Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[Folwren]

Why would the recent memory of Narnia ruin it for the audience? It wasn't the animals that made the movie not as good as it could have been - it was that director's deviation from the book - just like the LotR wasn't as good as it could have been, not because of Elijah Wood's acting of Frodo, but because Jackson strayed from the book.

I think Beorn belongs in the story and movie. And if you have Beorn, you can't very well not have his animals, can you? I think the serving animals would be wonderful. They shouldn't necessarily be the center of attention for thirty seconds or whatever, but I think it'd be cool to have Gandalf and Beorn or someone talking and in the background see the animals trotting in and out with the platters and tables.

Was it murder to the book? No. And if properly done, it won't be murder to the movie, either.

-- Folwren

[Sauron the White]

from Folwren

Why would the recent memory of Narnia ruin it for the audience? It wasn't the animals that made the movie not as good as it could have been - it was that director's deviation from the book - just like the LotR wasn't as good as it could have been, not because of Elijah Wood's acting of Frodo, but because Jackson strayed from the book.

So the LOTR films were "not as good as it could have been" if they only stayed strictly to the books? So if we had Tom Bombadil singing his cheery doggerel dressed like a bad hippie dream, then the film would have
- made more money than the $4 billion US dollars that it did ????
- won more than the 17 Academy Awards that it did ?????
- been more critically praised than the high level that it did ????

I find that extremely hard to believe since by all three areas of industry measurement they were immensely successful. There were things in the book that would have simply killed the films right in their tracks - Bombadil at the top of that list. Try to imagine a 25 minute Council of Elrond with all the various talking heads laying out the expository material for the audience as they figdeted in their chairs.

Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other.

[Folwren]

I'm not arguing. It's a simple fact. Ask anyone else on the forum if the movie wouldn't have been better if he'd stuck more with the books.

EDIT: Not if he stuck EXACTLY with the book. Yes, there are parts that would have been bad for the movie. But if he had stuck at least MOSTLY with the book. None of this Frodo sending Sam away or Faramir taking Sam and Frodo to Osgilitath or Gandalf getting his staff broken by the Witch King or Aragorn not wanting to be who he was and saying stupid stuff like "I do not want that power. I have never wanted it" or Arwen's fate being bound to the Ring's or.....well, yeah, you get my point....

[Sauron the White]

Folwren
I do get your point. And I do respect your opinion on this. I do however feel that they certainly did do as you wanted and

had stuck at least MOSTLY with the book

Obviously there were changes. But the vast majority of the film came from the books. I defend the movies here but even I object to some of the changes. I still cringe with the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead Army sweeping the Pelennor clean rendering the previous scenes of the Rohirrim all in vain. I hated that. I certainly am no fan of body noise jokes or Gimli being the butt of the humor. I never would have done it that way.

But in the end they are still movies I love. Over thirty years ago I used to be in cars with others driving to conventions and fan gatherings and we used to kill time by speculating on a possible LOTR movie. I do not think any of us thought it would be as great as it was. Perfect - no. But then what is?

I am very happy to have the books to reread again and again. And I am happy to have the films to watch again and again. I have little trouble telling the difference.

[Lord Halsar]

I think that some of us are straying off topic here (no offense, I just call it as I see it).
Anywho, I do admit that I am both looking forward to, and loathing the idea of a "The Hobbit" movie. I myself doubt that the serving animals will appear in anything but the extended/uncut version (If there is one and I believe there will be). Beorn himself on the other hand, is likely to take his place(s) in it. The fact that he tore through Bolg and his men (or is the term goblins... orcs maybe?) may or may not be too great of a part for PJ to ignore (But then again, we never know who's going to do what. Hollywood has shown us that time and time again).

[Sir Kohran]

I expect Beorn will be included, if for no other reason than he makes for some great action - imagine a massive bear smashing a path through the Orc ranks and literally crushing Bolg.

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.



The reason the Narnia movie wasn't that good was, IMO, simply because it tried to make the book into something it wasn't - the book was not meant to be a huge LOTR-style epic, but an enjoyable fairy-tale with some Christian subtext. Unfortunately the makers ignored this and tried to recreate Jackson's movies and whilst not failing, ended up with a rather average result.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.

This is the point (& its also the reason that Tolkien failed to re-write TH 'in the style of LotR') - TH is a children's tale &, as such, contains much that an 'adult' tale cannot get away with. None of those things would be out of place (if handled correctly) in a children's movie, but they wouldn't work in an 'adult' movie aimed at fans of the LotR films.

But, as Tolkien realised, if you try to re-write TH in the style of LotR the whole tale collapses under a weight it was not designed to bear. Lose the whimsy, the fantastic element, the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves & 'cockerney' Trolls & you have a different story, because the mood, the spirit, basically the heart of the tale, will be gone.

Lose the serving animals, the talking eagles & wolves, the camp Elves & comedy trolls & you haven't got The Hobbit we know & love. TH is a fable, a fairy story for the young. This has nothing to do with 'movies & books are different media', its to do with whether greedy adults should be allowed to snatch away childrens' candy, just 'cos they're bigger than them & fancy stuffing their faces.

Originally Posted by StW

So if we had Tom Bombadil singing his cheery doggerel dressed like a bad hippie dream, then the film would have
- made more money than the $4 billion US dollars that it did ????
- won more than the 17 Academy Awards that it did ?????
- been more critically praised than the high level that it did ????

That would depend on the skill of the director. Tom has always (to my mind) been one of Tolkien's greatest, not to mention most fascinating & mysterious, characters. The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.