Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
The true disturbance, for me, wasn't what was cut and what was changed, but the perception that Jackson and company were being faithful when adapting Tolkien. It's really my big problem with the film Appendices, because you have Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens up there beating on about "we're doing this in the spirit of Tolkien" and "we're not interested in putting our on garbage in the films."...In the words of Lumbergh...rrrrriiiight.
|
This perplexes me as well; sometimes their assurances of the need to "modernise" Professor Tolkien's work for Hollywood seems to contrast rather drastically with their protestations of faithfulness. On the other hand, however, I consider things like the Zimmerman treatment and others with Galadriel's fairy castle and Gimli being beaten with a blanket and what not and I am reminded of how truly bad things could have been.
What disturbs me in regards to The Hobbit Part 3 quite a bit is all this talk of the use of the Appendices to
The Lord of the Rings flying around. I'd got the impression that something of
Durin's Folk had already been incorporated into the existing material (the alleged casting of Azog, for instance, although did he end up actually being Bolg?). Unless they're planning on taking a cinematic diversion to detail the history of the Dśnedain and the House of Eorl or wax lyrical on the subject of Hobbit family trees I'm not sure how meaningful Peter Jackson's statement about the Appendices is beyond a potentially misplaced effort to placate fans. There is, I suppose, a little material in
The Tale of Years which might be useful but hardly enough to stretch things out to a third film without enormous amounts of invention. I don't really approve of this misrepresentation of the Appendices as the "notes to
The Hobbit" or however Peter Jackson has described them, although plenty of people online seem to be trying very hard to convince themselves that the Appendices are indeed some unimaginable treasure trove of supplementary material which specifically relates to
The Hobbit. A lot of people online also don't seem to realise that they do not have the rights to
Unfinished Tales or
The Silmarillion.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm worried that by the time December 14 rolls around we'll get a film that is barely recognisable as
The Hobbit, which is distracted from Bilbo's story and which does not give the original text the huge amount of credit it is due on its own. I fear that it will make any changes or additions to
The Lord of the Rings seem uniformly minute and reasonable by comparison.