Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[jmc]

What I love is people judging other's opinion on the work in such a manner. They clearly care about the material on a level most others couldn't really do so. It is a part of their family, their life. Whether or not you agree with them on the films, the way people "judge" them about their feelings is ridiculous.

It is perfectly fine for them to care deeply about the material, it's another thing to act like Jackson butchered the whole thing. If Chris Tolkien genuinely thinks that then frankly there's no film interpretation of his fathers story that would ever be right in his eyes. If he doesn't like the idea of his old man's work being made into film then all he has to do is not watch it and not say anything about it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I didn't misrepresent it at all.

You have complained about certain things in the movie. I didn't say you were wrong, or misunderstood the director's intent, or didn't understand proper film making.

I and others have said we liked the movie....and you come in and tell us why we are wrong, why we misunderstood things, and how we don't understand how a proper film is made.

In other words....you express your OPINION and explain why it is right...and we express our OPINION and you tell us why it is wrong.

When?

That I actually try to explain my point most of the time is now a bad thing? That is far different then saying "you are wrong". I even ask why.

"The you are wrong" come with the facts. Like box office, release dates and other factual things that are seemingly being made up as some posters go on.

With the "one big movie" debate, I think my points are clear and sound. That I have to walk into the movie theater months apart should have put pay to that argument in the first place, but hey, what are you going to do.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Thank you for completely misrepresenting my point. If you go in with a determination to like something, it is no different then going in with hate. There is always bias, but if you are not willing to see past your own in the least, how does one take your criticism seriously?

The problem is that here you are allowed to make baseless arguments as long as you are positive.

"I loved the Hobbit."

"Why?"

"The motorbike scene was great."

"There were no motorbikes in the Hobbit."

"Stop hating!"

Wow you didn't have to be a dick about it. A simple "that wasn't the point I was making" would have sufficed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is perfectly fine for them to care deeply about the material, it's another thing to act like Jackson butchered the whole thing. If Chris Tolkien genuinely thinks that then frankly there's no film interpretation of his fathers story that would ever be right in his eyes. If he doesn't like the idea of his old man's work being made into film then all he has to do is not watch it and not say anything about it.

Then many would complain he doesn't know what he is talking about because he never saw the films. That he expresses his opinion on the work is fine imo. Not like he is on a crusade. He has made peace and has learned his lesson apparently. Now they pretty much sit quietly and will not release the other material unless they are truly compelled to do so.

Wow you didn't have to be a dick about it. A simple "that wasn't the point I was making" would have sufficed.

That was far from "being a dick". I suggest reading the beginning of this thread to understand why I believe my point is clearly valid. Lee has almost reduced any argument I make to complaining about every single thing.

 

[C. Lee]

Wow you didn't have to be a dick about it. A simple "that wasn't the point I was making" would have sufficed.

That is the point I have been trying to make. I am a fan of the HOBBIT, and have been doing my best to not post as an admin/mod in here, but simply post as a fan....but I find myself not wanting to even come into the thread because I know I will see several posts per page by him rebutting every post made by someone saying something positive about it.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm not sure what you guys are discussing exactly. But as far as the Silmarillion getting turned into a big budget movie, well, a) just the fact that it is written by Tolkien isn't necessarily enough to draw in the GA, b) most of the Silmarillion would be found depressing or too tragic by most of the GA, c) there are no hobbits featured, which are arguably the most popularly loved aspect of Tolkien's more beloved books, d) the book would be a nightmare to adapt, due to long narrative pauses, gaps of many years, its more historical / biographical tone and its large cast of characters, e) the film(s) would be high budget without the same sort of guaranteed built in audience that the more popular Hobbit and LOTR books have.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That is the point I have been trying to make. I am a fan of the HOBBIT, and have been doing my best to not post as an admin/mod in here, but simply post as a fan....but I find myself not wanting to even come into the thread because I know I will see several posts per page by him rebutting every post made by someone saying something positive about it.

He does that. /Gordon

 

[ThePhantasm]

If he doesn't like the idea of his old man's work being made into film then all he has to do is not watch it and not say anything about it.

See, it isn't that simple. Christopher Tolkien has poured most of his life into Middle Earth for a long time. It is because of him that the majority of Tolkien's books are available. He gathered the manuscripts, made them readable and coherent, reduced inconsistencies, redrew the maps so there would be no contradictions, etc. He was involved from day one, as he gave his father advice as a child on the book. This is all evidenced by JRR's letters and by the massive amount of work accomplished by CT.

So yes, this is about protecting his father's legacy, and yes, he wants his father's work to be presented in a way that he feels honors it fully and doesn't reduce or demean it in any way. Maybe you disagree with him about the films (I love the films myself) but "everyone else likes it, so sit down and shut up" doesn't exactly fly here. If he thinks his father's work is trivialized by being commercialized in this manner, he has the right to that opinion, and he has the right more than anyone else to protect his father's work.

That said, he isn't particularly vocal about his views, and he isn't really causing a huge public stink about it, so again, I don't understand why fans hate him so much and take it so personally.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That was far from "being a dick". I suggest reading the beginning of this thread to understand why I believe my point is clearly valid. Lee has almost reduced any argument I make to complaining about every single thing.

