not excited about the Hobbit movie

[dbskyler]

When I was a teen, I was a HUGE fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books. I could reel off Elven poetry (and Bilbo Baggins poetry), and I don't know how many times I re-read them, but it must have been around seventy-umptillion.

I know that for a fact, because when I saw the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, I noticed every single little detail that was different from what had happened in the books, even though it had been years since I'd read them.

Okay, perhaps I didn't notice *every* different detail. After all, how would I know what I didn't notice? But I do know that I noticed a LOT of discrepancies, and I also know that they severely detracted from my enjoyment of the movies. Perhaps it's a case of being too much of a fan to be a fan? I don't know. I didn't go in with a "this better be an exact dramatization of the books" mindset, but I noticed the discrepancies. They just kept hitting me over the head, and every time it took me right out of the movie experience. So overall, I didn't find the movie trilogy very enjoyable.

Now I'm worried about the exact same thing happening with the new Hobbit movie. Of course, they apparently are purposely putting in a lot of stuff that wasn't even included in the book -- how else could they get it to 3 cashboxes of movies? -- and I don't know, maybe it won't bother me at all to see dramatization of new stuff. But out of curiosity I went and read Wikipedia's entry on the movie -- I want to know what I'll be getting into if I see it -- and already I find myself getting annoyed at the little plot points that were mentioned that aren't correct. For example, according to Wikipedia (which perhaps is wrong), Bilbo is the one who keeps the trolls arguing until sunrise. NO, it was GANDALF who did that. Also, there is apparently this whole new conflict with Orcs that hits them before they even get to Rivendell. What??? WRONG, that is WRONG!!!! And apparently the movie ends before they even get to Mirkwood, which is . . . well, annoying, but not unexpected (see stretching-one-book-out-to-3-movies).

If I'm going to get this annoyed at the Wikipedia entry, I suspect I will get even more annoyed at the movie. But then I'll feel culturally left out if I don't go to see it. On the other hand, at least I know what happens. Or at least, what's supposed to happen . . .

Comments

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

I'm refusing to go and see it. Like you, I've been a fan of the books for a long time (Hobbit since 8, LotR since 15) - and I ended up hating the LotR movies (although they are very well made films and I adore Howard Shore's music). So I've decided to wait until the DVD comes out, because at least if I hate it, no one else will be disturbed by my rantings as I watch - plus hiring a DVD is cheaper than a cinema ticket, so I'll resent the "misspent" money less if I hate it.

[lolmac]

Can I offer you kudos and cookies and shiny things and anything else you like? See my rant below. I HATE Jackson's pathetic take on the stories -- beautifully-made movies with crap writing underneath, made worse by the fact that the crap writing is the result of an arrogant idiot who gave himself free rein to rewrite brilliant work. He ruined a masterpiece. My only consolation is that he hasn't made any money off me since 2001.

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the kudos, cookies and shiny things!

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Yeah, good plan to wait for the DVD. Much less risk, and even if I hate it, I can make a drinking game out of "Things that are WRONG"!

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

LOL I suspect you wouldn't get to the end of the movie because you'd have passed out first! :D

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

I wonder if I'd make it to Rivendell . . . :D

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

*snorts* How used are you to drinking alcohol - 'cos if the answer's 'not very', I predict you won't!

[pitry.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean... I'm not a tolkien purist but I definitely have my "argh what are you doing!!!" books. I liked the lotr movie trilogy the first time I watched it but I can't seem to muster excitement for the hobbit, and I think it's a lot to do with stretching it to three movies. It's a lovely story that loses it's charm when turned into an epic, you know? So in a way I'm happy that they aren't playing it here in normal 2d . I have no intention of watching it in 3d or the hrf thing, so they helped me decide I'm not going...

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

I definitely have my "argh what are you doing!!!" books

It's funny how some movies-from-books give me that reaction, and some don't. For example, "The Princess Bride." I read that book and loved it (still do), then saw the movie and loved it too (still do). Even though there are huge differences between the book and the movie. But in that case, the movie was written by the actual author of the book, and so it's not too surprising that he knew what he was doing when he adapted it. : )

And yeah, I think you've nailed what's bothering me about the whole idea of the Hobbit movie trilogy -- it's not an epic, and it shouldn't be forcibly turned into one.

[lolmac]

Would you like to join my partner and me in our Just Say No To Jackson mutual support group?

