The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug support thread.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

This made me laugh. I think we've all read the spoilers it's the book

Errrr...nope.

I've read the books more times than I've had celery (not more times than I've had hot dinners, that would be silly), and the film is full of spoilers. Why? It is most definitely not a translation of text to film.

That doesn't mean it's rubbish though...as I shall explain.

[elvet]

Well, no surprise. I enjoyed the movie - what a rush! Seeing Smaug took me back to the wonder I felt when I watched Jurassic Park for the first time. The basic Hobbit story was there, but it was condensed down to a string of action packed scenes. The barrel race was especially well done, and I liked how the camera switched from close-ups to long shots to under water. It was very effective, especially in 3D IMAX. The addition of Tauriel and Legolas enriched the film. IMHO, Tolkien's greatest legacy is to have been the inspiration for readers, authors, and artists ( including film makers). I feel lucky to be able to have such a great time at the movie, and not be bothered by the differences between it and the source.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by elvet

IMHO, Tolkien's greatest legacy is to have been the inspiration for readers, authors, and artists ( including film makers). I feel lucky to be able to have such a great time at the movie, and not be bothered by the differences between it and the source.

That is actually the attitude I'd like - and which it (hopefully!) will be like after a couple of years or decades, when the movies disappear from general knowledge and will be just one of the many adaptations of Tolkien that could be remembered if one tries. The main issue I have with the movies now is that they seem to eclipse the books themselves and, to most of the people, seem to be THE representation of Tolkien (or not even Tolkien, but LotR/Hobbit). But I really like the attitude, if one sees the movies in this perspective: it's a work of art just the same as a painting of Isengard or a music piece representing the Fellowship, and one can judge how good piece of art it is, and that's it, instead of (consciously or subconsciously) putting equation between the movie and the book (which even I did, by default). This other way of thinking sort of puts the distance between oneself and the immediate experience, and it can be evaluated more objectively - or, actually, subjectively.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Errrr...nope.

I've read the books more times than I've had celery (not more times than I've had hot dinners, that would be silly), and the film is full of spoilers. Why? It is most definitely not a translation of text to film.

That doesn't mean it's rubbish though...as I shall explain.

True I just had a chuckle over it is all.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

True I just had a chuckle over it is all.

Fair dos

Originally Posted by Legate

That is actually the attitude I'd like - and which it (hopefully!) will be like after a couple of years or decades, when the movies disappear from general knowledge and will be just one of the many adaptations of Tolkien that could be remembered if one tries. The main issue I have with the movies now is that they seem to eclipse the books themselves and, to most of the people, seem to be THE representation of Tolkien (or not even Tolkien, but LotR/Hobbit). But I really like the attitude, if one sees the movies in this perspective: it's a work of art just the same as a painting of Isengard or a music piece representing the Fellowship, and one can judge how good piece of art it is, and that's it, instead of (consciously or subconsciously) putting equation between the movie and the book (which even I did, by default). This other way of thinking sort of puts the distance between oneself and the immediate experience, and it can be evaluated more objectively - or, actually, subjectively.

I don't think the films will ever eclipse the books, not for one moment. Now I don't mean to offend anyone, but to me they are rather like the Bible, in that they are such immense, imposing and influential texts that nothing can nor ever will take away from them bar censorship! And think how many times both the Bible and Shakespeare have been adapted, revised and played around with in the visual form. Yet the text remains. Horrible and maybe snobby to say it, but Literature will always triumph over Film when it's literature that's already got a firm foothold in the collective consciousness. I think only the relatively obscure or recently published text is at risk of being obscured by visual adaptation. We should thank our lucky stars that there was such a huge gap betwen publication and the work of Weta

After seeing this film it underlined to me that we should probably not be viewing them as adaptations, but as discrete films. As such, it worked very well indeed. I'm waiting to see what my manager thinks - she is a Film grad, I am a Lit grad - as she maintains that it's not right to critique any film in the light of the source material.

Also, do you really think anyone else will ever attempt to film them? I honestly don't.

[mark12_30]

Oh, no one will film them this year, or next. But someone will film them again, sometime. Only Ben Hur has stood the test of time never to be refilmed. Someone will take another crack at The Hobbit sometime.

