Is Anyone Else Worried?

Discussion in '"The Hobbit"' started by DerBerggeist, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. DerBerggeist

    DerBerggeist The Mountain Spirit

    So with the coming out of the Hobbit movies, is anyone worried how actually seeing the book acted out for the first time will affect how we picture the events of the story in our minds? There's a particular way I like to envision everything that happens in the book, and I'm a little worried that that will be ruined. But of course I can't not see the movies!
     
  2. Prince of Cats

    Prince of Cats Among the Trees

    You're not alone! I'll try not to be negative. I really wish we got a new team to take a new and more true-to-the-book adaptation
     
  3. Starbrow

    Starbrow Tolkien Fan

    I understand. I have to work hard to not have the movie scenes in my head while I'm reading TLOR.
    Actually, I don't have too much trouble with the settings or how the characters looked in the movie. I have more of a problem with how they acted.
     
  4. Troll

    Troll Lorekeeper of Nardor

    For all PJ's inevitably controversial decisions that will spark fan rage for years after the release of the Hobbit films, I'm glad there will be visual/style consistency across the Hobbit/LotR films. If someone else had been in charge of the Hobbit, there is little chance that they would have been able to get all the same actors, Weta Workshop, artists, etc that worked on LotR, with the end result of a much less satisfying saga IMHO.
     
  5. Bucky

    Bucky Registered User

    Not worried at all.

    The books are the books and the movies are, uh, PJ.

    Honestly, for all my PJ bashing, if I weren't a HUGE Middle-earth fan, I'd think the movies are among the best stuff to come out of Hollywood in recent years.

    Then again, if I didn't like Middle-earth, I might not say that either.

    ...And, I loathe modern Hollywood & it's lack of originality too. :*rolleyes:
     
  6. Prince of Cats

    Prince of Cats Among the Trees

    I agree with you there Bucky - I get so upset watching the movies only because I know what the real story is and what they could have been

    I've used this term before: hollywood-washed. That's how I see the Lord of the Rings movies. One great example is Arwen's first appearance in the movie. I can't come close to enjoying them because of it. The scenery and costumes are great, yes. The writing is a tragedy. But still, in contrast to Troll's opinion I do wish there was a new team covering the aesthetics department of The Hobbit. I need something refreshing to renew my hope! :)
     
  7. The Thrasson

    The Thrasson Registered User

    I find that no matter how great they make the movies, they will always come up short. That is how great the books really are. Like trying to touch the sky.

    I'm an artist and I always envision fantasy animated. I guess that's a little strange, but true. I may be a little influenced by viewing the Rankin-Bass/ Bashki productions when I was young.
     
  8. Erestor Arcamen

    Erestor Arcamen Archivist

    I'm not worried. It's not like it's not like if PJ makes major changes that Tolkien's book will change/be ruined. I don't need a movie to be able to visualize this story in my head when I'm reading. When I read, I really become one with the book and forget about my surroundings, hope that doesn't sound weird. I just get so totally engrossed in the book that I'm reading that hours could go buy and I won't notice until someone snaps me out of my funk. So if PJ wants to make this movie with a few extra changes like did with LOTR, let him, I'll still be loving/holding Tolkien's books to the highest esteem.
     
  9. Sulimo

    Sulimo Registered User

    I think I'm like Prince of Cats on this One. I understand that everything is well made, but for some reason watching the trilogy for me is the equivalent to nails on a chalkboard. I think that its because Tolkien was such a perfectionist that I do not think he would have allowed the movies to be made in this manner. There is a reason he never finished the Silmarillion. He worked on it for decades, but he never was satisfied with it.

    To me I have no qualms if a writer allows his books to be significantly changed when made into a movie. That's there call and more power to them. However, in my heart I just do not think that the writer would approve, and so it makes the changes very glaring and obvious.

    However, this is a fairy tale, and we all know that stories evolve over time. I feel PJ's rendition will be a pretty to look at twist, but will not come close to the original story it is derived from by a long shot.
     
  10. Eledhwen

    Eledhwen Cumbrian

    Imagination is stronger.

    If you continue to read the book after seeing the film, your original imagination should hopefully prevail over Mr Jackson's casting preferences.

    With three films, the story should be covered pretty thoroughly, though I notice that, in the first film, Benedict Cumberbatch is cast only as The Necromancer, and in the second as The Necromancer/Smaug. That should tell you a bit about where they've cut the story. Interestingly, the cast list for the final film includes Ian Holm as Old Bilbo; and Sylvester McCoy (a former Doctor 'Who') as Radagast. I am all anticipation!
     
  11. Prince of Cats

    Prince of Cats Among the Trees

    Re: Imagination is stronger.

    Interesting idea ... it actually has me thinking though to the contrary - I'm still haunted with the image of Elijah Wood and other actors from the LOTR to the point that I can scarcely remember how I originally pictured them. And for that I'm very grateful that Tom Bombadil was spared those movies' attention. I think I might avoid The Hobbit movies to keep intact my own picturing, however isolationist that may be
     
  12. baragund

    baragund Brother in Arms

    I've found that when I return to the books, my original imagination's image of the people and places comes back pretty readily, no matter how many times I've watched the movies.
     
