Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Tolkien purists are upset at the way Jackson is enlarging The Hobbit's story, stretching it beyond it's natural boundaries, and even inserting characters who never existed in the original novel.

Weren't the Tolkien purists upset at the Lord of the Rings movies too? I mean, I had problems with the movies, and I'm no where near a purist (just a devoted Faramir and Celeborn fan). The thing is, characters were always going to have to be inserted that didn't exist in the original novel, whether they were named or not - you can't have Mirkwood with 3 or 4 elves. And while Tauriel is controversial, I find that there's also people that support the Hobbit movie because she's been inserted.

I mean very few modern day readers (of my age; I am 21), for example, have even HEARD of Gone with the Wind, the book; they only know of the film. And they base their perception of the book (it must be great, since the film was great) on the quality and reputation of the film.

I'm worried that as time goes by, The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and Tolkien in general may be forgotten, consigned to a little niche. Not many of my generation have any clue who George MacDonald was, for example. Right now, because of Jackson's LOTR films, a lot of my generation and those older know those books and love them...But I'm afraid The Hobbit film will do just the opposite with the younger members of my generation and the younger generation (kids now in that 8-12 year old group).

I think comparing Tolkien to George MacDonald is a bit of a stress. MacDonald, however much I like The Princess and the Goblin and The Princess and Curdie, is dated. Most of his works are highly religious in nature, in the same way that Lewis' Narnia books are. There are plenty of people that can't stand those, but that love Tolkien's books.

While I can see where you're coming from, perhaps it will assure you if I tell you that when I was working in my school districts's middle school library two years ago, I remember checking Tolkien's books out to many a kid and that my little brother (currently in the age range you specified) is reading the Hobbit. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I find that at least among the people I hang out with at college, most of us are Tolkien geeks to the extreme, with younger cousins, siblings, nephews, or nieces that are also growing up to read the books. I think that as long as there's some of us that love the books to introduce them to the younger generation, there's always going to be Tolkien fans.

They might come across it differently - my little brother saw me playing LOTRO and decided to join me in playing, before staring to read The Hobbit and planning to see the movie this fall. But I don't think Tolkien's books are going to disappear.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Weren't the Tolkien purists upset at the Lord of the Rings movies too?

Nothing against you, LadyB., but every time I see the word "purist" in conjunction with a person irritated or upset about the manner in which Jackson buggered the Bagginses, I wonder.

For instance, I wonder what is the opposite of Purist? The Illiterati? or simply Impurists? I've never given a name to these contrarians.

[Rhod the Red]

I wouldn't say so.

By including characters & elements that were left out of TLOTR
they're compensating with a 3-movie provision. I can appreciate
that.

[Pomegranate]

I think what purist means for me in these kind of situations are people who are not able to accept that the movies are interpretations, not illustrations. While I'm not saying that any of you guys would particularly be such - I think a lot of what has been said here is valid and reasonable - there are quite a lot of people who have not been able to accept that movie as a template is very different from books and has a different set of usable devices for storytelling (and thus lacks the option of, for example, having 13 characters that, apart from some exceptions, only differ in the colour of their caps), and that what we are seeing here is something that Peter Jackson sees inside his head when reading the books, rather than something that should be taken for canon.

That being said, I am mildly worried about these not ending up being good films. The Hobbit as a book has at least for me had the status of nice and easy-to-read fantasy: if I have friends who are new to the genre, I could suggest they read that, to lure them into the world. The movie clearly doesn't seem to have that simplicity - it looks like it might end up being a lot more confusing than other recent fantasy movies. Then again, it's hard to say anything just yet - what I'm mainly concerned about is the ability of the team to merge the two stories together in a meaningful manner and to explain the premises of the Dol Guldur plot for those who don't understand it beforehand, and there's nothing in the trailers to suggest them having succeeded or failed in that. But time will show: I'm sure a lot of people will go see the first movie, and the level of success in that one will determine the fate of the others.

Regarding Bombur (looking at you, Pilgrim): It might just be that I haven't read The Hobbit in a while, but I can't see it as degrading his character a lot, if PJ'd base it solely on weight - it isn't that far from it in the book. In the book most of the dwarves are "the dwarves" and that's the end of their person - this ignoring Thorin and Balin, and Fili, Kili and Bombur (Fili and Kili are younger and that's their role, Bombur's lazy and fat and doesn't want to accept being reminded/treated through his weight, but that's really the extent of it). Or can you tell me a deeper characterisation of Bombur? What should PJ have put in in order to make him become/stay a full character? I do understand perfectly the negative feelings people had about Legolas and Gimli being treated as the comical sidekicks, since there was actually something to be lost/changed there, but doesn't Tolkien himself use Bombur as the funny fat guy?

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nothing against you, LadyB., but every time I see the word "purist" in conjunction with a person irritated or upset about the manner in which Jackson buggered the Bagginses, I wonder.

For instance, I wonder what is the opposite of Purist? The Illiterati? or simply Impurists? I've never given a name to these contrarians.

I have no idea, given that I would hardly label myself a purist (not caring that much about Bagginses or Hobbits in general.) I won't give my thoughts on the opposite of Purist, since Purist has all sorts of negative connotations for me...I would say that I think that there's a difference between being a purist and being upset that PJ messed up a character. One, to me, is the kind folks that chase me down and yell at me about stories labeled crack/humor not following the books exactly...the other is a valid thing. It's the middle ground that gets tricky, especially when it's not clear if people are complaining because they truly dislike something, or just for the sake of complaining....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Weren't the Tolkien purists upset at the Lord of the Rings movies too?

