting - and obviously I would have loved it to have been completed - though it does sound very different from the previous tales. Having said that this is of course coming from the first 30 pages so who knows where it would have gone to. Not to mention that I imagine a description of Lord of the Rings just after The Hobbit was released must have felt staggeringly different in breadth, tone and, to a point, subject matter than The Hobbit. Yet all know how that ended up.

EDIT: A much better quote from Tolkein regarding the story and the reasons he abandoned it:

"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing."

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Josh

I see this film as Jackson realizing the intent of Tolkien with this film.

I don't even think that justification is needed. It wouldn't make sense to make the Hobbit movies in a vastly different tone and not have them work with the LOTR movies to make a cohesive six movie series.

I'd think most movie fans want these to flow together so they can sit down and watch all six over a week or whatever and have them all fit together perfectly in telling the story across the films without any jarring change in tone.

Will it bother die hard fans of the books? Sure. But diehard fans of source material are the hardest to please with any film adaptation and the LOTR films have a huge audience who loved them despite changes so Jackson just needs to tell the version of the story he wants to tell and make these 3 movies as perfectly tied into his LOTR films as he can IMO.

Hopefully he does it in a way that keeps the diehard book fans happy while also satisfying the more casual fans of the LOTR movies--as that's the best of both worlds, and would cut down on a lot of griping!

But I care more about these movies fitting well with the LOTR films than I do about them being 100% faithful to to the book and its tone. While I love the LOTR books--and didn't like some of the changes--I still loved those movies on their own merits. For The Hobbit, as noted above, I'm not a huge fan of that book and it's light hearted tone, so I'm personally a lot more amenable to changes here than I was with LOTR.

[drichter33]

doesnt this conversation come up enough in the movie discussion threads taht are out there? cant this be merged?

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by drichter33

doesnt this conversation come up enough in the movie discussion threads taht are out there? cant this be merged?

Why?It's a comparison thread,the other a release thread about the movie.