Your "arguments" aren't some holier than thou statements that you always make things to be.

 

[jmc]

See, it isn't that simple. Christopher Tolkien has poured most of his life into Middle Earth for a long time. It is because of him that the majority of Tolkien's books are available. He gathered the manuscripts, made them readable and coherent, reduced inconsistencies, redrew the maps so there would be no contradictions, etc. He was involved from day one, as he gave his father advice as a child on the book. This is all evidenced by JRR's letters and by the massive amount of work accomplished by CT.

So yes, this is about protecting his father's legacy, and yes, he wants his father's work to be presented in a way that he feels honors it fully and doesn't reduce or demean it in any way. Maybe you disagree with him about the films (I love the films myself) but "everyone else likes it, so sit down and shut up" doesn't exactly fly here. If he thinks his father's work is trivialized by being commercialized in this manner, he has the right to that opinion, and he has the right more than anyone else to protect his father's work.

That said, he isn't particularly vocal about his views, and he isn't really causing a huge public stink about it, so again, I don't understand why fans hate him so much and take it so personally.

The shear fact he has disowned one of his children for supporting the films speaks volumes about the man. Sorry, his desire to protect his old man work makes him look like a pretentious git who cares more about some story than he does his own family. Sorry, Tolkien needs a good hard look at himself in the mirror and realize it's just a freakin' story and there are more important things in life than hobbits.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The shear fact he has disowned one of his children for supporting the films speaks volumes about the man. Sorry, his desire to protect his old man work makes him look like a pretentious git who cares more about some story than he does his own family. Sorry, Tolkien needs a good hard look at himself in the mirror and realize it's just a freakin' story and there are more important things in life than hobbits.

He didn't disown him. They've reconciled. And his son wasn't disowned for "supporting the films." The disagreement goes much deeper than that. I posted the article on the last page.

I think you are projecting your own assumptions into a situation you know next to nothing about. (And I'm saying we ALL know next to nothing about it... it is a largely private disagreement. But it clearly isn't just about the films, if you read Simon Tolkien's own comments about the disagreement.)

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The shear fact he has disowned one of his children for supporting the films speaks volumes about the man. Sorry, his desire to protect his old man work makes him look like a pretentious git who cares more about some story than he does his own family. Sorry, Tolkien needs a good hard look at himself in the mirror and realize it's just a freakin' story and there are more important things in life than hobbits.

Didn't someone say they reconciled and it was about something else?

EDIT: Ah, it was Phantasm

 

[ThePhantasm]

Didn't someone say they reconciled and it was about something else?

Yes. Simon Tolkien did.

 

[ThePhantasm]

The former criminal barrister, now himself a successful novelist, said he began to lose “sight” of his identity and became “suffocated” by being known as “JRR Tolkien's grandson”.

The problems also provoked an “incredibly, dreadfully painful” feud with his father, Christopher, with the falling out becoming so bad, the pair didn’t speak for “a while”.

His son also got bullied at school. He wrote in the Sunday Times Magazine: “Maybe some people assumed it was about money — I don't know.

“In hindsight, I think all of my anger was being driven by this feeling that I was trapped."

This was triggered by the sudden renewed Tolkien popularity due to the films, but wasn't a disagreement over the films themselves per se. Here.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is the point I have been trying to make. I am a fan of the HOBBIT, and have been doing my best to not post as an admin/mod in here, but simply post as a fan....but I find myself not wanting to even come into the thread because I know I will see several posts per page by him rebutting every post made by someone saying something positive about it.

That is exaggeration at best. It also a hint that to be a fan of the Hobbit here, positivity is the recommend out look. The result of the films is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps if the outright misrepresentations weren't unchecked I would understand your stance as something more neutral.

I love The Hobbit and really liked the movie. I have made that clear more then once.

Your "arguments" aren't some holier than thou statements that you always make things to be.

But those made by the extremely positive are apparently. They are the QBs of this board. Special protection.

This was triggered by the sudden renewed Tolkien popularity due to the films, but wasn't a disagreement over the films themselves per se. Here.

I have this image of the LotR South Park episode.

 

[mclay18]

Agreed. And even if people think he takes it too far, how can people blame him for wishing to protect his father's work and legacy?

Being protective of his father's work is one thing. He's at liberty to say what he wants... however, I don't think he gets the point of an adaptation (which means things will be cut out, condensed or switched around for a cohesive narrative). Tolkien's work doesn't lend itself easily to a page-to-screen adaptation, cuts and changes were inevitable.

If he's able to judge the LOTR movies as a separate entity, and still say the same thing... okay. But it's not as if Jackson and his writing team took adapting his father's works lightly.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Haven't seen this posted yet. Me want.

