Quote:
Originally Posted by cellurdur
I agree with a lot of things, but this is the problem with making a Hobbit movie. The book as it is, is a brilliant stand alone story. However, it is not brilliant as a prequel to LOTR. Only the last 1/3 of the book really can be directly translated. A lot of foolery of the dwarves does not really fit with their later portrayal. This is precisely why Tolkien considered rewriting the book.
|
This is why I feel that an adaptation of
The Hobbit should really have come first. The more serious tone of
The Lord of the Rings feels like a logical maturation of the later stages of
The Hobbit, and in my opinion story elements like Gollum, the Ring and the Necromancer are far more dramatically effective in the original order. I don't know if that would have worked in Hollywood terms, though. It probably makes more sense to wow audiences with the big extravaganza first and then cash in on the other material later.
Also why do people online still think that elements of
The Silmarillion and/or
Unfinished Tales were used in
The Hobbit? I keep seeing this notion getting bandied about as if it a) is true, and b) somehow automatically vindicates Peter Jackson from any source-material-butchery.