Changes

[Inderjit S]

What would you change if you were making 'The Hobbit' movie or what changes would you like to see? Or would you change nothing at all?

[Arvedui]

My principle when it comes to making films out of books, is that nothing should be changed as long as it is possible to make it look believable on the silver screen.

When it comes to The Hobbit, I don't see any reason to change anything. I am aware of the fact that the Elves in The Hobbit is very different from those already seen in The Lord of the Rings, at least when in Mirkwood. At the Lonely Mountain though, I see no big difference from The Lord of the Rings.

Before going into details on where changes could be OK, I need to re-read the book *makes mental note to read The Hobbit again.*

[Inderjit S]

What about the Troll's cockney slang? Would you advocate keeping that?

[Arvedui]

Well, it will be the trolls that I have gotten to know over the years, so why not? But that doesn't really trouble me that much. It would be a nice difference from The Lord of the Rings though, if they could take some care in ensuring that all Elves spoke the same language/dialect, that all Hobbits did the same, etc, etc.

[-K-]

I would change nothing. But I might disclude portions that are non-essential.

For example:

In the pass of the Misty Mountains, cut Kili and Fili looking for the Goblin Cave to escape the storm. Cut the giants throwing stones (they're cool, but do not have any bearing on the rest of the story). Simply move from a few good sweeping cinematic shots of them climbing into the pass from Rivendell to the cave. With a storm obviously raging outside, and very wet travellers. With two or three well placed lines of dialogue (which are best if they are actually taken from the book), you could still imply that Kili and Fili found the cave, and that there are giant's outside throwing stones.

The problems I see if PJ directs is that he would be distracted by something like the giants throwing stones, cause they are cool. Or he would be distracted by wanting to give the dwarves more character, and include Kili and Fili looking for the cave. This would be parallel to some of the calls he made in LotR. Think of his distraction with the Wargs of Saruman, and his feeling of a need to give more character to Arwen.

Then, he may run out of time and space to fit in what is important, such as an accurate battle of five armies.

More than anything what I fear is a director who is arrogant enough to believe he can improve upon the story by making changes (especially additions). So I'm praying that PJ doesn't direct, or learns from his mistakes. Because I don't like the direction he was headed after the LotRs.

I see the goals of the director of a Hobbit movie as:

1. To give fans of the book a good set of visuals to build on in their appreciation of the book.
2. To attract new people to the Hobbit by accurately and skillfully portraying the book in the movies.
3. To hold himself to a personal responsibility not to disrespect Tolkien, and to ADD to the legacy. This means not being so arrogant to think that he can improve the story. He adds to Tolkien's legacy by not adding anything to the film.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

What about the Troll's cockney slang? Would you advocate keeping that?

I think it would work. Unless I'm mistaken, the trolls that dwelt in ancient Rhudaur were of a kind different from the cave-troll in Moria (and if not, I doubt even a purist would pay much attention to this detail), so there would be little lack of continuity in having Tom, Bert and Bill speak in The Hobbit, even in Cockney.

[joxy]

I hadn't thought of their speech being cockney, but inderjit thinks so, and he's nearer London than I am, so I bow to his superior knowledge in the matter. :D
If that IS what they speak, then as long as they don't get <edit> Richard <edit> (can you believe this censoring?!) van Dyke
to voice-over for them, I don't see any reason for changing the way they speak. :rolleyes:

[Snaga]

I would change nothing. But I might disclude portions that are non-essential.

For example:

In the pass of the Misty Mountains, cut Kili and Fili looking for the Goblin Cave to escape the storm. Cut the giants throwing stones (they're cool, but do not have any bearing on the rest of the story). Simply move from a few good sweeping cinematic shots of them climbing into the pass from Rivendell to the cave. With a storm obviously raging outside, and very wet travellers. With two or three well placed lines of dialogue (which are best if they are actually taken from the book), you could still imply that Kili and Fili found the cave, and that there are giant's outside throwing stones.

The problems I see if PJ directs is that he would be distracted by something like the giants throwing stones, cause they are cool. Or he would be distracted by wanting to give the dwarves more character, and include Kili and Fili looking for the cave. This would be parallel to some of the calls he made in LotR. Think of his distraction with the Wargs of Saruman, and his feeling of a need to give more character to Arwen.

Then, he may run out of time and space to fit in what is important, such as an accurate battle of five armies.

More than anything what I fear is a director who is arrogant enough to believe he can improve upon the story by making changes (especially additions). So I'm praying that PJ doesn't direct, or learns from his mistakes. Because I don't like the direction he was headed after the LotRs.

