The Hobbit

I think you might be on your own here. PJ got a hell of a lot of respect from Tolkien fans. Let's face it film is a very different medium to fiction, and it would be impossible to have made TLOTR as Tolkien had written, given the time you have to tell a film story.

Also, he had to make it appeal to a wider audience to get the go ahead. He did a fantastic job. Yes, there are big changes, but I don't think any of it was detrimental to the source material or changed the outcome.

Besides why do you think he would use and American accent for Bard? There isn't a hint of an American accent in the LOTR films.
 
I hated what he did to the films. They were nothing like the books and I spent most of the time shouting loudly and saying to my friend "that did not happen" and "where is Tom and Goldberry?"
 
I'm a big fan of the LotR book but am not a purist. Films are 'adaptations' and imo PJ made three cracking films. I don't think anyone else would come close to what he achieved. I think this is the problem that Mark Ordesky is having with hiring someone other than Jackson to direct The Hobbit. Directors have looked at the prospect but none have committed themselves - perhaps because they know they may not come close to the LotR films? Peter has set a very high standard for anyone else to follow.

Going back to your comments, to be fair filming Tom Bombadil would have been extremely difficult to do, as after all who is Tom? Even Tolkien himself did not know for sure. He is a mystery character and omitting him from the films keeps his mystique intact.
 
Its hard when your a fan of a book to see changes made in a film adaptation. But they are necessary. Jackson himself has said he would love to have made a page by page verison, but you just can't.

My dad has been a fan of the books for over forty years and would strongly disagree with your assessment. He was amazed that PJ managed to stay as faithful as he did to the books given the screen time he had to play with. He made the right choices in what he left out. He had to make it a story that followed the lives of a few characters, so adding characters like Tom would have confused things. Also, making a film from a book means that sometimes the things on the page don't translate well on screen, so things are changed.

One of the biggest criticisms of The Two Towers was that it didn't end as the book did. My Dad could see why imediately, that the events atthe end of the Two Towers run concurrently with the battle of Minus Tirith, so it made sense to show the event in ROTK. Besides the films should be thought of as one entity, not a trilogy. the books were never a trilogy.

But the biggest praise of the films is the characteristation of the characters that are present, I think they work well on screen and also the set pieces. Tolkien afficinados, including members of his family were overjoyed with PJ's depiction of places and people.

Each to there own eh? Not everyone will be pleased with film adaptations, but I think it is important to remain objective and understand why things couldn't be done or had to be changed.
 
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I've not seen anything by this director but the fact that he has "...a deep love for the source material..." is encouraging.
 
That's good news, Del Toro would be great. Wasn't he hinting at the possibility of doing the last Harry Potter film though? If there's any truth to that, it might be tight to film both, depending on how close together they're made.

Also, can anyone remind me - are there any female roles at all in The Hobbit?
 
No! But then again the female characters in LotR are pretty minor and were greatly inflated for the films (thinking Arwen in particular). I think it's pretty certain that some of the LotR characters that aren't in the Hobbit (book) will get shoe-horned into the film. Arwen, Aragorn, Gimili & Legolass were all around at the time so could turn up in Rivendell and Mirkwood.

My suspicion is that the film will take the form of a 'flashback' with Frodo reading Bilbo's book when they meet up in Rivendell in Fellowship. They could do a nifty morph from old Bilbo (Ian Holme) to young Bilbo (who ever). The big question for me is whether they'll treat the second film as an extension of the first i.e. carry on straight from the end of The Hobbit, or as a stand alone story.

The budget looks pretty good, too. $300 mil for the two films as opposed to
 
Not in the majority maybe, but definitely not on my own.

I recall many fierce debates on TORN and similar sites between new age film fans and disappointed book loyalists. At the extreme, of course, there were the "purists" who didn't want the film to be made at all (including Christopher Tolkien, no less). Then there were those who looked forward to the films but were ultimately disappointed by them; these were a far greater number. I suppose I fall into that latter category, but I am far less critical than many. I did enjoy all three films but certainly felt that Jackson went off the rails a bit, particularly in the third film. He especially disappointed in his characterisation of certain key figures, unnecessarily weakening them on screen in order to make others (usually Aragorn) look stronger. Personally I could forgive some of his more cavalier excesses, such as deux ex machina style dead at the gates of Minas Tirith, but a lot of previously enthusiastic book fans were certainly let down.

