Topic: An Annual Ritual: Lord of the Rings and the intrusion of the Hobbit.

[Weisshaupt]

I don't know if this belongs under "entertainment" or "member news" - I will let the powers that be decide.

Each year, somewhere between Thanksgiving and Christmas, and after Deer Hunting (not successful this year, mostly by my choice: a whole herd crossed the river, and partly missed my chance because I was just enjoying watching them, and partly because I just felt it was too far for me to take the shot and I didn't move closer)  ) my Family and I watch The Lord of the Rings. All 3 movies, all extended cuts, in six parts ( though it is NOT unusual for us to cheat and watch ALL of Return of the King on the 5th night) I don't touch it the rest of the year. Its special, "sacred", and its usually an experience I look forward to. But this year I was trepidatious. .  We went to see the Hobbit last night .. sadly underwhelming, with two more parts to go.   Not bad. But in some places Hollywood stupid ( Mountain Stone Giants Knees Stupid !)  and in others just unnecessarily long and pointless.  Apparently Jackson went on a quest to recreate Lord of the Rings. Anyone who has read it will tell you "The Hobbit", is NOT "Lord of the Rings" - its a child's tale with a simplicity that does not require Hollywood or its roller coaster effects in any measure.  I DIDN'T hate it. But it was over the top of what was required of it. The question I kept asking was "Why?" Jackson added complexity to the story, much of it based soundly in pure Tolkien appendix and unfinished work(did anyone actually read it all?)  Perhaps it is because I, like many, read the Hobbit at something approximating age appropriateness, and then read Lord of the Rings a couple of years later( before it was age appropriate - because I can't tell you how much more I enjoyed it as an adult)  but the Hobbit was simple, and really I wanted it that way.  He changed stuff - made Bilbo  more of a hero ( before it was time) and added in backstory that just wasn't part of the tale.  I guess it remains to be seen , if it is ultimately an  improvement. There were still parts that "spoke" to me, and it wasn't a total loss, but still it made me worry.  I feared with recent events, the loss of the election, and all that I fear is coming, that the Lord of the Rings would now ring hollow to me.

Following this fear, I stopped at the liquor store ,got two bottles of Whiskey. I normally drink while watching, because I just enjoy it more that way, but this time I feared I would need it.  So we watched the first part of the Fellowship of the Ring  tonight, and I am happy to report my fears were unfounded.  It rang more true to me than it ever has.  I am usually crying from the moment Samwise picks Frodo up and carries him to the Mountain to the end of the film , but tonight I was choked up from the first time Frodo put on his cloak an volunteered to take the ring to Bree. The Lord of the Rings was the first story  I read where I understood how a fiction story could be "True", and now it is more so.  As far as I am concerned it happened. The Lord of the Rings is historical fact. Maybe not our history. Maybe not our universe. But it happened. Its true. I know I am a bit of an oddball here, not drawing inspiration and solace from the usual source, especially at Christmas,  but in the end, it really is the same story, just one that "works" for me better.  Frodo is the epitome of what I understand to be heroism and grace, Gandalf the White provides everything I could want in  the wise Savior,   and maybe I understand why a bit more now -now  that evil seems to have free reign in OUR  world... Regardless of the reason, it gives me faith. I know I am the resident pessimist, but this story  always provides me reassurance and hope, and I am very gratified and grateful to find that even now it still does so.  Trust the Creator with his skies.

[Alphabet Soup]

That's cool. Family traditions are a sacred thing however small or homespun.

When I was a teen I used to get together with my two older brothers and watch "Green Pastures" on Christmas eve. I have no idea why the local CBS affiliate aired it every year but it was on every year for 8-9 years that I know of. The Green Pastures enacts Old Testament Bible stories as seen through the eyes of rural blacks. It is considered highly politically incorrect nowadays (which is probably why I got such a kick out of it).

Eventually PC caught up with it and I haven't seen it in ages.


You can read more about it here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027700/ and catch a taste of it here:

 The Green Pastures - [1/10]

[trapeze]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the popular works of J.R.R. Tolkien and, for that matter, C.S. Lewis.