I see the goals of the director of a Hobbit movie as:

1. To give fans of the book a good set of visuals to build on in their appreciation of the book.
2. To attract new people to the Hobbit by accurately and skillfully portraying the book in the movies.
3. To hold himself to a personal responsibility not to disrespect Tolkien, and to ADD to the legacy. This means not being so arrogant to think that he can improve the story. He adds to Tolkien's legacy by not adding anything to the film.I'm confused. You are worried that he might be 'distracted' by cool things in the book like the stone giants, but simultaneously you disavow all changes?

Anyway, you may rest assured that PJ will not undersell the Battle of Five Armies. That would get the full CGI treatment.:)

I hope PJ does improve the story. Its good, but its not impossible to improve upon it.

[-K-]

I'm confused.
yah, the purist position often does that.

[Snaga]

Good explanation. That clears it up completely.

By the way, I notice you didn't have as a goal of the movie 'to be a good movie'. That strikes me as a consideration of at least passing interest, no?

[Inderjit S]

I think it would work. Unless I'm mistaken, the trolls that dwelt in ancient Rhudaur were of a kind different from the cave-troll in Moria (and if not, I doubt even a purist would pay much attention to this detail)

there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. 'Letter 53' Letters of Tolkien.

Tolkien states in the 'Appendix' that Trolls were some kind of "dull, lumpish creature" 'converted' by Melkor. He later speculates that Trolls may have been related to men, in one way or another. (Myths Transformed, HoME 10) as well as there being other Trollish races, such as the Olog-Hai.

[joxy]

....you didn't have as a goal of the movie 'to be a good movie'.
You mean the way people sometimes don't specify about a football game that a goal of the game is to score goals?
The goal of a chocolate bar is to be a good chocolate bar....
:rolleyes:

[Snaga]

You obviously never watched Italian football, if you think the aim is to score goals. They often play in order not to make mistakes. It appears K believes that there to be an equivalent approach to film making.

[rs691919]

I'm confused. You are worried that he might be 'distracted' by cool things in the book like the stone giants, but simultaneously you disavow all changes?

Perhaps K intended to disavow alterations, while deletions would indeed be necessary.



I hope PJ does improve the story. Its good, but its not impossible to improve upon it.

How would you improve upon the story? And even if you think there is room for "improvement" (which there may be), do you not feel that there need be any artistic or creative integrity? That is, the legal right to alter or "improve" upon any form of art may be established, but is it not creatively bankrupt to alter a work that is not one's own?

[joxy]

They often play in order not to make mistakes. It appears K believes that there to be an equivalent approach to film making.
I've been told, vehemently, by self-appointed film experts here, that the film industry in general has a much less serious approach to mistakes than those football players have.
No doubt a missed penalty would receive less than friendly comments from the football manager, but I'm told on good authority that missing a few barrels between film shots would be received by the film director with genial humour.

[-K-]

Its good, but its not impossible to improve upon it.
Herein lies our real disagreement.

In my eyes, the Hobbit could be improved with a few well placed changes. In your eyes, the Hobbit could be improved by maybe a few more well placed changes. And yes, even in Tolkien's eyes there must be a few well placed changes he saw.

But only one of those people has the right to make such changes.

Tolkien sold the rights to a movie version of his book. He didn't sell the rights to destroy the story in the process. Jackson's changes are ludicrous. Hop forums to the PJ vs JRR forums and argue well that the change of Frodo's actions regarding Sam in ROTK improve upon the story. You can argue such a point, but you can't argue it well. There's a reason for that.

Tolkien deserves more respect than such changes. It is clear that Tolkien would not deem such a change an improvement, or he would have written his book that way from the beginning.

It is wrong for a director to take such liberty with the story. It's not about rights anymore, it's about being in the right. Jackson had the right to change the story for the movies, but he was not in the right to do so.

[Capitan Pirata]

No, I wouldn´t make any change at all, because it´s an adaptation of a book, the visual representation of what book says , book written by someone else and I have the responsability to not crated any wrong idea about his/her work.(Of course, not many film makers knows about this).

If I´m going to change whatever I don´t like from book (No excuses for changing the real story for the film), so, I would be doing just another movie, based on plagiarism, to make money with something I didn´t create.
I would be doing "The Bobbit" or "The Habbit", what an easy life.

