The next Hobbit movie adds an entirely new character.

[Red7227]

It seems Jackson has noticed that Tolkien is a misogynistic tosser and decided to add a female character to the very male cast from the book.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/06/05/e ... -of-smaug/

 

[southsamurai]

really? wtf? why. why oh why do people mess with classics? misogynist or not you do not mess with tolkein

 

[Deleted member 8603]

Peter Jackson has done wonderful things with all of the movies and I'm sure it will be done well.

Plus, its one more girl I can dress up as!

 

[Evvie]

Nobody ever promised that movie adaptations would or should be faithful to the books they are based on.

Films and literature are two wildly different mediums. Films are BASED on books, not slaves to canon. Directors and writers always change plenty when books are transformed in to films, it's just the way it works, and that's the way it's always been done. Fans and viewers are not "owed" an original and unchanged story-line. If you want an exact replica of the Hobbit, go read the Hobbit. If you want to see a movie based on the book, deal with the fact that a shitload is going to be changed to make the movie fun and enjoyable. Because I've read the Hobbit, and a word-for-word loyal movie adaptation of that book would be total shit.

Tolkien isn't Jesus, his books aren't the best books in the world, there's nothing wrong with changing them, and the fact that the director is changing aspects of it to appeal to a wider audience should be surprising to no one.

 

[morment]

really? wtf? why. why oh why do people mess with classics? misogynist or not you do not mess with tolkein

Did it bother you that Arwen had an expanded role in the Lord of the Rings films? If memory serves me right in the books she was mentioned a half a dozen times at most, not even sure if she had any dialogue.

I don't like when they change things around from the books, and I did my share of grumbling over Jackson's interpretation of LotR but even with all of that they were still great movies and are highly ranked on my ever changing top 10 of all time list so I trust him with it.

 

[southsamurai]

yeah, the arwen thing got on my nerves a little, but not as much as adding a character does. heck they left out tom bombadil from the trilogy and i understand why. with those books you just cant film everything that was in them and keep it to a reasonable length.

i suppose as long as the new character is just a support role rather than part of the main group it wont be too bad. yeah, i trust jackson to not screw it up, but revisionism is just a bad idea in general.
look what it did to queen of the damned, or the hitchhiker's guide (which was not even all that bad a translation)

when you do a movie adaptation of a book there is an expectation of hewing closely to the plot, scenes, characters and spirit of the book. if some book that isnt even a cult popularity level gets messed up no one will know really. but when it is something that has been around as long and touched as many minds and hearts as the middle earth series every small change must be calculated carefully or it can spoil the joy that fans have for seeing what was once only in the mind's eye brought to life.


if you do a television series based off of books, you have more leeway. there you sort of have to add stuff in so it isnt just a rehash week after week, but even with the LOTR trilogy 6 odd hours isnt too long to sit and expect to see what the books showed. i feel the same about the hobbit.

 

[Red7227]

Peter Jackson has done wonderful things with all of the movies and I'm sure it will be done well.

Plus, its one more girl I can dress up as!

Tolkien has to be given credit for inventing modern fantasy, but his writing is nothing outstanding. I like the movies far more than the books.

 

[AdamAdamant]

What I remember from the book (that I read) was one chapter that may be about a battle. The next 10 chapters would be more about singing about every rock, tree and blade of grass they passed. J.R.R Tolken used the word "queer" a lot. I know what context it was used back then it meant strange, but someone learned a new word and needed to use it in every sentence.

 

[emptiedglass]

I think it's a bit of overkill expanding it to 3 movies. But all of the Lord of the Rings movies did incredibly well at the box office, so why settle for making it into only one movie? Capitalism at its finest.
However, if you were going to adapt a book, I can think of no valid reason not to add the beautiful Evangeline Lilly into the story.

 

[AdamAdamant]

It is not just the Hobbit. It is equal parts Unfinished Tales, The Necromancer, and the Hobbit. I wonder if they are going to cover The Silmarillion and J.R.R Tolken's son's books. Mostly The Hobbit itself is 2 movies. The third movie will be dedicated for transitioning from the Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

J.R.R Tolken used the word "queer" a lot. I know what context it was used back then it meant strange, but someone learned a new word and needed to use it in every sentence.

That 'may' be just you seeing that word not in the context you're use to and it jarring you out of the story every time you saw it.
He actually only used the word 15 times in the whole book of 96,911 words. And that includes the two uses as a chapter title, once in the table of contents and once later at the start of the chapter itself.
One out of every 6461 words isn't bad.

 

[Jupiter551]

heck they left out tom bombadil from the trilogy and i understand why. with those books you just cant film everything that was in them and keep it to a reasonable length.

Lol not to mention if you wrote Tom Bombadil in it'd end up being a musical. Merry! Pippin! Let's sing a song about elf-bread and moonpies as we skip gaily through the forest

 

[Sidapete]

revisionism is just a bad idea in general.
look what it did to queen of the damned, or the hitchhiker's guide (which was not even all that bad a translation)

Dude, are you familiar with HGttG at ALL? Every single adaptation, most WRITTEN by Adams, were DIFFERENT ON PURPOSE. If the movie had been exactly like the book I would have been VERY disappointed, as it would have been rather dissimilar to the radio series.

when you do a movie adaptation of a book there is an expectation of hewing closely to the plot, scenes, characters and spirit of the book.