Maybe that's naive of me. Probably. But to me the films are fan fiction: large, expensive, very popular fan fiction. I've written some myself, and some love it and some hate it, but my work hasn't tainted the Canon at all. I like to think the Professor would enjoy my work and someday I'll ask him. Maybe at that time I'll also ask what he thought of the movies.

While I wouldn't put the Professor's work in quite the same class as the bible, in my mind he certainly ranks with Shakespeare. And that may be a comforting thought. Shakespeare has been interpreted for centuries, and how many movies of Hamlet do we have? Yet the Bard' s original text is still speaking four centuries or so later.

The Bard. The Professor. Which one do you respect more? Which one would you rather meet? Imagine talking with Shakespeare about what his favorite Romeo and Juliet production is. Plays, movies, even ballets to choose from...
Maybe The Professor would prefer the Rankin Bass Hobbit over PJ's Hobbit. I know in some ways I do. But then again, PJ's barrels chase scene was too much fun. I want to see it again.
.

[alatar]

To my downer Downers that are down on DoS: Just remember, this too shall pass, and you just might, in the near or far future, remember the Jackson versions with a little bit of fondness, like I now appreciate LotR more now that, with The Hobbit, I see what it could have been.

My family's excited about seeing it, once the the smoke clears from the impending holiday.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Oh, no one will film them this year, or next. But someone will film them again, sometime. Only Ben Hur has stood the test of time never to be refilmed.

If you are referring to the William Wyler version of Ben Hur (starring Charlton Heston), that was the second version. The first was a silent adaptation directed by Fred Niblo. It was the most expensive movie of the silent era and the chariot race is just as grand as the latter version.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Maybe that's naive of me. Probably. But to me the films are fan fiction: large, expensive, very popular fan fiction. I've written some myself, and some love it and some hate it, but my work hasn't tainted the Canon at all. I like to think the Professor would enjoy my work and someday I'll ask him. Maybe at that time I'll also ask what he thought of the movies.

I too have written fan-fiction, but I wouldn't presume to make money on it like Peter Jackson's 50 Shades of Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

While I wouldn't put the Professor's work in quite the same class as the bible, in my mind he certainly ranks with Shakespeare. And that may be a comforting thought. Shakespeare has been interpreted for centuries, and how many movies of Hamlet do we have? Yet the Bard' s original text is still speaking four centuries or so later.

The Bard. The Professor. Which one do you respect more? Which one would you rather meet? Imagine talking with Shakespeare about what his favorite Romeo and Juliet production is. Plays, movies, even ballets to choose from...
Maybe The Professor would prefer the Rankin Bass Hobbit over PJ's Hobbit. I know in some ways I do. But then again, PJ's barrels chase scene was too much fun. I want to see it again.

I think Shakespeare was far better at characterization, at creating a complete psychological profile of a given role. As far as Hamlet or Henry V, even great actors like Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud or even Kenneth Brannagh did not presume to add fan-fiction to the Bard's words. They didn't drop in whole fan-fic subplots in their productions of Shakespeare. There are levels of respect afforded Shakespeare's work that are not necessarily given to Tolkien's. Although I am sure there are some asinine adaptations of Shakespeare out there that have largely gone ignored (as it should be).

Hey, lets give Hamlet an Elvish mistress that adds a love triangle between Hamlet and Ophelia, and then throw in an Orc (a French one, of course) that chases Hamlet around the castle throughout the play.

As far as new versions of Tolkien's work? I don't see why not. It may be further in the future than many of us will see (what with copyright laws extending past my expected expiration date), but with the rapidity at which technology advances, we may get to view Middle-earth in person via a Holodeck a la Star Trek before we shuffle off this mortal coil.

[alatar]

Interestingly, the folks over at Red Letter Media (caution, language etc), who did the excellent Star Wars prequel reviews, consider Peter Jackson to be more of a Tolkien 'purist.' They gave a positive review of DoS, though found it a bit long.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by alatar

Interestingly, the folks over at Red Letter Media (caution, language etc), who did the excellent Star Wars prequel reviews, consider Peter Jackson to be more of a Tolkien 'purist.'

Let me guess...they also thought the ending was a "cliffhanger", right?