[Turgon]

I think a real possibility in any future movie of The Hobbit will be a drastic cut in the number of dwarves setting out on the quest. I'm not too sure that a prospective film maker (be it Jackson or otherwise) will feel the need to have thirteen dwarves tagging along on the quest. For better or for worse, I can envision the dwarvish cast cut down to a mere six, with Bilbo being chosen to make up lucky seven rather than to ward off unlucky thirteen. The grouping of the characters in the book makes this an easy task for a screenwriter I think.

Balin and Dwalin
Kili and Fili
Dori, Nori and Ori
Oin and Gloin
Bifur, Bofur and Bombur
Thorin Oakenshield

Obviously some of the characters are rather superflous to the bones of the story - I'm not saying I agree with this - but I think it's a very real possibility.

snip.. snip...

:eek:

[Inderjit S]

I think the same amount of Dwarves should be kept. The one's that aren't needed can just stand there looking dumb...which is not too hard for Dwarves. ;)

And drop Bombur? He's the fat (thus, in hollywood speak, comedic) idiot-dwarf. How can you drop him? ;)

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Trimming the number of dwarves in The Hobbit isn't like cutting out Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is a much shorter narrative, so it would be much more difficult to make wholesale changes--without impacting upon the book's "identity" (if you take my meaning). You can conceivably add Hobbit-related material from The Lord of the Rings and other sources, but you'd need to be very careful about what you omit from the book itself.

[HLGStrider]

I don't know. . .I said in the Romantic interest thread that I wouldn't mind that edition. I wouldn't really mind if they shortened Beorn a lot. I would like the dwarf number to stay the same for an obvious reason:
13.

Without that number, what is the reason for adding on a Hobbit? They needed a 14 more than they needed a burgler, I always felt.

The Arkenstone was cut from the Cartoon, but I feel it will be left in because it allows for some moral fiber which is good for a movie. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was expanded somehow. I'm not sure how, but somehow.

Obviously, Bard will have to be expanded on, otherwise he just looks like too much of a convenient plot fix. The evil mayor will also get more stage time just to appear slimey.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I'd always expected a film version of The Hobbit to include a "love-interest"--though I hope they don't, somehow. The fact remains, nonetheless, that there are no female characters in The Hobbit (though Belladonna Took is briefly mentioned). Rightly or wrongly, the filmmakers are probably going to address that.

I hope they do it through scenes involving Galadriel in the White Council's confrontation with Sauron (if they decide to film that), rather than through the introduction of a new character. Perhaps Lobelia S-B will make an appearance at the auction.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Might not a director ask him/herself who is going to want to keep track a bunch of dwarves, most of which don't do anything?

I really don't see how keeping every dwarf would be viewed as sacred by a director, especially keeping in mind some of the ridiculousness Jackson did. In fact I don't see as how The Hobbit has less room to be tinkered with... if anythng it is a simpler more shallow story, or is at least and unlike LotR, (apparently) viewed that way by lots of readers.


As Jackson's depiction of Legolas demonstrates, characters who do very little in the book can be made to do quite a lot and can become quite prominent in the film (e.g. nowhere in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings does Legolas ski down a flight of stairs on a shield).

In any case, I don't think The Hobbit is identifiably The Hobbit without its thirteen dwarves and their ridiculous rhyming names (though I don't know if it would have quite the same kind of impact that, say, reducing the number of the Company of Nine might have).The director will do what he or she thinks best; I just think curbing the number of dwarves is likely to be one of his or her more controversial decisions (and it's also quite likely to fire up any number of interminable "debates" on the TTF movie fora--as if there aren't enough of those already).

[Snaga]

I've been told, vehemently, by self-appointed film experts here, that the film industry in general has a much less serious approach to mistakes than those football players have.
No doubt a missed penalty would receive less than friendly comments from the football manager, but I'm told on good authority that missing a few barrels between film shots would be received by the film director with genial humour.If I recall correctly, barrels play a more prominent role in the Hobbit!;)

Herein lies our real disagreement.

In my eyes, the Hobbit could be improved with a few well placed changes. In your eyes, the Hobbit could be improved by maybe a few more well placed changes. And yes, even in Tolkien's eyes there must be a few well placed changes he saw.

But only one of those people has the right to make such changes. I disagree. Any film-maker has the right to make whatever film he wants, and to be judged on the results.

How would you improve upon the story? And even if you think there is room for "improvement" (which there may be), do you not feel that there need be any artistic or creative integrity? That is, the legal right to alter or "improve" upon any form of art may be established, but is it not creatively bankrupt to alter a work that is not one's own?I'm not sure how I would change it, but I'll mull it over. But why should there be a lack of artistic integrity in making a movie that is your own creation? In fact, being slavish to the original would lack integrity. I believe it is the film-makers duty to make whatever changes are needed to make the best possible movie. I certainly don't agree PJ's first duty is to those who have already read the book. Why should that be so?