I remember going to the theater for the first installment of "Lord of the Rings" with quite a bit of skepticism that it would be any good because of earlier (horrible) attempts to adapt it to the screen. I was more than a little surprised that Jackson protected the story from the usual tampering that Hollywood is infamous for. Everything about it was perfect from location to acting and from script to wardrobe. One of the most difficult things for any movie to achieve is the suspension of disbelief where you forget that what you are watching is completely impossible and false and instead lose yourself in the experience. All three of the "Lord of the Rings" films accomplished this feat.

I have not seen "The Hobbit" and I think that I will probably pass on it in the theater and wait for the DVD. The reason is that there is, by all accounts, serious tampering with the story. My understanding is that the filler material is pulled from, as mentioned above, the unfinished works such as "The Silmarillion." So, technically the "story" as a whole may not be exactly tampered with but it will not be "The Hobbit."

"The Hobbit," again as mentioned previously, is quite different in both substance and tone from "The Lord of the Rings." It is a children's story from beginning to end and I am disappointed that the film adaptation seems bent on expanding it and fleshing it out into something it isn't and was never meant to be. It most definitely should have been one very long movie instead of three very long movies.

I wouldn't mind at all seeing "The Lord of the Rings" all the way through but, sadly, mrs. trapeze has a very low threshold for most science fiction and nearly all fantasy type material. Don't know why but there's nothing to be done about it at this point.

Well, those are my thoughts on the matter.

[Alphabet Soup]

Trap - you're welcome to watch LOTR at my house 

[IronDioPriest]

I saw it on opening night. There was nothing about it that made it unworthy of seeing in the theater.

The aspects that are added - for instance Radagast the Brown, and weaving in the story of Gandalf's council with Elrond, Galadriel, and Sauruman leading to his battle with the Necromancer; pulling a "named" orc warlord from Tolkien Lore and making him Thorin's nemesis - all these things served the story in similar ways to the additions or subtractions in Jackson's LOTR.

As in LOTR - and as a huge Tolkien fan - I was able to see the "why" for Jackson's LOTR changes. Even if I thought the story might have been told without his changes, I understood why he did it. The same goes with The Hobbit.

Think of trying to tell the backstory of the LOTR movies without any of the context. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first, and LOTR was born of it. But the reason the vast Appendices in the LOTR books (and ultimately the Silmarillion) exist is because the fairy-tale/children's story nature of The Hobbit had serious holes when applied to LOTR. Starting with the nature of the world and the characters.

I think the Hobbit movie pulls just enough to contextually draw The Hobbit Middle Earth and LOTR Middle Earth together for moviegoers - many of whom have never read any of the books. In the story of Radagast, Gandalf and the Necromancer, we see the beginning of the rise of the Nazgul, hinting at the darkness that is certainly rising in Middle Earth during the time of Bilbo's adventure. In The pursuit of Thorin by the Orc Warlord, we are offered a specific film nemesis, since in the book, Smaug is like Sauron - a nebulous character until the very end. An adventure movie needs an enemy character.

My two complaints, which are minor, because I freakin loved The Hobbit and will see it again before it leaves theaters...

The action sequences in several places were way over the top. LOTR saved most of that for Legolas - explained by his fleet-footedness and marksmanship. Think of the LOTR film's flight through Moria on mega-steroids - multiplied with "Transformers" injections. Some of the action was that over the top. 15 people don't get to fall down a thousand-foot cavern and all get to stand up and shake off the impact. You don't get to be smashed between two mountain peaks and come out unscathed with a little dirt on your face.

Also, I hate to say it, but with the portrayal of Radagast, I think Jackson was going for comic relief. He's a goofball, and hard to take seriously. He's supposed to be an elemental wizard - one with the forests and creatures therein. He comes off clownish, when he could've been so coolish.

