Itaril

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I know there's the rare book that translates fairly well to the screen (Richard Matheson's Hell House and the Harry Potter series come to mind), but to me Tolkien's work just isn't suitable for movie treatment.

Some books just aren't meant to be movies. They weren't made to become movies. When it comes to those, it's better not to make any movie at all than to do what PJ&others are doing with TH (and what has been done with LOTR).

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Or maybe Tauriel is leader of a feminist Amazon band of
elves who roam through Mirkwood righting wrongs who
is wounded in a skirmish before the Battle of Five Armies
but is awakened by her horse and then reappears to the
relief of her uncle Thranduil and cousin Legolas. Hmmm?

Or her band of female elves help Gandalf (attacked by orcs)
and rides with him to the relief of the good guys in the
Battle of Five Armies.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Some books just aren't meant to be movies. They weren't made to become movies. When it comes to those, it's better not to make any movie at all than to do what PJ&others are doing with TH (and what has been done with LOTR).

On the contrary, The Hobbit follows the standard formula of the monomyth -- There and Back Again -- as described by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces:

[No matter what tale we hear told, in no matter what language or culture] “... it will be always the one, shape-shifting yet marvelously constant story that we find, together with a challengingly persistent suggestion of more remaining to be experienced than will ever be known or told.”

“The standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation—initiation—return: which might be named the nuclear unit of the monomyth.

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.”

If you can't make a movie out of that timeless tale, then you can't make a movie out of anything. No. The issue doesn't involve making a movie out of the standard heroic adventure -- countless film-makers have done that and will continue doing that -- but rather, making the movie well. The danger here lies in trying to blow up the central narrative of Bilbo Baggins' adventure into a sprawling amalgamation of sub-plots and marginal characters designed specifically to lure various consumer-demographics into the theater (and nearby toy stores) on the "tent-pole" presumption that each age-group and gender tribe will want to see -- and consume products related to -- certain celebrities famous for their fame.

In the case of The Hobbit, trying to make two mega-movies out of material properly suitable for only one, at best, can do little but bloat the essential story beyond recognition. In trying to adapt The Lord of the Rings to film, Peter Jackson had too much material for only three movies -- an embarrassment of riches. In trying to adapt The Hobbit, he has barely enough material for one -- and should pridefully protect such priceless poverty.

[Galadriel55]

Point taken, but I still think that some books should be left as books. Harry Potter can (and did) make a relatively good movie that did not stray too much from the original because what was in the book suited what people want to be in a movie. It did not lose/change its overal "spirit". On the other hand, Narnia was changed quite a bit, because otherwise it wouldn't make a good movie. I can't speak about the plot changes, because I haven't read it in ages and hardly remember what happened, but I can say for sure that the mood, or "spirit" of it changed. If the books were a simple, kind, straight-forward-ish story for both children and adults, the movies are definitely not for small children, and they have a HP-esque mood.

What has befallen Narnia is befalling TH. It is a work for children - although adults also enjoy it, but on a different level - that is made into an overcomplicated intrigue tangle. Children will not (most likely, considering the news that we hear) be able to get the message of the book through the movie. It's a question if they'll be able to undertand it. TH lost it's "spirit".

Originally Posted by TMT

In trying to adapt The Lord of the Rings to film, Peter Jackson had too much material for only three movies -- an embarrassment of riches. In trying to adapt The Hobbit, he has barely enough material for one -- and should pridefully protect such priceless poverty.

True. However, there was enough space in the 3 LOTR movies to have Aragorn almost killed by the wargs and Arwen resurrecting him. There was enough space for the mad-idiot-Elrond. And for the Boromir-like Faramir dragging Frodo to Osgiliath, and for Denethor the Insane being insane. That's not to mention a gazilion other changes PJ didn't have to make.

When I said that TH and the trilogy are suffering the same fate, I meant that there's hardly anything left from what Tolkien wrote it to be.

Every book has to be tweaked a little bit before it becomes a movie - usually because there's too many things in too short a time, and some have to be cut out. I can understand that, and that's why I don't hold any grudge against the LOTR movies for not having anything from Crickhollow till the Downs. But one thing is tweaking, and another is using the athor's names to shape a totally different creation.


I'm sorry about the rant.


EDIT: I was typing that late at night, so just to add my final point - when what is in a book somewhat fits what the audience expects to be in a movie, then the movie is good. But when it doesn't - that's when the movie either doesn't work out properly or it isn't really about the book.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Every book has to be tweaked a little bit before it becomes a movie - usually because there's too many things in too short a time, and some have to be cut out. I can understand that, and that's why I don't hold any grudge against the LOTR movies for not having anything from Crickhollow till the Downs. But one thing is tweaking, and another is using the athor's names to shape a totally different creation.

Oh, but I think the omissions, given the additions, suggest very much what PJ is unable to appreciate in Tolkien. I don't think he respected the elements of Fairie enough--hence ignoring the Bombadils and the Barrow Downs--and too much sought after the action flick.

