Will The Hobbit do damage to the books?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

It's a good thing, I myself find all the hype and fandom around the mythology to be quite unappealing. It makes me not want to have to do with any of it, because it's so pathetic in a way you know.

Then I guess you'll be leaving the forum then? Have a nice life.

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

How people dress up as the characters in the book and collect toys and stuff. I mean it's kinda like if one would be a believing christian and everyone around you would dress up as moses and walk around at cosplay conventions roleplaying the characters. Not that I like Tolkien as much as some chrisitans like christianity, but one can appreciate it in the same way, fiction is like that. Tolkien himself was annoyed by something similar yet more mild.

I see Christians dress like biblical characters every Christmas season. People dress up like characters in Dickens novels and I don't know how often I've seen folks dressed up in Shakespearean garb. And then there are hundreds of Renaissance festivals all over the world. Your point is as pointless as Tolkien's was bemoaning losing control of his creation. If he were that adamant about retaining control of his works, then he wouldn't have sold the movie rights to pay tax bills. But he did sell the rights. He took the money. He spent the money. Oh well, so much for self-righteous indignation.

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

From these quotes it's evident that he would not approve of this fandom phenomenon that is taking place. People dressing up as characters and roleplaying them, collecting toys. He would also hate the films I'm sure, since "yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings".

Yes, he would hate the films. But he has no one else to blame but himself. He also had no control of how his fans would react to his works. But it's a far sight better that they are dressing up as characters and collecting toys - and in the process buying millions of his books - than it would be if he never sold a single volume. Most starving or fledgling authors would fully welcome such adulation, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I think some of us ought to ask ourself if what we're doing is sane, in a way I can sympathize with religious authorities who have to be put under the same label as some christians from the united states and some muslims from the middle east. Slightly ignorant people pull down the fiction and perverts it, it makes one feel dirty and unclean since one is in their company. Tolkien seems to agree with this and I'm sure some of you do too, which means that the hobbit movies being as bad as they are, is a good thing.

I believe you should retract some of your statements here.

[Ulvenok]

Yes, he would hate the films. But he has no one else to blame but himself.

Really, I'm one of those that think it actually would be possible to make a proper adaption of the book. Jackson did a decent job with the lord of the rings, but he slaughtered the hobbit.

Then I guess you'll be leaving the forum then? Have a nice life.

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff.

That's so interesting. Your interest (from the number of impassioned posts) seems at odds with your shame.

From my point of view, if you can't be true to yourself, why bother? I'd say, Man up!, but that might be considered racist as you might be an elf or dwarf or hobbit or dragon or talking fox or ent or...well, you get the drift.

I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

Wow! Again, you do know that we're discussing movies based (loosely ) on books, not religious or political beliefs, where one states an opinion (sometimes supported by data) and sees what others think? I can remember my first few LotR movies posts ; then when I took a breathe, learned that there were other points of view that, though different from mine, helped me understand the movies so much better.

Anyway, still haven't seen the Hobbit. Might takes the kids some day; probably should read the book to them first.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well I checked my bookshelf, and my copies appear unharmed so far.

Actually, if my books end up going unread because of the movies, they're likely to see increased longevity.

On the other hand, if the movies bring new readers to Tolkien, some books are likely to take quite a beating.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

I collect toys. I've got almost all of the action figures released with the LotR films. I've been buying the Lego sets lately. I made a seven foot long Nazgul cloak and swanned around in it at Birmingham 2005 and got drunk and laughed at people dressed as Gandalf and the Balrog playing 'Golfimbul' with a fake sword and a doll's head. I also collect the books and have many different editions - we have three different sets of the History of Middle-earth. I don't see that the two are mutually exclusive because I find both of them enjoyable. I'll be the first to admit that I'm being ripped off somewhere along the line and I should probably have invested the cash in a pension or something (dull) instead of helping fill the coffers of the Estate and toy manufacturers, but no, I enjoy it. And I don't care if anyone thinks I'm a fool for that. Geek Pride

[Ulvenok]

Wow! Again, you do know that we're discussing movies based (loosely ) on books, not religious or political beliefs

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.

I collect toys. I've got almost all of the action figures released with the LotR films. I've been buying the Lego sets lately. I made a seven foot long Nazgul cloak and swanned around in it at Birmingham 2005.

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.

Geek Pride

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.

Okay. Others may think that there's a BIG difference, and you may want to understand that difference so that you understand people better.

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.

Sorry if this old man (ancient of days, it seems) chortles at your statement. Ah youth...

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

Hoot! Maybe, Ulvenok, you learn that, with the exception of being rude to or flaming another member, people here are pretty accepting. Heck, I can even post side by side someone who thinks that PJ's Witch King could best Gandalf. I think them completely and utterly wrong, and I tell them so, but I (try) never to get nasty about it.

To each their own. Go ahead, live a little...dress up as Sebastian.

[Rhod the Red]

Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.

He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done.

But then this is half a century later, when film-making has more applicability.

Sir Christopher Lee met Tolkein, did he ever relay a movie-making ever position? No, just frustration at the early attempts.

There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film. That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? For people that see these films first, for many it'll ensure they'll read the books. Whereas if they never saw it in the cinema probably would never have read them even if you recommend them as a friend or something.

This was my position on the Harry Potter series. After seeing the 1978 rendition of TLotR I was determined to watch PJ's translation, even if it wasn't 100%; I was already a fan & understood the facts that had to be accepted. They hype about the HP series only was confirmed for me after I saw the first HP film in 2001. That's how some minds click. It's only fair to just accept it, not assume that all others don't really know or appreciate things. That's just snobbery

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

There also seems to be this weird perception, like that a book can 100% be brought to film.