[-K-]

I disagree. Any film-maker has the right to make whatever film he wants, and to be judged on the results.
Then we are agreed as to our point of disagreement.

[rs691919]

But why should there be a lack of artistic integrity in making a movie that is your own creation? In fact, being slavish to the original would lack integrity.

Because the filmmaker is not making a movie that is entirely of his own creation. He is appropriating parts of another man's work that he thinks are "good" and intermixing them with his own ideas and imagery. It is in a sense legal plagiarism, and it is only countenanced because there is this morally vacant notion that the filmmaker has "artistic license" to do whatever he damn well pleases in adapting a book.



I believe it is the film-makers duty to make whatever changes are needed to make the best possible movie. I certainly don't agree PJ's first duty is to those who have already read the book. Why should that be so?

Duty to those who have already read the book? Who is arguing for that? Duty to the book itself might be in order, however. If the filmmaker consider aspects of a book to be so unsuitable for cinematic adaptation that he must alter them to fit some cinematic formula, then I suggest said filmmaker come up with his own story rather messing about with someone else's. That is why this writing trio is creatively bankrupt.

[Snaga]

Because the filmmaker is not making a movie that is entirely of his own creation. He is appropriating parts of another man's work that he thinks are "good" and intermixing them with his own ideas and imagery. It is in a sense legal plagiarism, and it is only countenanced because there is this morally vacant notion that the filmmaker has "artistic license" to do whatever he damn well pleases in adapting a book. Why is that morally vacant? If the result is a movie that people enjoy, are inspired by, moved by etc, how can that be morally wrong? For example, if I recall correctly, when Spielberg made "Schindler's List", he did so based on a novel "Schindlers Ark" by Thomas Keneally, and made many changes in doing so. The book was highly praised (Synopsis and Quotes (http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/keneally/schindler.html)) but the Spielberg did not feel obliged to exactly reproduce it on screen. The resulting movie was a masterpiece, and in the eyes of many, even better than the book. And about as far from "morally vacant" as can be.

Duty to those who have already read the book? Who is arguing for that?That was -K- on a previous post in this thread.
Duty to the book itself might be in order, however. If the filmmaker consider aspects of a book to be so unsuitable for cinematic adaptation that he must alter them to fit some cinematic formula, then I suggest said filmmaker come up with his own story rather messing about with someone else's. That is why this writing trio is creatively bankrupt.I personally find the notion of duty to an inanimate object baffling. By your rules of movie-making, there would never be any adaptations done at all. I thought that the "no-changes-ever" mantra had died in the House of Tom Bombadil, but it seems not.

[joxy]

That was -K- on a previous post in this thread.
I personally find the notion of duty to an inanimate object baffling....I thought that the "no-changes-ever" mantra had died in the House of Tom Bombadil.
Which post from -K-? What number?
Not to the book; to its writer! TomB isn't a "change" in the FOTR film; he's an omission. No-one objects to reasonable omissions.

[-K-]

Which post from -K-? What number?
Not to the book; to its writer! TomB isn't a "change" in the FOTR film; he's an omission. No-one objects to reasonable omissions.
Snaga doesn't seem to have me straight. I never said anything about duty to the book or readers.

I said I see the goal of the director as providing good visuals for readers. The only duty I talked about was to Tolkien himself.

[Snaga]

Hmm, ok I guess you didn't use the word "duty" at all. But it did seem that you felt the first goal of the director was to the existing readers. You didn't then say there was a "duty" to Tolkien, only that the director should not show a lack of respect. But I think it is an unjustified accusation than making changes other than omissions shows a "lack of respect." Its a good way for you to chew yourself up with righteous anger. Have fun with that.

By the way, why aren't you guys campaigning for MERPG to be shut down? All those unreasonable changes and additions. You must be in toxic shock!;)

[rs691919]

Why is that morally vacant? If the result is a movie that people enjoy, are inspired by, moved by etc, how can that be morally wrong?

It is a relatively straightforward notion, but one that I'm not surprised escapes many in this day. To take another person's work and alter it to suit your own purposes--particularly your own financial purposes--lacks moral and creative integrity because it is not your own work!. It cannot be any more simple. Subsequent success of the altered version does not in any way validate the alterations because, again, it was not your work to alter in the first place!