As with any artist, he has the right to his interpretation, but he can't go calling it Tolkien.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh, but I think the omissions, given the additions, suggest very much what PJ is unable to appreciate in Tolkien. I don't think he respected the elements of Fairie enough--hence ignoring the Bombadils and the Barrow Downs--and too much sought after the action flick.

As with any artist, he has the right to his interpretation, but he can't go calling it Tolkien.

Personally, I would have much preferred the inclusion of the sons of Elrond and the Rangers of the North, instead of that whole army of Lorien walking a hundred miles through enemy-occupied territory to Helms Deep and then suddenly disappearing by the end of the battle. What, every last one of them got killed? So much for the vaunted skill of the Elves.

I still say, when PJ stuck with the original plot, the movie was magical. Even when dialogue of one character in the book was stated by another character in the movie, it was moving. But everytime PJ strayed away with his fancies, the sequences were farcical. Think about it:

1. Arwen summoning the river to drown the Nazgul (and then looking utterly surprised when it happened).

2. Elrond whining about Arwen dying. Elrond whinig about the list of allies growing thin. Elrond whining in general.

4. Elrond riding several hundred miles to deliver a sword.

5. The warg attack, Aragorn falling off a cliff and then frenching his horse in a torrid beach scene reminiscent of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr in From Here to Eternity.

6. Faramir dragging the Hobbits (and what was left of his character) to Osgiliath, just so Frodo could climb a tower to show the One Ring, the ultimate object of desire, to a flying Nazgul -- AND YET ALL THE NAZGUL AND THE ENTIRE ARMY OF MORDOR DIDN'T SURROUND THEM INSTANTANEOUSLY AND CRUSH THEM! No, the Nazgul simply flies away, Faramir has a change of heart and Sam gets to give a teary-eyed soliloquoy.

5. Nutty Denethor sets an olympic record in the mile run, while on fire.

6. Dull-witted Treebeard gets outwitted by clever Hobbits.

7. Frodo tells Sam to "Go home", even though he's a thousand miles from home, in Mordor, surrounded by thousands of Orcs. Some friend.

8. Green Scrubbing Bubbles not only destroyed Orcs, but gave the walls of Minas Tirith a streak-free shine. Look, I can see myself!

I could go on and on, but I've given myself a headache. I would prefer that such shenanigans not occur in The Hobbit, but I have given up hope that (Itaril) Peter Jackson will restrain (Tauriel) himself from (Orlando Bloom) outlandish (the White Council) scripting. Bah.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I still say, when PJ stuck with the original plot, the movie was magical. Even when dialogue of one character in the book was stated by another character in the movie, it was moving. But everytime PJ strayed away with his fancies, the sequences were farcical. Think about it:

I don't know...I think PJ just plain didn't want to do the elves right. I'm just hoping that Golden Haired Thranduil doesn't end up dish water blonde (Hi Celeborn the gray) or with a receding hairline. Of course, that would make special snowflake Tauriel look so much better next to that ugly old elf....

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

From a related comment in another thread:

Originally Posted by Rumil

And another Mary-Sue-iel...

... strong female roles are thin on Middle Earth in Tolkien's work ...

Which begs the question: So why introduce them?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

... I think PJ just plain didn't want to do the elves right...

The elves? Look what short shrift he gave the hobbits! I mean, the wounded Frodo didn't get to ride Glorfindel's great white horse to safety at the Ford of Bruinen. The brunette elf chick Arwen got to do that. Merry didn't get his big dramatic scene with Théoden on the Pelennor Fields, sending the dying King off to drink mead with his ancestors in Valhala. The Rohan blonde chick, Éowyn, got that big moment. And of course, all the hobbits lost out when they didn't get to scour the Shire of evil men, Saruman, and Wormtongue. Talk about getting royally screwed so that some barely mentioned Appendix girls could get in more implausible, forced screen time swapping spit with -- or simply drooling over -- Aragorn. The elves got off lucky by comparison.

Now that Peter Jackson has to make a movie ostensibly about one particular hobbit -- and a confirmed bachelor at that -- he invents yet another elf-chick character to waste precious screen time that the schizoid Smeagol-Gollum could easily employ to memorable effect. If any character deserves an expanded role in these films, then the pathetic/treacherous Smeagol-Gollum does. I mean, face it, the elves have pretty much given up on Middle-earth. They mostly just want to leave. So I say, let them. At any rate, Bilbo Baggins and Smeagool-Gollum have more to do with the fate of Middle-earth than any elf-chick afterthought possibly could. These films should make that truth abundantly clear.

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

Of course, that would make special snowflake Tauriel look so much better next to that ugly old elf....

I have no confidence that the special snowflake Tauriel will look anything but instantly risible next to just about anyone: elf, dwarf, man, or hobbit -- ugly or otherwise.

[Galadriel]

What about this Tauriel chick? I heard she's affiliated with Thranduil and/or Legolas...