The Hobbit....so Excited

1363739414247

Comments

  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is a vast difference between sifting through your father's work piecing things together and allowing a total stranger to write their own version of your father's story.

    That's not editing, that's creating a narrative from a standing start using JRRT's legendarium as source material..

    Christopher Tolkien had to often piece together sections of various versions of stories that JRRT never intended to see the light of day - but there was no other way of completing.

    That's really heavy editing.
    What I mean is that Christopher would probably be unimpressed with the changes that PJ would make to the Silmarillion in order to make it cinematic (in his eyes). Would we have a nice and cuddly Turin or a comedy effect Mim? What would PJ make of the complex figure of Feanor?

    I doubt he'd make very much of him at all; the Silmarillion, if ever filmed as a complete storyline, will have to have the sort of higher-level, almost biblical, treatment that Christopher achieved for the book...because only certain parts of the whole tale of the First Age - like The Lay of Leithian, or The Children of Hurin - exist in enough detail for full characterisation.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's not editing, that's creating a narrative from a standing start using JRRT's legendarium as source material..

    Christopher Tolkien had to often piece together sections of various versions of stories that JRRT never intended to see the light of day - but there was no other way of completing.

    That's really heavy editing.



    I doubt he'd make very much of him at all; the Silmarillion, if ever filmed as a complete storyline, will have to have the sort of higher-level, almost biblical, treatment that Christopŷher achieved for the book...because only certain parts of the whole tale of the First Age - like The Lay of Leithian, or The Children of Hurin - exist in enough detail for full characterisation.

    There is also the interesting consideration that Tolkien himself said he wanted his imagining of Middle-earth to be expanded and explored by others. He seems to have seen it as a sort of retrieval of a lost English lengendarium. Things that are only fragmentary references, or enigmatic fleeting mentions encountered by many students of Old Norse and Old English, became the substance of LOTR, and Silmarillion.

    I wish I could find the quote I am trying to remember, but cant quite put my finger on it, right now. Something about giving the English their myth cycle, is the gist of it. This would be no one man's property, I'd assume...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 374
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    There is also the interesting consideration that Tolkien himself said he wanted his imagining of Middle-earth to be expanded and explored by others. He seems to have seen it as a sort of retrieval of a lost English lengendarium. Things that are only fragmentary references, or enigmatic fleeting mentions encountered by many students of Old Norse and Old English, became the substance of LOTR, and Silmarillion.

    I wish I could find the quote I am trying to remember, but cant quite put my finger on it, right now. Something about giving the English their myth cycle, is the gist of it. This would be no one man's property, I'd assume...
    Tolkien's Legendarium was an attempt to consolidate and bring together old forgotten lore in one rich and detailed history that pre-dated our own history. In his eyes the events of his Legandarium happened in this world and according to him we're currently in the Seventh Age.

    As for inspirations: The Prose Edda, Elder Edda and Poetic Edda are some of the major ones. The names of most of the Dwraves were taken from the Eddas and Gandalf's name. He even coined the term Eucatastrophe using themes explored in the Elder Edda.

    Smaug and Gollum were directly inspired by Fafnir of the Volsunga Saga.

    Many themes were borrowed from the Finnish Kalevala and it is the greatest source of inspiration for The Silmarillion.

    The Gods of Pegana written by Lord Dunsany was the major inspiration for the pantheon of the Valar.

    John Milton's depiction of Lucifer the direct inspiration for the character of Melkor.

    The Ring of Gyges found in Plato's The Republic the inspiration for one aspect of the One Ring (corruption) and Owein's Ring (found in the The Lady of the Fountain which can be found in the Welsh Mabinogion) the other aspect (invisibility).

    The Mabinogion also contains the Tale of Culhwch and Olwen which parallels The Tale of Tinuviel. The tale that meant the most to Tolkien.

    And one mustn't forget The Marvellous Land of Snergs, without which The Hobbit would probably not exist.

    Tolkien was a master world-builder as well as a master word-builder, but he used much ancient lore to build his Legendarium.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tolkien's Legendarium was an attempt to consolidate and bring together old forgotten lore in one rich and detailed history that pre-dated our own history. In his eyes the events of his Legandarium happened in this world and according to him we're currently in the Seventh Age.

    As for inspirations: The Prose Edda, Elder Edda and Poetic Edda are some of the major ones. The names of most of the Dwraves were taken from the Eddas and Gandalf's name. He even coined the term Eucatastrophe using themes explored in the Elder Edda.