Of course the films gave a lot of pleasure to a lot of people but my feeling is that Jackson saw fit to overrule Tolkien on too many points, some of which were understandable, some forgiveable but others were just typical Hollywood overrule. The films were successful but they failed to tell the tale correctly and that was too high a price to pay for me.

Edit: BTW i was never one of those who criticised Jackson fo getting the balrog wings wrong, but the fact that he wasn't even aware of the debate sort of showed that he wasn't the Tolkien fan he was marketed to be. He was more of a glory fan than a stretford ender.
 
I totally respect your point of view here. I'm a fan of both book and film and enjoy them both equally. I've never believed that its a film makers duty to retell a story word for word. I pay a lot of heed to what my fathersays as he has studied Tolkien for over 40 years, that it is so easy to criticise Jackson for things that are different, but people don't praise him for the things he got right or the fact that the films look great and that was a massive undertaking.

He and I agree with you about the Balrog's wings argument, but if people are going to quibble about something at that level, then there is really no point in arguing them because they are clearly picking holes.

It is so hard to remain objective about things you love. Star Wars was my LOTR and I was thoroughly disappointed with the prequels. However, I have tried to remain as objective as I can and find some good in them.

Thanks for an interesting discussion Zeus
 
I think they did an admirable job in LOTR in expanding the female roles, but for The Hobbit I just can't see how they would fit - Arwen for example could be there physically, but I wonder what she'd actually do. Having said that I'd still like to see her back - but that's just my selfish wish to see as many recurring actors as possible, I know it might not work in practise.



That would be great! And a wonderful excuse to get the rest of the hobbits back.
 
I'm sure Christopher Tolkein found some references to Tom Bombadil in his fathers notes. He suggested that tom was a maia who left the valar to live in middle earth when the land was first being created, before the first battle with Morgoth.
Its really the only explanation for Tom and his connection to the forest.
 
I thought he did a fantastic film trilogy with LOTR, and enjoyed them much more than the books to be honest. I enjoyed the books on first reading, but could never manage to re-read them. I found Tolkiens writing style too meandering for my taste. And I always, always found myself skipping the ridiculously long (multi-page?) songs, just wanting to get on with the plot.

The only thing I didn't like with regard to the films was the end of Return of the King. I could quite happily have lived with it ending with Aragorns coronation (indeed, this is where I usually stop the DVD now). And the guy who played Frodo. (Can't remember his name right now). He just can't laugh on screen. He enRAB up just saying "Haha" a lot over and over. He was good in Sin City though.
 
The impression I got from the commentaries is that Peter kept wanting to invent wild stuff and it was Fran and Pippa who kept steering him back to the text. It sounded like they were the ones who knew Tolkien well, not him. Eg at one point he asks why the eagles couldn't just fly the ring from Rivendell to Mt Doom and they are the ones with the answer.

Personally I loved the first film in its extended edition. There were many changes but they were acceptable compromises - even losing Glorfindel. For me the second film is the one that goes off the rails. Hasty Ents, Faramir being evil and seizing the ring, Aragorn falling to apparent death in a warg attack, etc.

From what I've read of the second Hobbit film at Film Guardian, it will cover events between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. As such I think it will contain a great deal of invention, which is probably a bad thing.
 
I'm sure they could easily invent a couple of female characters. The people of Laketown could definitely include a new prominent female character. Heck, they could even have Bard as a woman. Or perhaps they could replace Tharanduil (Legolas's father who imprisons Bilbo and the Dwarves) with a female Elf leader. I don't think they should change the sex of any of the Dwarves though as it's kind of the whole point that they're all male.

I really hope they DO expand on the events in the book a lot, particularly at the end with Laketown and the HUGE Battle of Five Armies. The journey through Mirkwood should be as creepy as possible. And yes they should, if possible, follow Gandalf's adventures (he goes off with Saruman and Galadriel for most of the book to investigate who exactly this dark power occupying Dol Guldur is, which is not seen).

I don't think they'll do one movie There and Back Again and then another showing Gandalf and the White Council. I reckon they'll do it all together with Bilbo's story ending at the end of the second film as well as Gandalf's.
 
Everyone always asks the question of why the eagles can't just fly to Mount Doom. Peter was just winding people up by mentioning it again. The answer to that, by the way, is that THERE WOULD BE NO STORY if they did that! The 'proper' reason is that the eagles are above helping Middle-earth in that way. It's like Gandalf, he is only allowed to do so much
 
Back
Top