-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tolkien vs Jackson
- Thread starter DayRaven
- Start date
I had no intention of sullying my vision of Middle Earth with some crass movie adaptation. Christmas morning, my niece asked me casually if I'd seen the Fellowship movie. I told her how I felt. Oops, she was giving me two tickets for Christmas
So I went, and was enthralled. It was great! I didn't like all that had to be cut (Tom Bombadil is a big fave), but I was very impressed with what was done. So she and I went every year to the new one.
I was much less impressed with the Hobbit. Too much crap that wasn't at all true to the book. Hmph.... Radagast the Brown towed by rabbits...
I went to see it with a friend of mine who hated listening to me tell all the riddles just before Frodo and Gollum did. She said she would never go with me to another Tolkien movie because I am a Tolkien snob.
Tom
So I went, and was enthralled. It was great! I didn't like all that had to be cut (Tom Bombadil is a big fave), but I was very impressed with what was done. So she and I went every year to the new one.
I was much less impressed with the Hobbit. Too much crap that wasn't at all true to the book. Hmph.... Radagast the Brown towed by rabbits...
I went to see it with a friend of mine who hated listening to me tell all the riddles just before Frodo and Gollum did. She said she would never go with me to another Tolkien movie because I am a Tolkien snob.
Tom
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I agree. LOTR was one thing - I love Tom too, but there was just no way that everything could go in, and I agree that his part was ultimately non-essential.
Plus, as I get older, it's harder and harder to lose myself in the text and let it draw me into the world, and LotT was always painfully stilted language. I could never see anything, so the films brought an iconic work to life for me.
But The Hobbit? Seriously? I get it, I do - the studio wanted to milk the crap out of a guaranteed cash cow. And Jackson decided to use that to make it more thematically consistent with the sprawling epic that just kinda happened after, though I don't speculate on whether he was eager or just resigned.
And it's not like it's bad. But it's also not The Hobbit. I wanted The HOBBIT.
Plus, as I get older, it's harder and harder to lose myself in the text and let it draw me into the world, and LotT was always painfully stilted language. I could never see anything, so the films brought an iconic work to life for me.
But The Hobbit? Seriously? I get it, I do - the studio wanted to milk the crap out of a guaranteed cash cow. And Jackson decided to use that to make it more thematically consistent with the sprawling epic that just kinda happened after, though I don't speculate on whether he was eager or just resigned.
And it's not like it's bad. But it's also not The Hobbit. I wanted The HOBBIT.
I love the LOTR movies, though I think I love the making-of documentaries in the special editions more than the actual movies themselves. lol
So far, the Hobbit movies haven't bothered me at all. I went in with fairly low expectations from the beginning, and those expectations were surpassed. Contrary to the rest of the internet, I think the three movie structure works fine to the actual story (though not so much the ending to the second film), and I appreciate the additions helping to tie the story back in to LOTR. Plus the songs in the first film are so much fun. ^_^ I'm SERIOUSLY worried about the third film, though.
Granted, I regard the special editions to be the "true" editions, since they add in previously time-cut elements to the story that, in my opinion, never fail to improve it. So I'll be judging the Hobbit films on the merits of those, when the third one's comes out next year. (I judge the LOTR films on theirs).
For me, I regard the LOTR books as incredibly difficult for me to read, since they're so dense. When I can get through a chapter (I sort of regard the Council of Elrond as the "final gateway", insofar as everything before that is incredibly difficult, with that one being the most difficult and boring, but then everything after that is downhill), I am still very much amazed at the descriptions of the cultures, the landscapes, the people... Jackson has said that the films can only hint at the depth, and he's not lying.
...I'll also say, I was expecting and wanting a Hobbit film as soon as I knew about the book (the films actually introduced me to Tolkien's work, beforehand I didn't know about it), and I'm glad one is there, and that it's consistent. I love consistency. Before, the only alternative was that cartoon... which did have a nice soundtrack, but was just so... shallow. Plus it made Bilbo into a bigger idiot than he's supposed to be.
So far, the Hobbit movies haven't bothered me at all. I went in with fairly low expectations from the beginning, and those expectations were surpassed. Contrary to the rest of the internet, I think the three movie structure works fine to the actual story (though not so much the ending to the second film), and I appreciate the additions helping to tie the story back in to LOTR. Plus the songs in the first film are so much fun. ^_^ I'm SERIOUSLY worried about the third film, though.