For example, if I recall correctly, when Spielberg made "Schindler's List", he did so based on a novel "Schindlers Ark" by Thomas Keneally, and made many changes in doing so. The book was highly praised but the Spielberg did not feel obliged to exactly reproduce it on screen. The resulting movie was a masterpiece, and in the eyes of many, even better than the book. And about as far from "morally vacant" as can be.

As it happens, Schindler's List is one of my favorite books, and I've read it many times. The movie was indeed a fantastic adaptation; and it was a fantastic adaptation precisely because Spielberg (deviating from his usual reliance on sentimentality) did not alter very much and actually did reproduce it on screen faithfully. The book was not a novel in the traditional sense, being more of a collection of incidents strung together to tell the tale of Oskar Schindler. And the movie followed that pattern expertly. Spielberg did not feel the need to invent dramatic reversals and motivations that were not present in the original. Of course, he and Steve Zaillian were helped by the fact that the "novel" contained little exact dialogue but rather told the tale in narrative. That gave them the ability to create dramatic scenes without being "constrained" (as Hollywood tends to view itself) by the author's words.

I personally find the notion of duty to an inanimate object baffling. By your rules of movie-making, there would never be any adaptations done at all. I thought that the "no-changes-ever" mantra had died in the House of Tom Bombadil, but it seems not.

Duty to an inanimate object? I would have thought that all your psychological and sociological insight would have led to the realization that it is not duty to an inanimate object that is warranted, but duty to another man's work of art. If you felt the mantra of "no-changes-ever " died with the deletion of Tom Bombadil, perhaps you should have realized that it was reborn with Frodo as Coward, Aragorn as Conflicted, Theoden as Weakling, Faramir as Indecipherable, Denethor as Grotesque Lunatic, and Gandalf as Murderer.

[Snaga]

But almost noone ever creates something entirely new. Tolkien least of all. His entire creation is a hotpotch of older ideas thrown together and blended to make something new. Every writer has debts elsewhere. By your thesis, it is ok if you make lots and lots of changes, so the original hard to discern, and it is ok if you make almost no changes, but there is no middle ground.

[baragund]

Oh what the heck, I'll go ahead and stick my big fat nose in this discussion...

I'm with Snaga on this one. Many many films are adaptations of novels, short stories, epic poem, comic books and just about any other written art form you can think of. Some of these adaptations are excellent and some stink and the rest are someplace in the middle. The thing is, film and written stories are fundamentally different art forms. It is impossible to flawlessly adapt one art form to the other. Something will eventually get changed in the translation and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Now I know squat about making movies and I can't write a novel any more than fly to the moon but I have a pretty good idea that whoever makes a movie version of The Hobbit will have a challenge just like any movie version of LOTR was a challenge. The story is pretty meandering and characters come and go in a way that I think will be hard to faithfully adapt to film. That animated version of The Hobbit made back in the '80s (I think) is putrid at best. Those filmakers could be described as incompetent but not morally vacant.

[rs691919]

But almost noone ever creates something entirely new. Tolkien least of all. His entire creation is a hotpotch of older ideas thrown together and blended to make something new. Every writer has debts elsewhere. By your thesis, it is ok if you make lots and lots of changes, so the original hard to discern, and it is ok if you make almost no changes, but there is no middle ground.

There is a very great difference between incorporating ideas and appropriating someone else's work for your own purposes. And yes, in that sense, there never is any truly original story. The great stories echo each other in remarkable ways, and the ones that have come after build on them or take the ideas and view them in slightly different manners. It is part of the "collective unconscious" if you're into pschyanalysis (and I know you are); or part of the Indo-European migratory patterns if you prefer anthropological history; or they come directly from god if religion is your thing (as Tolkien might say, the writer of the Story is not one of us).

The debt of the film-maker to the original is a much different proposition. Legally, according to the rules of such contracts, the film-maker can do as he or she pleases of course. Yet when the characters and their actions and the dramatic elements are presented ostensibly within the bounds of the original, but then subtley (or sometimes not so subtley) shifted so as to alter the thematic content, that is a kind of moral plagiarism.

There is indeed room for middle ground. Some changes must be made, generally of a mechanical nature. And deletions are of course necessary. I for one never had a problem with the omission of Bombadil. But changes for change's sake or (even worse) additions which alter the intentions of the author are reprehensible. It is the degree of change and the purpose of the change that should be in question.