Other than that.... the 3D is un-freaking-believable - best use of the technology I've seen yet. Bilbo is perfectly portrayed. The dwarves are frikkin awesome - pitch perfect. Ian McKellan nails it. The changes are additive, and not subtractive. The theater erupted in applause after the movie.

I wouldn't wait Trap. But that's just me.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

IDP, I had desired to see this movie, before seeing your amazing review, but now I am desperate to see it.  If it is as well portrayed as your review is well-written, it will be a treat indeed! 

I saw it on opening night. There was nothing about it that made it unworthy of seeing in the theater.

The aspects that are added - for instance Radagast the Brown, and weaving in the story of Gandalf's council with Elrond, Galadriel, and Sauruman leading to his battle with the Necromancer; pulling a "named" orc warlord from Tolkien Lore and making him Thorin's nemesis - all these things served the story in similar ways to the additions or subtractions in Jackson's LOTR.

As in LOTR - and as a huge Tolkien fan - I was able to see the "why" for Jackson's LOTR changes. Even if I thought the story might have been told without his changes, I understood why he did it. The same goes with The Hobbit.

Think of trying to tell the backstory of the LOTR movies without any of the context. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first, and LOTR was born of it. But the reason the vast Appendices in the LOTR books (and ultimately the Silmarillion) exist is because the fairy-tale/children's story nature of The Hobbit had serious holes when applied to LOTR. Starting with the nature of the world and the characters.

I think the Hobbit movie pulls just enough to contextually draw The Hobbit Middle Earth and LOTR Middle Earth together for moviegoers - many of whom have never read any of the books. In the story of Radagast, Gandalf and the Necromancer, we see the beginning of the rise of the Nazgul, hinting at the darkness that is certainly rising in Middle Earth during the time of Bilbo's adventure. In The pursuit of Thorin by the Orc Warlord, we are offered a specific film nemesis, since in the book, Smaug is like Sauron - a nebulous character until the very end. An adventure movie needs an enemy character.

My two complaints, which are minor, because I freakin loved The Hobbit and will see it again before it leaves theaters...

The action sequences in several places were way over the top. LOTR saved most of that for Legolas - explained by his fleet-footedness and marksmanship. Think of the LOTR film's flight through Moria on mega-steroids - multiplied with "Transformers" injections. Some of the action was that over the top. 15 people don't get to fall down a thousand-foot cavern and all get to stand up and shake off the impact. You don't get to be smashed between two mountain peaks and come out unscathed with a little dirt on your face.

Also, I hate to say it, but with the portrayal of Radagast, I think Jackson was going for comic relief. He's a goofball, and hard to take seriously. He's supposed to be an elemental wizard - one with the forests and creatures therein. He comes off clownish, when he could've been so coolish.

Other than that.... the 3D is un-freaking-believable - best use of the technology I've seen yet. Bilbo is perfectly portrayed. The dwarves are frikkin awesome - pitch perfect. Ian McKellan nails it. The changes are additive, and not subtractive. The theater erupted in applause after the movie.

I wouldn't wait Trap. But that's just me.

[IronDioPriest]

IDP, I had desired to see this movie, before seeing your amazing review, but now I am desperate to see it.  If it is as well portrayed as your review is well-written, it will be a treat indeed!

I hope my review is in line with your experience. I will be eager to hear your report.

I remember when LOTR came out, and some Tolkien fans grumbled about the many changes... Just HAD to have their Tom Bombadil, and COULDN'T understand why Jackson left him out - even though the side-story adventure in the books had almost no bearing on or relationship to the larger story... Arwen? Why?... No "Scouring of the Shire"?...

In the end, the films were a smash, and those of us who both loved Tolkien and understand the reality of making watchable films from books also loved the films. Books do not translate to film verbatim. Some people refuse to deal with that.

Well I am hearing the same grumbling, and seeing the same excellent box office numbers. My response to The Hobbit is almost exactly like my response to LOTR: pure, unbridled appreciation and glee at finally seeing THE literary obsession of my childhood and young adulthood come to life on the big screen in a way that was never possible before the perfection of CGI.