Granted, I regard the special editions to be the "true" editions, since they add in previously time-cut elements to the story that, in my opinion, never fail to improve it. So I'll be judging the Hobbit films on the merits of those, when the third one's comes out next year. (I judge the LOTR films on theirs).
For me, I regard the LOTR books as incredibly difficult for me to read, since they're so dense. When I can get through a chapter (I sort of regard the Council of Elrond as the "final gateway", insofar as everything before that is incredibly difficult, with that one being the most difficult and boring, but then everything after that is downhill), I am still very much amazed at the descriptions of the cultures, the landscapes, the people... Jackson has said that the films can only hint at the depth, and he's not lying.
...I'll also say, I was expecting and wanting a Hobbit film as soon as I knew about the book (the films actually introduced me to Tolkien's work, beforehand I didn't know about it), and I'm glad one is there, and that it's consistent. I love consistency. Before, the only alternative was that cartoon... which did have a nice soundtrack, but was just so... shallow. Plus it made Bilbo into a bigger idiot than he's supposed to be.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
See, The Hobbit was my very first novel, read to me for bedtime stories when I was 4 or 5. It may not be a fair standard, but it's the only one I got, lol.
The thing is, it was a preliminary work before Tolkien really knew what he was getting into with the whole Middle Earth thing. Side note, I cannot stand the fact that all the paperbacks printed since the LotR films have called it the prequel. It's NOT a prequel. It came first. LotT is a sequel, the Silmarilion is prequel.
But that's why it's so different from the rest of Middle Earth, it was the genesis. A fairyland setting for a children's story.
And I'm rather irked that they decided to mess with it.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I thought Bakshi's hobbit was spot on. My son was first introduced to literature wiith the hobbit edition that used used the Bakshi illustrations. As a neat side note, by son is going to St. John's in Sante Fe, his current tutor there went to Oxford. Guess who his tutor at Oxford was? Tolkien ... kinda neat, no?
Oh, yes ... the OP ... I prefer the books (of course), but I really liked all the films except for Bakshi's LOTR adaptation.
Oh, yes ... the OP ... I prefer the books (of course), but I really liked all the films except for Bakshi's LOTR adaptation.
Last edited:
Which is understandable. I intend to read the Hobbit book to my children, well before they see the movies.
Once the third Hobbit film's special edition is out, I'm going to marathon all six films, with a single question in mind to answer: have the films really changed in actual quality? Or has culture itself simply changed to something that would have rejected the LOTR films but accepted the Hobbit films, if they had been reversed in being made?
I'll be making a video about that when the time comes.
Beren and Luthien, the movie. Adapt the story that features the characters whose names are immortalized on the very tombstones of Mr. and Mrs. Tolkien, respectively.
Make it happen and do it right. Or make it into a stupid teen romance and throw the script in the trash and never look at it again.
Very neat. ^_^ That would be... two degrees of separation?
Um, Bakshi didn't do the Hobbit. He did that TERRIBLE LOTR cartoon. The Hobbit cartoon was Rankin/Bass (who also did a wonderfully terrible adaptation of Return of the King... as well as a childhood memory of mine, Flight of Dragons).
When it comes to my children, I'll be showing them Rankin/Bass's Hobbit instead, as a way to illustrate the differences in media, as well as how different actions between adaptations can change what a character is like. Besides, the film's main theme, "The Greatest Adventure" is such a wonderful song. I'm honestly hoping against hope it makes at least a cameo appearance in this third Hobbit film.
NOOOO! It must begin with Eru and the Valar. And it will be a 50 hour marathon, at least.
Tom
Even though Ainulindale is my favorite Creation Story EVER, Tolkien was quite clear in his descriptions of the scene that it was very non-descript. That these events cannot be adequately depicted with pictures except by loose reference, symbolism, and metaphor. (It also let us know what Tolkien's opinion of rock music was. lol)
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Thanks for the correction.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Considering each movie of LOTR may have made all of The Stand seem short if they put everything in, I think Jackson and crew done a wonderful job making the movies. The Hobbit, while I like, I'm abit disappointed with them in how much extra stuff was added. Three long movies is not necessary for a book that isn't that long.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
I'm that person who doesn't care that the Hobbit is 12 hours long across 5 movies. I hear the music and go *SQUEE* I AM IN MIDDLE EARTH AGAIN.