I hate the movies, all of them. I've only seen the first; that's enough. I stand by my opinion.

When the first one came out, I went from enthusiastic to disgusted in about twenty minutes (Specifically, it was when the drop-dead-tense (in the book) confrontation between Gandalf and Saruman turned into a cheesy WWF smackdown).

That was the last one I saw. I'd seen enough. What I saw was the work of someone who:

- spends lots of money and thinks that's the solution
- loves monsters, fight scenes, special effects and explosions/fire/zaps
- thinks he knows how to tell a story, but can only tell one kind: the B-grade monster flick (which was all he had done prior to starting on the LotR movies)
- thinks Tolkien did not know how to tell a story
- is an American working with British source material without understanding the essential British nature of it (remember the American take on Red Dwarf? The American-made Doctior Who movie?)
- has, by now, made so much money that his inflated opinion of himself is unshakable (There was some hope after the second movie came out, because at that point, his Oscar count was a fat zero. Unfortunately, he landed a pile of (mostly technical) Oscars with the third. On the other hand, he stuck MUCH closer to his source material for #3, which might not be a coincidence.)

Like you, I loved the books. I loved them for what they are: rich, complex, wordy, full of the power of words, loaded with dramatic understatement. Jackson has no notion that words can be powerful. All he 'gets' is action. He re-wrote the trilogy, dumping everything in favour of overblown action, and now he's doing the same with The Hobbit.

I absolutely will not see this one or any other. Jackson can make another obscene stack of cash without any contribution from me.

I learned after Fellowship that my opinon of the movies wasn't popular, and that I might as well keep it to myself. I found out that many people who love the movies will then, almost sheepishly, admit that they didn't really like the books all that much -- they're "too long", "boring", "twee". At that point, I know that there's no conversation to be had on this subject, because I value something that they do not.

Some people do start with the movies and then read the books, and that's better than nothing, I suppose. But I wish Christopher Tolkien had never let Jackson anywhere near the material. I try not to waste time and energy thinking of what the movies could have been, in the hands of someone who actually understood and loved the source material . . . a set of true movies will never be made now, and Jackson is to blame for that.

So, there's my rant, previously shared only with my partner. I've enjoyed every minute of every hour of my life that I have not wasted in having Jackson's version of Tolkien pollute my brain, and I will continue to enjoy this. Missing out on a cultural event? Screw that. I'll re-read the books. THAT'S the cultural event, and I'm getting a better one than the moveigoers.

Feel free to use any part of this rant to keep yourself away from the irritation. Who needs a new mental rash?

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Oh yes! THIS!

Especially rich, complex, wordy, full of the power of words, loaded with dramatic understatement. Jackson has no notion that words can be powerful. All he 'gets' is action.

*hugs tightly*

[lolmac]

*hugs you back, with cookies*

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

*shares the cookies around*

(Someone else on my FList told me today that she thought "The Hobbit" movie was fairly faithful to the book - and I was all "How CAN it be? It's the first of a movie trilogy!")

"FAIRLY", yeah

[lolmac]

Maybe that's "fairly faithful" as in "It only sleeps around on Tuesdays and Thursdays, it's in an open relationship, and it uses birth control"? Oh, wait, no birth control, since it's going to have two more movies.

Or maybe that's "fairly faithful" in contrast to, say, the Earthsea movie (which had characters who had the same names as the ones in the book, and that was about it).

Re: "FAIRLY", yeah

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

*snorts*

Yeah - Earthsea's something else I haven't watched. Couldn't bring myself to do it.

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

I saw all three LoTR movies (but only once), and I actually thought the first one was closest to the source material. I know it was the one that irritated me the least, anyway. But I've had no desire to see them again, not even for free on my TV (I randomly came across "Fellowship" just a few nights ago and hastily switched the channel).

But yes, very good points! Especially:

I loved the books. I loved them for what they are: rich, complex, wordy, full of the power of words, loaded with dramatic understatement. Jackson has no notion that words can be powerful. All he 'gets' is action. He re-wrote the trilogy, dumping everything in favour of overblown action

YES, exactly! Well, I would add a bizarre need to mess around with the characters, too. For instance (and this is just one example), I still haven't forgiven Jackson for what he did to Faramir. Faramir is one of my favorite characters from LoTR because he resisted the Ring. But Jackson changed that, and for absolutely no reason that I can figure out.