ETA: Oh, and, if I didn't make the point before: Ian Frikkin McKellan. His entire career is justified by his faithful portrayal of Gandalf. Rarely, if ever, are a role and an actor so perfectly made for each other.

[Weisshaupt]

[

I remember when LOTR came out, and some Tolkien fans grumbled about the many changes... Just HAD to have their Tom Bombadil, and COULDN'T understand why Jackson left him out - even though the side-story adventure in the books had almost no bearing on or relationship to the larger story... Arwen? Why?... No "Scouring of the Shire"?...

In the end, the films were a smash, and those of us who both loved Tolkien and understand the reality of making watchable films from books also loved the films. Books do not translate to film verbatim. Some people refuse to deal with that.

Well I am hearing the same grumbling, and seeing the same excellent box office numbers. My response to The Hobbit is almost exactly like my response to LOTR: pure, unbridled appreciation and glee at finally seeing THE literary obsession of my childhood and young adulthood come to life on the big screen in a way that was never possible before the perfection of CGI.

I love the LOTR movies. I didn't grumble about Bombadil, or the Scouring of the Shire, or the minor changes required to actually  make Arwen a character and a love interest. in all I think most of the changes were improvements . Hobbit not so much.  I went to see the Hobbit, not LOTR.  This did not bring the Hobbit to life for me, because I was constantly attacked with LOTR Appendix material and  Nuked Fridge special effects. The Hobbit is SIMPLE.  That is its appeal. It is NOT epic.  It is NOT  serious.  It doesn't need to fill in the holes in the Lord of the Rings -it stood on its own for over half a century.  Its an insane quest to begin with - 14 smallish humanoids set off to fight and rid themselves of  a dragon, without any sort of actual plan as to how that might be accomplished- trying to tie that into the larger context adds to the holes..

Mind, I DIDN'T hate it. Its was entertaining, if a bit long. But its NOT the Hobbit. Its a story that has the same characters and walks through the same basic elements, but the amount of stuff that is not supposed to be there has more screen time that the stuff that does belong.  This retelling is fundamentally different in character. Jackson made it his own, and it works in that context. However anyone expecting Tolkien's "The Hobbit" ( as I was)  will be disappointed.

[IronDioPriest]

...The Hobbit is SIMPLE.  That is its appeal. It is NOT epic.  It is NOT  serious.  It doesn't need to fill in the holes in the Lord of the Rings -it stood on its own for over half a century...

I guess that is where I differ. To me, given the fact that the LOTR films happened first, the Hobbit film must take place in that cinematic world that was already created. There can't be two Middle Earths - particularly when creating the prequel would require undoing world created in the LOTR.

The LOTR books expanded on the world created in the Hobbit book. If the LOTR books would have come out first, writing The Hobbit as a prequel would have required much more context than The Hobbit did when it was written as a stand-alone. Writing the Hobbit as-is as a prequel would have required subtractive creation.

Same goes for the films. If it would've been made first, it would've been possible to make The Hobbit film true to the book, and then expand our understanding of the events of Middle Earth to include the new information about LOTR. But LOTR films came first. To try to place the Hobbit film in the innocent and whimsical context of the book after the epic LOTR films would've been trying to place the movie-goers vision of the world created in the LOTR films back in the box. It doesn't make storytelling sense.

Perhaps if the Hobbit would've been undertaken by someone completely different, with a different style, different actors, and no expectation that the LOTR and Hobbit films had any correlation, then perhaps. But it was film making logic that Peter Jackson would be handed the mantle. I think it turned out well.

[Weisshaupt]

...The Hobbit is SIMPLE.  That is its appeal. It is NOT epic.  It is NOT  serious.  It doesn't need to fill in the holes in the Lord of the Rings -it stood on its own for over half a century...

I guess that is where I differ. To me, given the fact that the LOTR films happened first, the Hobbit film must take place in that cinematic world that was already created. There can't be two Middle Earths - particularly when creating the prequel would require undoing world created in the LOTR.