Take Schindler's List, which I hope you had the decency to read before referencing. Yes, there are some small alterations and some deletions. But there are no "made-up" scenes which I can recall. In Jackson's movies "made-up" scenes are a dime a dozen. The climb up the stairs of Cirith Ungol is boring? Well, let's just send Sam away to make it more interesting. Faramir is too good? Well, we'll just make him a bit shifty. Not enough villains in the first movie? Hmmm, I've got an idea: create a super orc and give him lots of screen time; after all, the world loves a good nasty bad guy.

That is not a middle ground. That is distortion.

[Ol'gaffer]

Saying that there is no middle ground is very extreme, mainly because it isn't true.

Take for example to different mediums, both translated to film with changes and additions.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles started out as a parody of superheroes in the form of a comic, it was later translated into a movie with numerous changes and additions into the storyline and charecters, but people thought that the movies were good for what they were and even the creators thought that the movies worked well even with the changes, and even though it wasn't the original turtles anymore.

The second, Fight Club. Originally a novel but changed so that the entire last third of the movie, including the ending, which then affected many parts and charecters of the story, was changed. The result, the critics loved it, the audiences loved it (It's one of my personal favorite movies) and even the author said that he liked the movies ending a fair deal.

These two are major changes from their original forms but are accepted and even liked. So they fall into the middle ground, they're not better than the original works, but they're certainly not horrendous or immoral.

[HLGStrider]

I'm not really taking sides in the greater issue of this debate, but I thought it should be commented that the author of "Fight Club" was, obviously, still alive and ticking at this point and probably had some say in what was done to his book. . .whereas if Tolkien's intentions are skewed, he can really only roll over a few times in his grave which PJ wouldn't even notice.

[Ol'gaffer]

Actually he had nothing to say, the rights for the movie were sold completely to new line and all he could do was watch and weep, which he then didn't since the movie was great.

[joxy]

Actually he had nothing to say, the rights for the movie were sold completely to new line and all he could do was watch and weep....
IF he'd been alive to do it, he'd have had plenty to say!
IF he had sold the rights completely, there'd have been nothing he could have done, but he could still have said what he thought about what had been done - always supposing, of course, that freedom of speech still existed in this hypothetical scenario.
:D

[Inderjit S]

Methinks that it would have been good for NewLine's (or whoever produced it) P.R if the movie was approved of by Tolkien-and it may have been a better movie. Tolkien though that some changes should be made in the case of a movie-he even advocated the removal of the Battle of Helm's Deep if needs be, in his letter which took a snipe at a proposed movie, but if changes did occur then they would have to be sensible and not take too much away from the movie.

[joxy]

Yes, no doubt PR would have put JRRT to good use, though it's noticeable that they didn't use any of his family in any way.
What's certain is that if JRRT had been available, and had been consulted, the films would have been enormously better.
Those comments you mention were made about a very tentative cartoon version of the books, but JRRT still put a lot of effort and detail into his observations about what was being proposed -most of the observations being adverse ones - and some of them relevant to PJ's efforts, if he been open to such considerations.
Any changes that he would have let through would certainly have been "sensible", and I take it from your use of the word that you agree that some of the changes that were actually made were far from sensible.

[Ol'gaffer]

Oh, Joxy.

The author whom I said had no control over his works being turned into movies, wasn't J.R.R, but rather I was talking about the author of Fight Club. ;)

[Inderjit S]

Yes, no doubt PR would have put JRRT to good use, though it's noticeable that they didn't use any of his family in any way.

I don't think they would have been of much use.

Any changes that he would have let through would certainly have been "sensible", and I take it from your use of the word that you agree that some of the changes that were actually made were far from sensible

For the proposed cartoon movie or the recent movies? Yes, I dislike some of the recent changes to the movie-some of them are stupid, in my opinion, and add little to the storyline. That being said, I know that I would tamper slightly with Tolkien’s master piece if I made a movie. For example I would love to have expanded the whole Last Alliance thing and also I would have elaborated on how Sauron tricked the Mirdain-but such things would have over-complicated the plot. I think that more emphasis should have been paid to Gil-Galad and Elendil-I would have included their fight with Sauron-it would have made for nice eye candy too. I also would have kept the whole conspiracy thing-the scene in which Frodo finds out about the conspiracy is one of my favourite scenes in the book.

[joxy]

I don't think they would have been of much use.