Yeah, I stopped believing this when Starship Troopers came out.

 

[Red7227]

when you do a movie adaptation of a book there is an expectation of hewing closely to the plot, scenes, characters and spirit of the book.

Yeah, I stopped believing this when Starship Troopers came out.

Which was an awesome fucking movie. 2 was also excellent and three was not bad, as long as you judge them by the appropriate B grade standards.

 

[Sidapete]

when you do a movie adaptation of a book there is an expectation of hewing closely to the plot, scenes, characters and spirit of the book.

Yeah, I stopped believing this when Starship Troopers came out.

Which was an awesome fucking movie. 2 was also excellent and three was not bad, as long as you judge them by the appropriate B grade standards.

I mean sure, it was a fun action flick to switch off and enjoy, but it COMPLETELY missed the point of the book.

 

[southsamurai]

revisionism is just a bad idea in general.
look what it did to queen of the damned, or the hitchhiker's guide (which was not even all that bad a translation)

Dude, are you familiar with HGttG at ALL? Every single adaptation, most WRITTEN by Adams, were DIFFERENT ON PURPOSE. If the movie had been exactly like the book I would have been VERY disappointed, as it would have been rather dissimilar to the radio series.

when you do a movie adaptation of a book there is an expectation of hewing closely to the plot, scenes, characters and spirit of the book.

Yeah, I stopped believing this when Starship Troopers came out.

fairly familiar yes lol. i said it wasnt all that bad a translation. it certainly wasnt even close to any adaptation of a stephen king book to film format lol. even the ones he was involved with sort of blew chunks in comparison to the books (cujo being a possible exception). my favorite adaptations of HHG have been the BBC ones for a long time.

i make no apologies for preferring that an adaptation of a book stay as close as possible to that book. cutting things for length or filmability is one thing, adding characters, deleting characters or re-writing vast sections is just lame IMO. for me it isnt about the original writer doing the changes, its about the feeling and story being shifted for no good reason at all.
mind you, if they make sweeping changes or other dumb stuff and tell about it ahead of time i can choose not to waste my time/money/physical resources dragging myself to a theater to see it. in those cases while i might object on principal, i wont whine and complain as much lol.
besides, pissing and moaning about movies and the changes they make to original material is an american pastime.
heck kevin smith did a movie where the basic premise was just about that (and an excuse to make a jay and silent bob movie).

 

[Red7227]

when you do a movie adaptation of a book there is an expectation of hewing closely to the plot, scenes, characters and spirit of the book.

Yeah, I stopped believing this when Starship Troopers came out.

Which was an awesome fucking movie. 2 was also excellent and three was not bad, as long as you judge them by the appropriate B grade standards.

I mean sure, it was a fun action flick to switch off and enjoy, but it COMPLETELY missed the point of the book.

Starship troopers the movie was popular and made money. Dune the movie was an absolute dog that made no money, despite being rather well made and acted. Some things are best left in their book form. Lotr would have been an unwatchable 20 hour trilogy if the books had been followed more closely.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

I wish they didn't change film adaptions of books too much. I can understand certain things like cutting certain stuff out, but when they cut out really good, exciting parts and add in new, not as good parts to make it seem exciting... it just makes no sense...

I liked the first film, but I do think they made it too much like Lord of the Rings, the difference between the two books is pretty big, one (the hobbit), is a childrens book, the Lord of the Rings although being a spin off from the Hobbit is a much more serious adult book. I thought the Hobbit could have been a bit sillier. Both the books were based on how the Brits were in the war, as in ordinary people (aka the hobbits), thrown into life threatening situations and still fussing over ordinary little things like pocket handkerchiefs. I love that aspect of the books, all the singing and silliness and merriness.

As much as I enjoy watching films, books always win for me. Saying that though, I'm not entirely fussed if they add a sexy female elf to the film, as long as they don't change it entirely. I was not amused with the white orc though.... I keep wondering if I completely missed that out... or did it not actually happen in the book?

Although I agree that film makers don't owe fans a perfect film, as no one owes anyone anything, I do think if you're not going to come up with your own storyline and take your film idea from a book, get all the publicity that has already come from the book for your film, and then make the film, why do film makers feel the need to make it their own? It's not their own, they're making a film version of the book. If they make a good version people will love them for it. Making film adaptions is dodgy territory, although you will get a load of publicity and you don't need to come up with your own storyline, most people who have bothered to read the original will always compare the film to the book and prefer the book.

 

[Jupiter551]

Starship troopers the movie was popular and made money.

Starship Troopers is a tongue-in-cheek classic, nothing at ALL like the book but one of my fave sci-fi movies. Its slick but cheesy portrayal of a totalitarian world government and their media manipulation and propaganda is first-class imo.

 

[emptiedglass]

Starship troopers the movie was popular and made money.