Yes...and well, yes.

Initially I was upset that PJ wasn't following the Books, and more importantly, MY vision of the same. But with time I let that all that 'purist stuff' go and yet still found tomes of material in which to criticize PJ, such as lack of consistency, dumbed-down humor, the word "She-elf" ...

The thing is, characters were always going to have to be inserted that didn't exist in the original novel, whether they were named or not - you can't have Mirkwood with 3 or 4 elves.

I understand what you mean - orc #12,210 isn't as exciting as Lurtz - but in LotR, main characters were left to the side (Eomer) to make room for Brego snogging Aragorn.

And while Tauriel is controversial, I find that there's also people that support the Hobbit movie because she's been inserted.

I guess that we'll have to wait and see how it all works out.

[Morsul the Dark]

I read LOTR after watching the first movie.

I think it's fair to say it'll attract more people to Tolkien. Those that decide to not read the books probably wouldn't have anyway.

I think with LOTR films the book is 1000 pages so it's tough to say what PJ should and shouldn't have changed my biggest issue was the elves at Helm's Deep but if you watch the extended editions a lot of what was missing was filmed just not in the theatrical version. Certain things had to be changed for cinema for example Glorfindel becoming Arwen there was a lot of anger over this but for me after watching the movie AND reading the book Glorfindel was just an extra character that added nothing, for the movie, execpt(to the average audience member) "Well, random character saves the day nice plot device."

The Hobbit is a much more lighthearted story and frankly I'll judge it when it comes out, but at least one scene I expect to be different is the ravens and thrush talking. And probably the Eagles. My issue is the three movies deal. I want each movie to be at least 3-3 and a half hours. Because if they're each 2 then I feel they forced the added film. Also I figured with 2 movies they'd most likely split it at them getting dragged to the dungeons in mirkwood. with three films I have no idea.

Another issue is as someone else mentioned the dwarves aren't exactly the most unique of characters, and Bombour is often ridiculed for his weight in in the BBC Radio version.

[LordPhillock]

from what I can gather, they're ending the first movie after the eagles rescue the dwarves from the warg attack, and ending the second film most likely after Smaug has died. Which makes me think Hobbit 3 will be really short. Apparently Jackson stated somewhere that the first film will barely be longer than 2 hours. I can't seem to find the article though.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by LordPhillock

Apparently Jackson stated somewhere that the first film will barely be longer than 2 hours. I can't seem to find the article though.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35587

According to Empire Magazine published Oct 24, PJ said the first movie will be about 2 hours 40 minutes. Not great but not too bad.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by alatar

Yes...and well, yes.

Initially I was upset that PJ wasn't following the Books, and more importantly, MY vision of the same. But with time I let that all that 'purist stuff' go and yet still found tomes of material in which to criticize PJ, such as lack of consistency, dumbed-down humor, the word "She-elf" ...

I understand what you mean - orc #12,210 isn't as exciting as Lurtz - but in LotR, main characters were left to the side (Eomer) to make room for Brego snogging Aragorn.

I guess that we'll have to wait and see how it all works out.

Yeah, there's certainly tons of room to criticize PJ, not trying to say there isn't (like I said before, I hate how Celeborn was treated. I think that the movies diminished both his and Galadriel's characters with those changes, but I won't go into that here.) I just want to give the movies a chance - especially since I do know that some kids are reading the books because of the upcoming movies (like my brother/minion) and that I read LotR because of the movies to begin with. Now, the Tolkien Estate has untold amounts of my money...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Yeah, there's certainly tons of room to criticize PJ, not trying to say there isn't (like I said before, I hate how Celeborn was treated. I think that the movies diminished both his and Galadriel's characters with those changes, but I won't go into that here.) I just want to give the movies a chance - especially since I do know that some kids are reading the books because of the upcoming movies (like my brother/minion) and that I read LotR because of the movies to begin with. Now, the Tolkien Estate has untold amounts of my money...

If people read the books because of the movies, that is the best outcome they could provide, regardless of box-office takings or possible awards.
As for the Estate having the money....well, I doubt they have as much as popular belief would credit. They've had to fight with New Line for a share.

[Glorthelion]

The Hobbit trilogy will never be as good as the LOTR. I'm not sure about doing damage but it will certainly be read more often in the lead up. The other day I saw a school jock borrowing a Hobbit novel.

[Glorthelion]

I've read the earlier replies. If Jackson wants to 'show more of the story' then perhaps the third film shouldn't be part of the trilogy but rather a separate film containing white council stuff, something like an interquel. That way like some people said earlier in the thread, the continuity wouldn't be interrupted.
Jackson is a talented director, I love him and I'd hate to see his huge project turn into a trilogy of error.

[Kuruharan]

I agree with Mith that The Hobbit existed long before the films and the story itself isn't going to be "damaged" by anything the film does or does not do.

Whether the Tolkien brand might be damaged by poor films...maybe in the eyes of pop culture. But pop culture is fickle, shallow, vulgar, and for the most part rather vile. I'm not sure I'd want my worth to be measured by such a thing anyway. Also, if Tolkien stays in the spotlight, its probably inevitable that pop culture will turn against him eventually anyway because it is fickle and one of its defining characteristics is getting sick of and turning on whatever has been the "it" thing for too long.

Tolkien's stories have weathered such storms before and I have no doubt will have to again in the future.