Sorry, can't get the image to show up and I don't want to hotlink just in case. Here is the link though.

http://www-images.theonering.org/to...012/12/524127_405849669492574_261095320_n.jpg

Would have made a fantastic final poster imo.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Eh, Christopher Tolkien has a right to his opinions of the films, but he acts like he's above something that's been adapted and commercialized (like Alan Moore who becomes less and less of a likeable person the more he opens his mouth) "Action films for 15 to 25 year olds"? Yeah... if that doesn't sound like you're on a high horse I don't know what does. Because you know, these films became successful because 15 to 25 years old just saw these films resulting in the books popularity increasing.

Not only that but the films made me interested to read the books. Hell, I bought Fellowship when I was 10 and tried to read it.

And turning down to meet Peter Jackson because he doesn't like the adaptations? That's just childish. They can't meet Jackson, but they have no problem for wanting a profit from the movies that they don't like. How nice.

 

[Doc Ock]

These polls always seem to close so quickly, but I saw the film last Thursday and ADORED it to death! Fantastic, I'd easily call it one of the best films I've seen all year. True to the past films and world of Middle Earth however I'm still skeptical how three films are needed for one small book but I'm very much looking forward to the next installment.

Easy 10/10 for me, I understand that usually means perfect but I enjoyed it so much I would be eager to return to the theater to see it again. Excellent cast I was pleasnelty surprised by Martin Freeman and loved the soundtrack. Reminded me alot of FOTR in many ways, being my favorite LOTR film.

However some parts of the film I don't remember from the book so I currently borrowing my Aunt's copy to reread and get myself ready for the next film.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I don't see why Christopher Tolkien has to be vilified because he has a more high brow opinion of his father's work than the general populace has. He disagrees with you guys. Okay. He isn't a monster.

I'm grateful for all the massive contributions he has made to Middle Earth and to Tolkien fans over the years. Massive.

The films have been made. He isn't out publicly campaigning against them. Enjoy them for what they are and let the guy have his opinion without ripping him a new one all the time.

Why are we even discussing this at such length? Eh, have at it if you want guys. I'm outta here for now. Its Christmas.

 

[jmc]

He didn't disown him. They've reconciled. And his son wasn't disowned for "supporting the films." The disagreement goes much deeper than that. I posted the article on the last page.

I think you are projecting your own assumptions into a situation you know next to nothing about. (And I'm saying we ALL know next to nothing about it... it is a largely private disagreement. But it clearly isn't just about the films, if you read Simon Tolkien's own comments about the disagreement.)

In that case I misinterpreted the issues they had, so I put my hand up as being wrong here.

Being protective of his father's work is one thing. He's at liberty to say what he wants... however, I don't think he gets the point of an adaptation (which means things will be cut out, condensed or switched around for a cohesive narrative). Tolkien's work doesn't lend itself easily to a page-to-screen adaptation, cuts and changes were inevitable.

If he's able to judge the LOTR movies as a separate entity, and still say the same thing... okay. But it's not as if Jackson and his writing team took adapting his father's works lightly.

They went to great lengths to capture what Tolkien wrote. A page of page adaptation would not only have been boring, it would have been a complete mess. Could you imagine the Council of Elrond? That's like 30 pages alone.

 

[Figs]

Eh, Christopher Tolkien has a right to his opinions of the films, but he acts like he's above something that's been adapted and commercialized (like Alan Moore who becomes less and less of a likeable person the more he opens his mouth) "Action films for 15 to 25 year olds"? Yeah... if that doesn't sound like you're on a high horse I don't know what does. Because you know, these films became successful because 15 to 25 years old just saw these films resulting in the books popularity increasing.

That's what I said in one of my earlier posts. That some of the family members are getting(or giving their dad/grandfather)an Alan Moore complex. To where they think the work is high art and too good for this or that.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It's not that Chris Tolkien hates the very idea of a film version of LOTR, but I suspect he would've preferred a more deliberately paced film that didn't spend so much time on its action sequences and more time with its characters and world. As much as I like the trilogy, it does "commercialize" Tolkien's narrative and expand action sequences that are described in two pages to full fifteen minute set pieces for more "mainstream" value. But then again, if it didn't, Jackson would never have secured the budget required to even film it. While I could overlook the changes done to the lore to make it more accessible to the general public and appreciate if for the marvelous overall achievement that it is, it's understandable that someone like Tolkien who has poured his entire being into his father's work might not take those adolescent changes as gladly.

 

[ThePhantasm]

It's not that Chris Tolkien hates the very idea of a film version of LOTR, but I suspect he would've preferred a more deliberately paced film that didn't spend so much time on its action sequences and more time with its characters and world. As much as I like the trilogy, it does "commercialize" Tolkien's narrative and expand action sequences that are described in two pages to full fifteen minute set pieces for more "mainstream" value. But then again, if it didn't, Jackson would never have secured the budget required to even film it. While I could overlook the changes done to the lore to make it more accessible to the general public and appreciate if for the marvelous overall achievement that it is, it's understandable that someone like Tolkien who has poured his entire being into his father's work might not take those adolescent changes as gladly.

Great post, and a good balanced take on the matter.

 

[terry78]

Great post, and a good balanced take on the matter.

I thought you were gone for the night. Stick to your uppity morals like Tolkien.