![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
not excited about the Hobbit movie
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 . . .
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 . . .
no subject
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?
no subject
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*
no subject
no subject
*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
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
Yeah - Earthsea's something else I haven't watched. Couldn't bring myself to do it.
no subject
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!
no subject
I'll go along with that! *hugs you*