    Smaug and Gollum were directly inspired by Fafnir of the Volsunga Saga.

    Many themes were borrowed from the Finnish Kalevala and it is the greatest source of inspiration for The Silmarillion.

    The Gods of Pegana written by Lord Dunsany was the major inspiration for the pantheon of the Valar.

    John Milton's depiction of Lucifer the direct inspiration for the character of Melkor.

    The Ring of Gyges found in Plato's The Republic the inspiration for one aspect of the One Ring (corruption) and Owein's Ring (found in the The Lady of the Fountain which can be found in the Welsh Mabinogion) the other aspect (invisibility).

    The Mabinogion also contains the Tale of Culhwch and Olwen which parallels The Tale of Tinuviel. The tale that meant the most to Tolkien.

    And one mustn't forget The Marvellous Land of Snergs, without which The Hobbit would probably not exist.

    Tolkien was a master world-builder as well as a master word-builder, but he used much ancient lore to build his Legendarium.

    And he had a sense of creating something that one day would belong to every English person, in a way giving us back our own lost culture and history. I was lucky enough to be taught Old English and Old Norse by people who were taught by him. These enigmatic sources are things we all carry with us, those who have stumbled on the same material, and the stories he crafted from these sources belong to everyone who has read and enjoyed Tolkien, as well as the scholars and students of philology.

    This is why I have always felt PJ's take is as valid as anyone else's, as that was what Tolkien wanted. Whilst we know from his letters, he was horrified at the thought of Disney getting hold of the rights - for reasons most people can readily understand - broadly speaking, the legendarium belongs to all of us, and anyone's interpretation of it is equally valid.

    Except Disney's. Or, say, George Lucas's.;)
  • nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    There is also the interesting consideration that Tolkien himself said he wanted his imagining of Middle-earth to be expanded and explored by others. He seems to have seen it as a sort of retrieval of a lost English lengendarium. Things that are only fragmentary references, or enigmatic fleeting mentions encountered by many students of Old Norse and Old English, became the substance of LOTR, and Silmarillion.

    I wish I could find the quote I am trying to remember, but cant quite put my finger on it, right now. Something about giving the English their myth cycle, is the gist of it. This would be no one man's property, I'd assume...

    Hogzilla, I wonder if it is Tolkien's Letter #131 (To Milton Waldman) that you are looking for? To quote part of this long letter thus:

    "Also -- and here I hope I shall not sound absurd -- I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands.
    [...]
    Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story... which I could dedicate quite simply to: to England, to my country..."
    'The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien' p. 144

    and summarised HERE

    I have a feeling that Tolkien, and most probably his various biographers, have also discussed it elsewhere; but, like you, I cannot put my finger on at the moment. I know what you're talking about, though, if that helps. :D
  • LadyMinervaLadyMinerva Posts: 755
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hardly! He openly admitted in the SiImarillion, the Unfinished Tales and the Tales of Lost Play that he had had to edit his father's work heavily to come up with even a semi-cohesive storyflow for the Silmarillion. That's where the Unfinished Tales and so much more comes from; the material and alternative versions he had to leave out.

    Indeed. The hobbit too has changed since it was first published, as Tolkien changed it to complement better the later-written lotr trilogy
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nethwen wrote: »
    Hogzilla, I wonder if it is Tolkien's Letter #131 (To Milton Waldman) that you are looking for? To quote part of this long letter thus:

    "Also -- and here I hope I shall not sound absurd -- I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands.
    [...]
    Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story... which I could dedicate quite simply to: to England, to my country..."
    'The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien' p. 144

    and summarised HERE

    I have a feeling that Tolkien, and most probably his various biographers, have also discussed it elsewhere; but, like you, I cannot put my finger on at the moment. I know what you're talking about, though, if that helps. :D

    Nethwen, that is great but not quite the quote I had in mind. Will give me an excuse to start trawling through my books!;)
  • ritchritch Posts: 2,566
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The more I think about the Hobbit the more I feel it was pretty pointless, it was just doing it all again but slightly different. Same actors, same locations but some slightly different things going on. I don’t have any urge to watch it again. I don’t like my own opinion on it lol, but that’s just my feeling. Maybe they should have kept the tone similar to the book and given a whole different feel to the other films, it just doesn’t stand out and I’m very interested how it will turn out with the other 3 hour marathons, with such little material.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ritch wrote: »
    The more I think about the Hobbit the more I feel it was pretty pointless, it was just doing it all again but slightly different. Same actors, same locations but some slightly different things going on. I don’t have any urge to watch it again. I don’t like my own opinion on it lol, but that’s just my feeling. Maybe they should have kept the tone similar to the book and given a whole different feel to the other films, it just doesn’t stand out and I’m very interested how it will turn out with the other 3 hour marathons, with such little material.