I really like the LOTR movies, the Hobbit ones aren't as good, but in the moment, I don't care. Both are clearly Peter Jackson's interpretations, and that's OK with me.
I really like the LOTR movies, the Hobbit ones aren't as good, but in the moment, I don't care. Both are clearly Peter Jackson's interpretations, and that's OK with me.
Yay! I'm not alone!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yes, if anything, there is the beauty and the fact I would love to spend days, probably the rest of my life, at some of the places they filmed. Even if that meeting among Gandalf, Sauron, Elrond and Galadriel didn't happen in the book, the place it happened in was gorgeous.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
LotR movies were great.
Hobbit movies, not so much. The first one was pretty good, but the second one had too much of silly stuff. I hate when they put in 3D gimmicks in a movie like bees flying in your face to make everyone go "ooooooh!" That's not what those stories are to me. And the fight with the dragon in the second... urgh... bleh... cut that 20 minute scene out, and I could consider it being meh instead of bleh.
Hobbit movies, not so much. The first one was pretty good, but the second one had too much of silly stuff. I hate when they put in 3D gimmicks in a movie like bees flying in your face to make everyone go "ooooooh!" That's not what those stories are to me. And the fight with the dragon in the second... urgh... bleh... cut that 20 minute scene out, and I could consider it being meh instead of bleh.
Anyone else thought the dwarfs riding the rivers of melted gold was over the top and ridiculous? I like magical stuff in these stories, but did anyone have a spell for making those wooden boxes not burn from the heat? Melting gold is over 1000 degrees Celsius, close to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't remember that being in the book, was it? I haven't read them in a long time, so I don't remember for sure, but I can't remember them doing that.
Last edited:
Love the movies. Really love the extended edition videos on how the movies were made - those strike me as a first class college course on making movies.
I also just saw a story today that I thought was very accurate: 6 ways Peter Jackson forced us to take fantasy seriously - Movies Feature - Digital Spy
I also just saw a story today that I thought was very accurate: 6 ways Peter Jackson forced us to take fantasy seriously - Movies Feature - Digital Spy
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't mind the length, I just mind the aging up. The Hobbit is ultimately a children's story, not a grimly adult epic.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
This is true, although Tolkien did attempt to age it up - write it in the style that would be LotR's style, it's just that no one wanted to publish it so he stopped. He saw The Hobbit as the children's version of the Battle of the Five Armies (and all that led up to it) whereas what he wrote would have been the real story. In that way Jackson's sort of giving us the "real" story rather than the children's version.
It still boils down to the Shire music (or the Ring music or what have you) playing and me blissing out to Middle Earth.
I'm just upset we won't be getting a Silmarilion movie. But on the bright side, we did get some references to it in the Hobbit films. I loved their depiction of Sauron as the Necromancer. That was one of the most surreal & terrifying things I've seen in a movie. I also love the sort of 'thread' of evil you can see. You can clearly discern, if you look, that in Middle Earth evil genuinely does have one absolute cause. Through Sauron is the work of Morgoth-Bauglir Melkor(The Black Enemy of the World who Arises in Might). Sauron is merely the newest face of darkness in this world. But unlike Morgoth, despite the fact he is far, far less powerful than his Master, in comparision to the Free Peoples' Sauron is far greater than Morgoth ever was.
Even without the One Ring, Sauron would've crushed what remained of Middle Earth and ground it beneath his iron heel, and the Valar would had to have intervened and ruined another continent or such to stop him.
Thank Manwe that Bilbo spared Gollum, and through that act of kindness, the Enemy was dashed upon the rocks. Frodo didn't destroy the Ring after all, nor did Gollum. The Ring destroyed itself, through the greed it devoted itself to spreading. It could never be tossed into Amon Amarth, it had to throw itself in.
Sorry. Nerding out. Loves me some Middle Earth, books & movies.
Even without the One Ring, Sauron would've crushed what remained of Middle Earth and ground it beneath his iron heel, and the Valar would had to have intervened and ruined another continent or such to stop him.
Thank Manwe that Bilbo spared Gollum, and through that act of kindness, the Enemy was dashed upon the rocks. Frodo didn't destroy the Ring after all, nor did Gollum. The Ring destroyed itself, through the greed it devoted itself to spreading. It could never be tossed into Amon Amarth, it had to throw itself in.
Sorry. Nerding out. Loves me some Middle Earth, books & movies.