Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[Rhod the Red]

I'm ovverall pleased.

Remember it is by sheer chance both the books and movies have been made.
We're lucky to have gotten either available.

When it comes to the films, I'm pleased that the rewriting & so on has ensured box office success and wider & new interest for people that otherwise would not have come.

Plus the splitting of The Hobbit into 3 films and inclusion of Radagast & Saruman, and anything else, helps compensate for the glossing over of them in the LOTR films. So I'm not feeling bad about PJ's efforts. I'm happy these books became films.

[Rikae]

I think it does further the impression that Tolkien's books are nothing but fun escapism for teenage boys. The LoTR films already did this, and I get tired of hearing intellectual types dismiss books they haven't read while the rest say "I loved the movie, but I couldn't get through the first chapter in the book. It was so boring!" In both cases, people who don't know Tolkien at all are running around claiming they do.
Now we're up for another round of that, along with "Lonely Mountain" ice cream sundaes at diners and terrible Hobbit puns in every paper for the next three years. I'm really looking forward to it.

Not to say I don't find things to enjoy in these movies, but I do think they misrepresent the books. Book fans who start as movie fans seem quite rare (even if we tend to collect them here).

[Mithalwen]

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

Putting a positive spin on this . . . perhaps the framer of the question was aware that the movies were marketed as a trilogy but that Tolkien himself said LotR was not a trilogy? It was printed in three parts I believe because of economic issues in England in the mid-50's.

[Mithalwen]

I will try to think that.

[Bêthberry]

It's an idea straight from St. Jude.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

Quite probably they wouldn't be aware of the books in any event.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part of which FILM trilogy?

I don't know if they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

I'm afraid it has become part of pop culture. As good or as bad as the Peter Jackson films were/are, they have co-opted the Lord of the Rings in the minds of so many. At an advance screening of The Hobbit, and at an 'Elevensies" party at a local "Tolkien" geek's house, the chatter was mostly about the movies. Any purist book thinking was gently shuffled aside, but shuffled aside none-the-less. And there was a standard theme of "Peter Jackson's" Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings talk in the theatre crowd. Where as the Lord of the Rings movies were made with thought to the fact they were unsure how they would be received, The Hobbit was made knowing that it would be watched by many due to the popularity of the previous movies. The Hobbit movie presented is rubbish, and is just more nails in the coffin of the Professor's literary masterpiece. It will now be known as "Peter Jackson's story" in generations to come.

[Bêthberry]

Possibly, but I think myths have a way of outliving their authors.

And we can point to the situation in New Zealand where folks are petitioning to have a mountain named after Tolkien. At least they aren't asking it to be named after Peter Jackson.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And we can point to the situation in New Zealand where folks are petitioning to have a mountain named after Tolkien. At least they aren't asking it to be named after Peter Jackson.

They are naming a small hill after Jackson. More like a hillock. But it will have an enormous green screen behind it to give the appearance of a mountain.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

At an advance screening of The Hobbit, and at an 'Elevensies" party at a local "Tolkien" geek's house, the chatter was mostly about the movies. Any purist book thinking was gently shuffled aside, but shuffled aside none-the-less. And there was a standard theme of "Peter Jackson's" Hobbit.

But from everything I've heard this film *is* very much "Peter Jackson's 'Hobbit'", rather than Tolkien's– and perhaps it's just as well it should be seen as such.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Tonight on celebrity mastermind a contender was asked "The return of the king" was the third part ofwhich FILM trilogy?

I don't knowvif they dumbed down for a soap actor or if this means that the films have gained the upper hand.

A colleague knows a Mastermind question setter and they certainly do not allocate General Knowledge questions according to the contestant's intellectual level. All four of them get questions of the same level so that it is fair. If you analyse the questions, then there tend to be 'sets' of similar questions and each of the four contestants will be asked one of them - e.g. there will be a question each about Prime Ministers or Saxon kings. The other three contestants will have also been asked questions about films.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

A colleague knows a Mastermind question setter and they certainly do not allocate General Knowledge questions according to the contestant's intellectual level. All four of them get questions of the same level so that it is fair. If you analyse the questions, then there tend to be 'sets' of similar questions and each of the four contestants will be asked one of them - e.g. there will be a question each about Prime Ministers or Saxon kings. The other three contestants will have also been asked questions about films.

They did seem easier than those for the ordinary contestants but it didn't help this chap since he still did not recognise it. But it is comforting if it was film because they needed a film question rather than because it has been forgotten that it was a very successfil book first.

[Rhod the Red]

That depends on how you define 'successful'. If Tolkein tried to get it published today he'd obviously be rejected out of hand. His book breaks all the rules; no sex, no this, no that, etc.

He didn't exactly get overall acceptance in the literary community. Most just waved it off, remember. The same as with the possibility of ever being made into film(s), as you might recall.

One trend in the 1950s and 60's in literary circles, particularly in Britain was opposition to high fantasy. That's why Tolkein's work wasn't as widely accepted at the time as compared to today. JK Rowling got much the same treatment and rejection by the literary community too if I recall correctly; it was only the films for her books that shut the critics up, except maybe the religious nuts.

Or do you disagree?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

They did seem easier than those for the ordinary contestants but it didn't help this chap since he still did not recognise it. But it is comforting if it was film because they needed a film question rather than because it has been forgotten that it was a very successfil book first.

I think they've been easier than usual over the whole series, but that's probably because they don't want the celebs' charities to miss out if they end up scoring nil points. They do try and make sure each contestant has a broadly matching 'set' though.

They had a question about the Daphne Du Maurier novel Rebecca tonight, rather than one about the Hitchcock adaptation, so I feel rest assured they were not being overly 'easy' by not asking about books.

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

One trend in the 1950s and 60's in literary circles, particularly in Britain was opposition to high fantasy. That's why Tolkein's work wasn't as widely accepted at the time as compared to today. JK Rowling got much the same treatment and rejection by the literary community too if I recall correctly; it was only the films for her books that shut the critics up, except maybe the religious nuts.

Do the critics like JK? All I ever hear from critics are sneery comments along the lines of: "Well they have got reluctant readers interested but they are really badly written." Pure. Jealousy.

[Mithalwen]

The Lord of theRings is one of the top selling books of all time and was voted book of the 20th century by readers. That is quite successful whatever the literati may have thought fifty or sixty years ago. Most authors and publishers would be happy with that.

Many younger academics find him quite worthy of their attention. Some of them even post here. I like the Harry Potter books though I think Order of the phoenix could have lost a hundred pages. I also think Rowling really loves language as the raw material of her work and knowa her mythology but maybe since I read her as an adult I don't find her world aa engaging.