    Although I think some of the criticism it has had, has been because PJ is taking a lighter tone with it - which is in keeping with the original book..?
  • LadyMinervaLadyMinerva Posts: 755
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ritch wrote: »
    The more I think about the Hobbit the more I feel it was pretty pointless, it was just doing it all again but slightly different. Same actors, same locations but some slightly different things going on. I don’t have any urge to watch it again. I don’t like my own opinion on it lol, but that’s just my feeling. Maybe they should have kept the tone similar to the book and given a whole different feel to the other films, it just doesn’t stand out and I’m very interested how it will turn out with the other 3 hour marathons, with such little material.

    I love the new film, and the length of it too. It's like an indulgence for fans of the first three where we get to see more of middle earth, more characters, and more story. It makes a great addition to the extended lotr films.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    I love the new film, and the length of it too. It's like an indulgence for fans of the first three where we get to see more of middle earth, more characters, and more story. It makes a great addition to the extended lotr films.
    I think that's the problem in a nutshell.

    "Indulgence for fans", "Addition", etc.

    They should have simply made a film of the book in its own right. A self-contained, focused fantasy tale. But it's ended up being some pseudo-artficially-extended journey in the LotR world with bits of the book and bits of other stuff to stretch it out.

    I watched Fellowship of the Ring last night. It's perfection, utter perfection compared to the Hobbit. Just as long but no flab at all. Pretty much every scene pushes the story along.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They should have simply made a film of the book in its own right. A self-contained, focused fantasy tale. But it's ended up being some pseudo-artficially-extended journey in the LotR world with bits of the book and bits of other stuff to stretch it out.

    But it never was self-contained; remember -
    Gandalf's disappearance from the Quest party at the Carrock, to allow him to participate in the White Council's "attack" on the Necromancer?

    ...and many other hints and links to other events?
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    Oh, I'm a fan of the books (including the Silmarillion). But a self-contained film of the book would still have worked better and been more focused I think. (The other bits alluded to in the books don't necessarily have to play a part, just for the sake of it).

    Like many aspects of the film, I wonder if PJ & Co had ever stopped to consider whether they should include certain stuff instead of whether they could.
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    But it never was self-contained; remember -
    Gandalf's disappearance from the Quest party at the Carrock, to allow him to participate in the White Council's "attack" on the Necromancer?

    ...and many other hints and links to other events?

    But that's just an excuse to pad out the story. Gandalf made it very clear he was only accompanying the quest for as long as it suited him. No more explanation needs to be made other than he's off doing 'wizard stuff'

    It's absolutely not needed in the book or the movie and if he made a single comment in the movie, no one would even have battered an eyelid.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I like the leisurely pace of 'The Hobbit'. That is such a brave thing to do with a film. Maybe structurally it might be more satisfying and more stand-alone, if PJ had condensed into one or two films and saved the extra material for a third, but I am happy with it as it stands.
  • ritchritch Posts: 2,566
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Although I think some of the criticism it has had, has been because PJ is taking a lighter tone with it - which is in keeping with the original book..?

    but it swithches to a more serious tone in an effort to be like the originals, so it doesnt maintain a lighter tone. Not that I entirely wanted that personally but it feels too much liek fellowship but no where near as good, so what was the point?
  • Chris1964Chris1964 Posts: 19,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think people will always say it should have been two and not three films. However, having seen it yesterday with about 100 others who were as engrossed as me, I am not complaining-it was magnificent majestic escapism and I cannot wait for episode two.
  • D3XT3RD3XT3R Posts: 788
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well I managed to see this on Thursday in HFR Imax 3D and I for one will be watching the next 2 instalments in plain old 2D as I did for the LOTR trilogy, myself and my partner did not like the HFR as it made things look too clear almost like an old BBC live programme where the set looked like it didn't belong in the same scene as the actors, Its hard to explain the feeling. The film IMO was no where near the standard of the Fellowship and almost felt like a reimagining of the story with the similar types of scenes in the same places i.e the treck along the mountain with the rock fight felt like the pass of caradhras scene which then subsequently moves into a cave scene with subsequent fight. The leaving of Hobbiton also felt similar along with a few other scenes, but these are just my opinions. Overall I would give it a 7/10
  • VolVol Posts: 2,393
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D3XT3R wrote: »
    Well I managed to see this on Thursday in HFR Imax 3D and I for one will be watching the next 2 instalments in plain old 2D as I did for the LOTR trilogy, myself and my partner did not like the HFR as it made things look too clear almost like an old BBC live programme where the set looked like it didn't belong in the same scene as the actors, Its hard to explain the feeling. The film IMO was no where near the standard of the Fellowship and almost felt like a reimagining of the story with the similar types of scenes in the same places i.e the treck along the mountain with the rock fight felt like the pass of caradhras scene which then subsequently moves into a cave scene with subsequent fight. The leaving of Hobbiton also felt similar along with a few other scenes, but these are just my opinions. Overall I would give it a 7/10