I also would have kept the whole conspiracy thing-the scene in which Frodo finds out about the conspiracy is one of my favourite scenes in the book
One of his sons has spent the last thirty years going into every minute detail of the manuscripts and typescripts; I would have thought the insight he has gained through that task could have been of some use. He could at least have told our writing sorority that his father wasn't as interested as they are in animal droppings and nervous systems, as well as gently suggesting that their ideas of the characters of Merry, Pippin, Gimli, and Denethor have no connection whatever with the source material.

I agree, of course, that the omission of the whole idea of the conspiracy was a sad loss to the films.
I wonder, though, why you would have liked more material from outside the actual FOTR books to be included.


Ol'G: Sorry I read the wrong "he" into that posting of yours.

[Inderjit S]

One of his sons has spent the last thirty years going into every minute detail of the manuscripts and typescripts; I would have thought the insight he has gained through that task could have been of some use. He could at least have told our writing sorority that his father wasn't as interested as they are in animal droppings and nervous systems, as well as gently suggesting that their ideas of the characters of Merry, Pippin, Gimli, and Denethor have no connection whatever with the source material.

In a publicity sense-not many people know about C.T's work. And even if they did they would most likely say "so what, hasn't he got anything else to do?" ;)

I wonder, though, why you would have liked more material from outside the actual FOTR books to be included

1. I love the storyline.

2. The extra battle scenes would have been great.

[Nerds.Inc]

I myself see things that could be changed. The Hobbit is a classic, but if a movie adapted from it, there would be things you would have to change slightly so to fit in with modern-day audiences, mostly all the people unfamiliar with Tolkien.

Like the introduction of the Dwarves. I would highly condense it into maybe having them all appear at one time with Thorin introducing his comrades or Gandalf introducing all of them.

The songs and poetry, they are wonderful in the book, but put too many in a movie I think just wouldn't work.

The part where the Dwarves continually attempt to approach the Wood Elves to beg for their food. In the book, every attempt they make ends with the lights going out, and the Dwarves yelling and running around in the dark. I think that would need to be a little re-worked or condensed.

Beorn had some dog servants/waiters, if I remember correctly. Dogs walking on thier hind legs would be a little bizzare in a movie adaption of The Hobbit.

And if I decided not keep all friggin 12 Dwarves, I'd just keep Thorin(of course), Balin, Gloin, Bombur(for comic relief), Fili, and Kili.

Each to their own though...

[joxy]

In a publicity sense-not many people know about C.T's work.
In a publicity sense, I suppose not; but quite a number of people must at least be aware of his existence through reading his long series of books based on his father's manuscripts.

[Snaga]

The debt of the film-maker to the original is a much different proposition. Legally, according to the rules of such contracts, the film-maker can do as he or she pleases of course. Yet when the characters and their actions and the dramatic elements are presented ostensibly within the bounds of the original, but then subtley (or sometimes not so subtley) shifted so as to alter the thematic content, that is a kind of moral plagiarism.
Do you mean 'morally equivalent to plagiarism', or it IS plagiarism? I assume you don't mean what this literally means, which is a form of plagiarism that is moral?!;) Clearly it is not plagiarism, since the debt to the original is acknowledged. Noone is passing someone elses work off as their own. You are instead, I guess, accusing Peter Jackson of passing his own work off as Tolkien's. So anti-plagiarism (and all critical acclaim for the movies reflects on Tolkien). If you believe Jackson is refusing to take credit for his work, substantiate this claim!

changes for change's sake or (even worse) additions which alter the intentions of the author are reprehensible. It is the degree of change and the purpose of the change that should be in question.
Why is that reprehensible? If someone takes a story, and alters it to convey somewhat different ideas, to emphasise somewhat different themes, by what rule is that reprehensible? It might be so, if the final story or movie was poorly executed, or one might judge the altered story to contain messages that are immoral. But your point is the more general one, that even a fantastically well executed movie, with superior moral or ethical messages (ignoring how this is judged) would remain "reprehensible". I reject that idea.

Of course, in reality you have claimed there is an acceptable "middle ground" merely by redefining it as your 'small changes/no additions' territory, which is in fact only an extreme on the spectrum I described.

Yes, no doubt PR would have put JRRT to good use, though it's noticeable that they didn't use any of his family in any way.
What's certain is that if JRRT had been available, and had been consulted, the films would have been enormously better.How can this be certain?

The presence of the author on the set of a movie is no guarantee of a movie that is 'minimally changed', nor of a movie that is successful either artistically or commercially. For a good example, see Dune (1984). Frank Herbert was intimately involved, but the movie is horribly bad, and is castigated by Dune fans for its many divergences from the book.