I try not to waste time and energy thinking of what the movies could have been, in the hands of someone who actually understood and loved the source material . . . a set of true movies will never be made now, and Jackson is to blame for that.

Honestly, that doesn't bother me a bit. I don't give a damn about making "true movies" out of The Lord of the Rings. First of all, I'm not sure if it can be done. (And obviously Jackson didn't do it.) But more importantly, we have the books, and they are perfect. Why do we need movies of them? We don't!

[lolmac]

Why do we need movies of them? We don't!

I'll go along with that! *hugs you*

[thisbluespirit]

I suppose if I say at this point that I quite enjoyed the LotR films (although not so much The Two Towers with the awful character defamation) and that I am very miffed that I am still too ill to go and see Richard Armitage being shorter than Sylvester McCoy at the cinema, I should duck for cover or something? 0_o

I used to be much fussier about film/TV adaptations (and still can be, depending) but actually it can be fascinating to see how people interpret them & the new light it can shed on the way you see things - what people think is unimportant and leave out as much as what they include. Er, less so LotR, probably, though! But generaly. Also, I am in no way as attached to The Hobbit as I am to LotR, so the idea that it actually brings in stories from the Appendices makes me more interested rather than less, or annoyed. Not that I don't appreciate the obvious mercenary angle of a trilogy... ;-)

And it brings new people to the books - despite the annoying rush of people who'll never bother. And I know nothing about Peter Jackson, probably he is awful, but he does have some taste in casting, I'll give him that, and he likes the BBC Radio LotR dramatisation. Also, visually, they got so much of the first three films based on the paintings of people like John Howe - it was really quite impressive in that regard. (The radio version, though, for me, is so much better than the films. No character defamation! MY gandalf! David Collings! \o/)

(Yes. Excuse me. Nearly always a Pollyanna, except those rare times when I'm not. ;-p)

Anyway, whenever you see it, I hope you get some fun out of it and not too much annoyance! Or alcohol poisoning. I intend when I do to be fully amused at the respective fantasy heights of Sylvester and Richard Armitage, if nothing else. But people on my flist who have seen it seem to be liking it, so I find that promising.

[dbskyler.livejournal.com]

Of course you're allowed to say you enjoyed the LoTR movies! I hope my LJ will always be a safe space in which to say you liked something. Even people who liked Last of the Time Lords are welcome here. ; )

I admit that I do kind of want to see Sylvester McCoy as Radagast, but I'm sure I'll get the chance eventually. And yeah, the new material from the Appendices might be interesting.

it can be fascinating to see how people interpret them & the new light it can shed on the way you see things - what people think is unimportant and leave out as much as what they include.

True. I just don't quite have the objectivity for that with the Hobbit and LoTR, though. People who don't value what I value in those books are wrong! And by the way, they're not allowed to pronounce the character names differently than I do, either. I don't care if it's how Tolkien meant for them to be pronounced; I only care if it's the way I've been pronouncing them. ; )

(Okay, I did finally capitulate on "Hermione" around Book 3 or so. Besides, her name is prettier when it's pronounced the correct way.)

And it brings new people to the books

I find that sad, actually. I mean, these books were written well before I was born, in a different country, but I heard about them from my friends as a teen, and we all read them together. I'd go so far as to say it was an "in" thing to read them. People who didn't read them were looked down upon. Is that no longer the case with today's youth? Does everything have to be delivered via a screen of some sort? Not that I'm against movies and television -- far from it! -- but people should want to read books because they're good books, not because a movie was made out of them.

Grumble, grumble. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the movie when you see it! And I hope you're feeling up to seeing it soon.

[thisbluespirit]

:lol: NO, don't worry, there are plenty of books I'm not sure I'd dare to watch an adapation of - and I had many issues with The Two Towers!

Does everything have to be delivered via a screen of some sort? Not that I'm against movies and television -- far from it! -- but people should want to read books because they're good books, not because a movie was made out of them.

Of course not. People still find books in all kinds of ways, and there's never anything like a friend's recommendation. But a film or TV series always brings a fresh interest, which I don't think is a bad thing. Given that there are lots of people who'll just see the film and think that's it, I rather like all the people who are interested enough to hunt up the books as well, and decide which they actually prefer - and those who will, on knowing a film is coming out, seek out the book so they know it before they see it. Or even read it to decide whether they want to see the film anyway!

:-)