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

[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!

:-)