  13. HLGStrider

    HLGStrider All Knowing Magic Cat

    honestly , my imagination is not hugely visual. When I read I don't see pictures in my head the way some people seem to. I absorb words and stories, but only very occasionally do I stop and think of pictures.

    I'm actually kind of glad to have the actors replace some of my old Rankin Bass images, though. Gollum, for one, was really weird looking in the cartoon and I'd much rather have the version from the current films.
     
  14. Ciryaher

    Ciryaher Witch of Resurrection

    I had that same issue with the Rankin/Bass films! I liked the way they did hobbits, but their wood elves and Gollum were always so...strange.

    I'm also pretty similar in the non-visual imagination whilst reading. When I stop and think about something, I can form an image in my head. But generally the words just sort of...flow out. They conjure a lot of emotions and abstract things that aren't easy to put to words or describe as an image, with the exception of landscapes or places (my Khazad-Dum was much more interesting than the movie version). Those seem to be easily described in my head, but I could never paint a picture of how I "see" a character. They just...are!

    It's odd just thinking about how I think about a thing while reading, but interesting to be introspective about...
     
  15. Mouth_Of_Sauron

    Mouth_Of_Sauron Herald of Mordor

    I was initially thrilled. I commended PJ for three movies for three books. I admired the way he made RotK as the conclusion of a trilogy rather than just "the third movie" which he's taken flak for in the past. When I heard The Hobbit was in the works, I was stoked. When I heard it was a two-parter (for a 200-page book? well, okay...), I was nervous but comfortable. Maybe PJ would throw in the Tom Bombadil he left out in LotR. Oh, he's not? Well, Radagast is making an appearance. That's pretty cool, I guess. Legolas? Huh. Wait, now it's a three-parter?

    I've crossed the realm into skeptical, but I hold hope. If only a fool's hope.
     
  16. 33Peregrin

    33Peregrin hmmm

    The only thing that gets me still is the corniness/cheesiness. I've moved on quite a bit from getting as concerned as I had once been about the changes.

    But watching 'The Hobbit', the embarrassment I felt and wasn't so aware of from the LOTR days came back. Like, Gandalf's speech at the White Council. And Gandalf's "What does your heart tell you?" to Aragorn in Meduseld in ROTK comes to mind. Not to pick on Gandalf, it's definitely not just Gandalf.

    People seem to think, or at least the non-Tolkien readers I know, that reading real Tolkien would have the same corny feel. Oh, PJ. Those monologues, swelling LOTR music--please don't give that to everyone as a representation of why so many of us are such enormous readers of Tolkien!

    Looks like I have something else to work on for the next ten years or so.
     
  17. Kolbitar

    Kolbitar Registered User

    Well said, 33Peregrin.
     
  18. Mahanaxar

    Mahanaxar Registered User

    I still don't get why the some parts of the story had been changed, mainly the part concerning Azog.

    I think that he wanted to prolong the 1st Hobbit Movie, I think PJ was worried about "not having enough fight scenes" in the movie, that being said, I've heard several complaints about The Hobbit being a "children's book", and the complaints grew yet more after the movie was made..

    i don't know I'm just thinking out loud, the question is: Did PJ really have to make these changes in the script?

    I mean sure they mean nothing to the regular people but to us Tolkien fans, the movies are about making all what we read in the books come to life, and I take an invigorating amount of joy in watching the details (Bilbo's home/ The Goblin city/ Imladris / Erebor etc...) the structures making the transformation from word to image, and that's what gives me faith in PJ and the upcoming Hobbit movies. I don't think PJ needed to make these unnecessary changes...
     
  19. Dís

    Dís Registered User

    I don't know if one must call them necessary. He sure has to feed the crowd at least a bit, for crowds make money and money makes more films, so to speak. From my personal point of view I don't mind them. Books and movies are very different from one another. It takes some kind of alchemy to turn the one into the other and many, many fail at that. PJ didn't. I remember how sceptical I was when Return of the King came to the screen. Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire seemed a harsh alteration. But it worked in the movie, it convinced me, who knows the REAL ending in the book. The book is not the same as the movie. Harry Potter 1 was a book set to moving pictures and it was terrible. No alchemy in it at all.

    As for The Hobbit I would say it works, too. Take the dwarves. In the book they are hardly distinguishable. Some of them never have a line of their own. They mostly come in pairs FiliandKili or GloingandOin or just as "the dwarves". This does work in a book where the acting character can easily be a plural. If "the dwarves" do - or even say - something there is still something happening that gets the story along. In the movie we saw such dwarves at Elrond's council in The Fellowship of the Ring. All looking like Gimli. Boring. For The Hobbit with 13 different dwarf-characters a way had to be found to make them different, so the audience can identify them and identify WITH them. If you look at the accompanying books to the film (namely The Hobbit. Chronicles, art&design) the producers have given a lot of thought to that process.
     
  20. Mahanaxar

    Mahanaxar Registered User

    I have great faith in PJ & WETA... I guess when you put out something as the LoTR trilogy you set the bar too high for yourself don't you? :p
    Personally, I wanted The Hobbit to be a grander trilogy than LoTR but I have to say I find that difficult to achieve.
     

Share This Page