Is there? I have never heard anyone (with the possible exception of Ulvenok here) express this view-I have, however, very often heard people accuse others of holding it, because they complain about lack of fidelity in an adaptation. Not the same thing.

That'd take too long & be too expensive to make; and the cinemas wouldn't play them. I doubt human cloning in the future will be 100% perfect, so why object? ??

You would if the clones turned out deformed monstrosities, surely? Not the best choice of analogy there, I think.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

Yes movies inspired by books that one can easily compare to religious books, there is at least to me no difference between religion and mythology. Politics, religion and mythology are interwoven today.

You mean politics, religion, mythology and fantasy novels, surely?

You're crazy, but that is ok. People like you however make me not want to step out of the closet so to speak, I'm not like that at all. I don't have glasses or is fat either btw.

Me neither! Let us both rejoice! Down with the overweight and bespectacled!

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

Interesting. I'd have thought being ashamed to let anyone even know you visit a forum some members of which collect "toys and stuff" counts as "really caring", alright.

[Zigûr]

While I believe that the films would be far more dramatically effective if they hewed closer to the original texts I don't think that they're especially damaging in and of themselves. I think the main danger they pose is the potential to trivialise discourse on the subject of Professor Tolkien's work by having this Hollywood filter layered over the top. I don't mean to say that's a fact, just something I think might be a risk. The films are, in my view at least, rather shallow (thematically) compared to the source material and I am occasionally concerned about their presence in culture getting in the way of a deeper appreciation of Professor Tolkien's work, not in isolation necessarily but at least in terms of its own merits.
That being said I believe Professor Tolkien might possibly have been more agreeable to a film adaptation if in his time there had been the kind of modern techniques and technology which can bring Faerie to life on the screen today. His main objection seems to me to have been this attitude of changing things for no particular reason.
I suppose that's why I find An Unexpected Journey to be a good deal more disingenuous as an adaptation than the films of The Lord of the Rings: I can just imagine someone watching that film, deciding to read the book and being bewildered by how brief and utterly different in tone it is to the adaptation. The films of the LR make major changes in terms of plot and characterisation but the atmosphere and pacing are more comparable (in The Fellowship of the Ring at least). Actually maybe Fellowship is the only good example...

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

It's ok, I don't judge or really care but there are others who do...

I don't quite know how to break this to you, but calling people or the activities they engage in 'pathetic' is pretty much the definition of judging them.

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

Film making in his time was very crude. Translating The Lord of the Rings was long a taboo because of the sheer scale and technical incapacity.

He dismissed even cartoon attempts because not everything could be done.

I've got to disagree with you on two counts here. First, I wouldn't say that film making in Tolkien's time was crude. 'In Tolkien's time' would be up to 1973, so already you've got brilliant special effects pictures like 2001. But since the discussion is about the Zimmerman script, let's limit ourselves to pre-1958; still we're in a period where many cinematic masterpieces had been, or were being, made. Even before The Hobbit was written, you have pictures like King Kong that used special effects to depict monsters and fantastical creatures. Film-making was far from a primitive thing when Tolkien wrote his critique of the script; it was already a highly developed art form and a huge industry.

Second, I don't think it's correct to say that Tolkien dismissed attempts to film his work because he thought they could not be achieved technically. It wasn't that he didn't think the visual effects would be convincing; it was that he objected to the proposed changes to plot and character. None of the concerns that he mentioned, as far as I can recall, had anything to do with the technical aspects of film-making. So I can't imagine that the superior technology available today would have had any effect whatsoever on his opinions regarding cinematic adaptation.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Ulvenok

Really, I'm one of those that think it actually would be possible to make a proper adaption of the book. Jackson did a decent job with the lord of the rings, but he slaughtered the hobbit.

I won't leave if I don't have to, but I'm the kind of guy that doesn't speak with friends and family about visiting this place. I feel ashamed...because there are people that collect toys and stuff. I'm sure some of the muslims feel shame too being in the company of those talibans...

I also wanted to respond to this sorry for the double post.

Jackson didn't do too bad with LoTR though honestly I found his changes far more glaring in those movies than The Hobbit.

I still love the last March of the Ents in the bbok I was in awe but on Screen chills, literally. I was hypnotized by that scene.

Again heed my advice if you can't be honest about talking about Tolkien how can be honest about more important things? My wife knew the day nay the hour we met that I was a geek through and through I've been a geek since at least first grade got my first pair of glasses and was THRILLED(my favorite ranger being th blue ranger who wore glasses) Of course I met my wife when she bonked me in the head with a sword so the whole geek thing worked in the situation.

Again with the muslim/taliban comparison? Us liking LoTR and dressing like characters doesn't compare to blowing up cars and

Things of that nature. and frankly if us in costumes makes us the talibanm that makes you the "regular" muslim which mean you worship Tolkien 5 times a day is that really more sane? See how silly it sounds now.

Comicon in San Diego is HUGE. Bi Bang Theory one of the hottest shows on. Super Hero movies are blockbusters LoTR and TH BLock busters. Star Wars is EVERYWHERE. Harry Potter is a featured area in universal And J.K Rowling is the first person to become a Billionare from writing books.

Geekdom is no longer a niche. We're mainstream. You seem to just want to be the kid that hates Tolkien now because "he sold out man!"