The LOTR books expanded on the world created in the Hobbit book. If the LOTR books would have come out first, writing The Hobbit as a prequel would have required much more context than The Hobbit did when it was written as a stand-alone. Writing the Hobbit as-is as a prequel would have required subtractive creation.

Same goes for the films. If it would've been made first, it would've been possible to make The Hobbit film true to the book, and then expand our understanding of the events of Middle Earth to include the new information about LOTR. But LOTR films came first. To try to place the Hobbit film in the innocent and whimsical context of the book after the epic LOTR films would've been trying to place the movie-goers vision of the world created in the LOTR films back in the box. It doesn't make storytelling sense.

Perhaps if the Hobbit would've been undertaken by someone completely different, with a different style, different actors, and no expectation that the LOTR and Hobbit films had any correlation, then perhaps. But it was film making logic that Peter Jackson would be handed the mantle. I think it turned out well.

Lovers of Tolkien know the  Hobbit came first. We know it lacked the depth of LOTR, and no one would have complained if Jackson had done the film that way. It didn't need to make "storytelling sense"  if this was   done for fans of Tolkien. As you suggest,  It was done to continue the cinematic  narrative for people whose first introduction to Tolkien was the LOTR films, and done for the studio who knew that 3 Movies in three years would provide them more commercial success. The fact that its all still (mostly) Tolkien was a bone thrown to the original fans  in hopes they would accept it.  "Film making logic" often works that way. LOTR was such a wonderful creation because Making 3 movies at once was NOT following standard "Film Making Logic" and Jackson was free to do what was needed to make it work.  I suspect he was not so free when he was given the Hobbit.

In the end,   I think we are basically saying the same thing.. This is Peter Jackson's  "An Unexpected Journey" , done in the context of LOTR, and told to fit that existing "cinematic" narrative, and in that it was a Limited  success.  But that,  by definition, makes it NOT J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit", written as the seed from which that context sprang.  Just because Hollywood decided to make the movies in the wrong order, doesn't really justify it.

And I do say limited success because the CGI effects were simply over the top, and will eventually date the film more than anything else.  We will look back 10 years from now and think - oh, right, this  was when filmmakers had this new CGI tool, HD  and could combine it with 3d, and were just having way too much fun with their new toy to stop and think "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should"  LOTR had a bit of that, but Jackson forced it to fit the original narrative, not become an (Irrelevant to the story)  narrative for 10 long minutes at a time.

[IronDioPriest]

...Lovers of Tolkien know the  Hobbit came first. We know it lacked the depth of LOTR, and no one would have complained if Jackson had done the film that way. It didn't need to make "storytelling sense"  if this was   done for fans of Tolkien. As you suggest,  It was done to continue the cinematic  narrative for people whose first introduction to Tolkien was the LOTR films, and done for the studio who knew that 3 Movies in three years would provide them more commercial success...

Unless I'm misreading you it seems that you are pining for some measure of artistic purity in cinematic adherence to literary work - in a venue that you acknowledge as a commercial one.

I acknowledge and accept that commercial venue for what it is - every time I sit down to watch a movie based on a book. I never expect a movie to follow a book - only to draw from it as much as possible for the sake of the film. And I (partly) judge the success of a literary-based film on whether as a film viewer I can understand why changes needed to be made for the sake of the film.

I had to make that judgment as a lover of LOTR, and I judged the changes understandable and fairly well executed. I feel the same about The Hobbit, for different reasons - with the not unsubstantial caveats that I mentioned earlier.

One BIG thing that a Tolkien fan has to deal with even more in The Hobbit than in LOTR is the reality that because the LOTR films were made first, the Hobbit films cannot be made for Tolkien fans with literary purity in mind. The audience for these Hobbit films has expanded beyond the literary work, because of the LOTR films. The world was created IN the LOTR films. How could they possibly go back to the whimsy of The Hobbit book without leaving LOTR film fans wondering what the hell happened?

It's not that I wouldn't have loved to see it made true to the book. It's just that I understand why they had to do it that way, and I accept it and move on. I was able to enjoy the film for what it is.