[joxy]

How can this be certain?
Tolkien, whose life was dedicated to the study and appreciation of language, would never, for a moment, have let through any of the invented dialogue, which ranges in quality from mediocre to abysmal.
Tolkien, who knew his characters intimately, would never, for a moment, have allowed the characters of Merry, Pippin, Gimli, and Denethor, to name only four, to be distorted out of all recognition.
He would have insisted on the retention of his intricately worked out plot line.
He would have required a balance between detail and spectacle.
I'm certain that those factors would have made for an "enormously better" set of films. If you disagree, so be it.

[Mrs. Maggott]

The twelve dwarves are necessary in order to "explain" the presence of B.B. who makes up "the lucky number". Of course, he is supposed to be a "burglar" - which is news to him at the beginning of the story! - but in reality, the entire business of putting Bilbo into the group is to overcome the "unlucky" number of dwarves. Why they couldn't find another dwarf (or leave one home) is of no consequence since the story is predicated on Bilbo having to be included.

Secondly, having dogs walk around serving food (if whomever does the film decides to include Beorn) is no great difficulty as it can be managed as a special effect rather than using real dogs. However, I am inclined to believe that Beorn might suffer the same fate as Bombadil unless they remember that it is his sudden appearance at the crucial part of the battle that wins the day for the "good guys". Still, it would depend upon how long they want the film to run as to how much of the original story winds up in it.

Hopefully, whomever does the film will be content with Tolkien's story and not feel the need to intrude his or her own "interpretation" and/or extraneous plot lines in order to "modernize" the thing. Even Disney didn't feel the need to do much "modernizing" in Snow White or Cinderella. I just hope that The Hobbit will not suffer the same fate as LOTR. However, if Jackson is directing, the chances are very slim indeed that we will actually get Tolkien rather than another Jackson redoux.

[Ol'gaffer]

Even Disney didn't feel the need to do much "modernizing" in Snow White or Cinderella.

It's hilarious that you're comparing one of the biggest films ever made in the new century, or even in the history of film alltogether. To two animated movies from the 1950's.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It's hilarious that you're comparing one of the biggest films ever made in the new century, or even in the history of film alltogether. To two animated movies from the 1950's.
I hold with my point that Disney kept to the story. He didn't have such a "big idea" of himself that he thought he could - or should - "remake" these classic fairy tales for whatever reason - including an appeal to "modern" audiences. Mr. Disney knew that his audience wanted to see Snow White and Cinderella, not Mr. Disney in drag.

On the other hand, Mr. Jackson for all of his hi-tech "bells and whistles" didn't know enough to leave a classic story alone! In that, Mr. Disney's "animated movies from the 1950s" are infintely superior to Mr. Jackson's "biggest films ever made" which, quite frankly, gave us an interpretation of the source material that was at its best, mediocre and at its worst, just plain horrible. Of course, for those who never knew the source material - and especially the very young - I daresay Jackson's video-game effects and battle sequences are probably enough, unfortunately.

[rs691919]

It's hilarious that you're comparing one of the biggest films ever made in the new century, or even in the history of film alltogether. To two animated movies from the 1950's.

Why is that hilarious? The world did not begin four years ago.

[Ol'gaffer]

Because:

1) They are complete different genres

2) They are completely different things to adapt, Snow white is a fairly simple childrens story, while LotR is a massive epic spanning over three whole books.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Because:

1) They are complete different genres

2) They are completely different things to adapt, Snow white is a fairly simple childrens story, while LotR is a massive epic spanning over three whole books.
The story is the story. Disney had one film for each story. Jackson had one film for each "book" within the original story. Disney stuck pretty much with the story as it had been developed over the years and as it appeared at the time he made the films (if you look at the original "fairy tales", the stories were in fact quite different). Jackson was not even familiar enough with the story he had chosen to film to understand how it would be affected by many of the changes he made! Indeed, because Tolkien's story was such much more "epic" (as you stated), it behooved Jackson to treat it with even more care than Disney treated his stories; he didn't.

As for genres, well, Tolkien's was also a "fairy tale" and if you read his essay you will see that unlike you, he does not dismiss that particular genre as cavalierly as you do. Nevertheless, the fact remains: Disney had more respect for his stories than Jackson did for his as evidenced by the way each "director" handled the matter.

[Heathertoes]

I think any director would have to decide whether The Hobbit is a children's story or not and that that decision would have quite an impact on the film, probably alienating a lot of people in the process. I'd prefer to see it given an 'adult' treatment (by which I don't mean porn!), but that would involve some changes from the book.