    Even people like me who really enjoyed the film find it hard to defend against the criticism that PJ took the first 3rd of the Hobbit story and made it as similar to the Fellowship of the Ring as possible...

    However considering the structure of the Hobbit story it is very unlikely he will be able to make part 2 anything like The Two Towers - so hopefully this will be when the Hobbit movies come into their own.
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    Need advice: should I go see The Hobbit in 2d at a lovely local cinema that has an intermission *mmm lovely for a 3 hour movie* or should I go and see it in IMAX at 48FPS?

    Difficult one, really. That Intermission will sound lovely half way through the movie!
  • VashettiVashetti Posts: 2,361
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Karis wrote: »
    Need advice: should I go see The Hobbit in 2d at a lovely local cinema that has an intermission *mmm lovely for a 3 hour movie* or should I go and see it in IMAX at 48FPS?

    Difficult one, really. That Intermission will sound lovely half way through the movie!

    The Hobbit is actually 2 and a half hours, not 3.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Karis wrote: »
    Need advice: should I go see The Hobbit in 2d at a lovely local cinema that has an intermission *mmm lovely for a 3 hour movie* or should I go and see it in IMAX at 48FPS?

    Difficult one, really. That Intermission will sound lovely half way through the movie!

    Id do both but then I am a fan.:D

    If i had to choose, id go for 48FPS... As I wont be able to see it like that on the big screen again. I had seen it 2 D now and 3D but not 48 FPS, and preferred the 3 D. I have now found which local cinema is doing 48FPS so will give that a try...
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've seen 'The Hobbit' in 2D, and am planning to see it again in 3D. I don't go to the cinema much, and have never seen a 3D film yet. So what would people recommend in my case - the HFR or the 24fps version.
    I'd go for HFR, but I've not seen any of them yet so feel free to ignore me.

    I don't really understand how the lower frame rate version can fix the objective flaws in the HFR, since as I understand it, it simply uses every other frame without adding motion blur etc, so will have the same issues of being too sharp and too fast.

    Also, it seems to me that The Hobbit was the wrong film for this HFR/3D experiment, and would not be a good basis to judge the technology on. Nor is it typical of previous 3D films.
  • soulboy77soulboy77 Posts: 24,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    roger_50 wrote: »
    Oh, I'm a fan of the books (including the Silmarillion). But a self-contained film of the book would still have worked better and been more focused I think. (The other bits alluded to in the books don't necessarily have to play a part, just for the sake of it).

    Like many aspects of the film, I wonder if PJ & Co had ever stopped to consider whether they should include certain stuff instead of whether they could.
    Having sat through the Hobbit part 1, I'm in agreement that it should of been made into a single focused film and would of then been the ideal prequel to the LOTR. I'm dreading to think of the padding that's going to occur in the next two installments. This has only been done for one reason only and that is naked commercialism
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    soulboy77 wrote: »
    Having sat through the Hobbit part 1, I'm in agreement that it should of been made into a single focused film and would of then been the ideal prequel to the LOTR. I'm dreading to think of the padding that's going to occur in the next two installments. This has only been done for one reason only and that is naked commercialism

    I shall reserve my judgement until I've seen all three parts.

    Eight or nine hours of film does seem a lot if you merely consider the length of the book, but it's not that simple when you think about it. The Hobbit is obviously a much shorter book than LOTR, but because the book was written for children it's very light on description, and a lot happens in fewer pages.

    The other factor is that quite a lot of the wider story happens outside the pages of The Hobbit. For instance, Gollum being captured and interrogated by Sauron, which is how Sauron learns who has the Ring. That's a really crucial part of the whole story.
Sign In or Register to comment.