Starship Troopers is a tongue-in-cheek classic, nothing at ALL like the book but one of my fave sci-fi movies. Its slick but cheesy portrayal of a totalitarian world government and their media manipulation and propaganda is first-class imo.

There have also been, what, 3 sequels now?

 

[Jupiter551]

Starship troopers the movie was popular and made money.

Starship Troopers is a tongue-in-cheek classic, nothing at ALL like the book but one of my fave sci-fi movies. Its slick but cheesy portrayal of a totalitarian world government and their media manipulation and propaganda is first-class imo.

There have also been, what, 3 sequels now?

yeah, I've seen at least two...really terrible. And not even good-terrible like the first one lol.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

I'm going to preface this by saying I haven't actually seen the Hobbit yet...but, I've seen LotR about a million times...

I tried so hard to get through those books. I really did. I tried three times to read the entire trilogy and always gave up during the Two Towers.

Not because the story is bad. The story is amazing! But Tolkien really...wasn't that good of a writer. He went on and on about stupid shit. Like all the time. Things that don't push the story along at all.

I think it's hilarious that people get worked up about Tom Bombadil. He was a completely pointless character. Even Tolkien himself couldn't really explain his role:

...he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function.

The movies, on the other hand, are pretty fucking awesome. Not just because of the sheer number of talented artists working on (which is just epic in itself) but because the story moves at an engaging pace. Peter Jackson did an amazing job taking a book series that had SO much story potential and turning it into something really great.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

When I read Lord of the Rings the first time it was before the films came out. I loved it. Actually I read the books literally as the films were coming out, so I finished the first book just before I watched the first film.

I tried reading it again as an adult and didn't last very long. The books are very long winded, they go off the point a lot, they have loads of hidden treasures, details and completely random things. If you've watched the films then you know what's going to happen, suddenly this adventure in a book turns into a direct mission, so I can see how it going off the point so much would be extremely annoying and difficult to read through.

Tolkien did not have a plot when he wrote the books, he made them up as he went along. Something that usually no writer should ever try doing, but with these books I think it kind of adds something to them. If you were going to go on a random adventure then you wouldn't have a clue what you're doing, you'd go off the track a lot, you'd stray from the point, not much would really make sense. This is kind of what the books represented, and why a lot of people got upset about Tom Bombadil. That little off story had no relevance to the main plotline, but it was a nice little side story, a nice character. Completely understandable why it's cut out of the film as it doesn't have any real relevance, but in the book it is part of the adventure.

 

[southsamurai]

yeah, tolkein certainly rambles. for me that is one of the things i like about his books. it feels like a rather dry historian telling a story at some places, and at others it becomes this fluid dream story. while it took me three tries to finish the trilogy when i was 8 or 9ish (got the set as a gift from an awesome uncle) once i did i was hooked. since then ive read everything the guy put out. some of it is pretty damn boring (silmarillion anyone?) but it all has this level of detail and clarity that lets me sink into the world completely.

heck, even his "children's" books roverandom and the "adventures of tom bombadil" are a pure delight. (the bombadil titled one is actually a collection of poems supposedly by hobbits but only two or three are actually about ol tom)

i guess for old farts like me who grew up back when fantasy was just taking off as a genre tolkein holds a more "sacred" place than it would for someone who came along into the genre after the 90s. back when i was a kid in the late 70s and early 80s fantasy novels were sort of hard to get ahold of, but every book store had tolkein. by the time i was in high school luckily the genre had hit and you could find a whole dang wall in libraries and book stores to browse through.

yeah im rambling a bit but heres the point i guess im ambling towards in spirals. tolkein isnt the best writer to ever set pen to paper in the genre. as a writer he was just above average really. where he shines is as a world creator. he made whole languages and histories and races. he also did it pretty much first (others did what we call fantasy before him, but never as a main style and intent).

all the things we consider tropes and cliches in fantasy sort of started with him. elves and dwarves and halflings, magic rings, epic quests to save the world. fantasy as a whole springs from what his books did to those who read them. heck, D&D probably would never have come into existence without his works.

an argument can be made (though with plenty of argument against) that the folk who write in the current hot genre of "supernatural romance" like laurell hamilton and charlaine harris might not have had a genre to start in had tolkein not become widely read. (harris might have, most of her other work is mystery based rather than supernatural, but hamilton started doing standard fantasy)


all of that is why folk tend to be very protective and energetically opinionated about tolkein. he is more than just another writer to a lot of people

 

[bawksy]

Did it bother you that Arwen had an expanded role in the Lord of the Rings films? If memory serves me right in the books she was mentioned a half a dozen times at most, not even sure if she had any dialogue.

I recently picked up the extended edition blu ray set, and on one of the special features discs for The Two Towers, PJ talks about how there was going to be a much much BIGGER invented role for Arwen, specifically in the Battle of Helm's Deep. They interviewed the actress and she was sad she did all this warrior training stuff only to have the footage cut from the final film.

I guess this appearance in Hobbit 2 is a way to bring back the idea of her being a warrior.