Boyens: Hobbit films not "episodic"

[sauronsfinger]

Remember: these are the same folks who brought you the whole inane "Arwen is dying" subplot, kiddie-vision and all, 'based on' Appendix A.

Remember: these are the same folks who gave you three films that averaged over a billion dollars each and became some of the most beloved films of all time, racked up 30 Academy Award nominations and won 17 Oscars including Best Film of the year, and rated extremely favorably with almost all the professional critics whose job it is to review film for a living.

So three years from now we can do this all over again?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But then it would be The Hobbit, would it? That book has its own unique charm, which would be lost if the films just become LOTR-lite.

So we should want The Hobbit to be essentially a children's film? Because it was a book written for children....

That's true only to a certain extent. Yes, it was written primarily as a story for Tolkien's own children, but it really is not a children's story, per se. Tolkien did regret some of the condescending tone towards children that the narrator takes at certain places, and I think that aspect could easily be jettisoned with no adverse effect. But what The Hobbit really is a quintessential fairy story, even more so than LOTR. And Tolkien took great pains to remind us in his lecture/essay On Fairy Stories that it is a fallacy that fairy stories are for children. The Hobbit is very good example of why that is true; it is full of subtle details that would be missed by most children.

So no, I don't want The Hobbit films to be essentially children's films. But I do want them to capture the qualities that make the book such a quintessential fairy story, and I think the episodic nature of the book is a big part of that, because it keeps the focus on Bilbo and his development, as well as his relationship with the Dwarves, and Gandalf. I am afraid that if they try too hard to tie all of those episodes together with the larger geo-political issues then that focus will be lost, and it will no longer be The Hobbit.

[Elentári]

Yes, but if the film is made like that then it could end up just another WILLOW, KRULL or LEGEND...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Only if it is done badly. The Hobbit is not WILLOW, KRULL or LEGEND.

[Elentári]

Exactly...so we don't want it to end up like that. We all know it goes so much deeper...

[Inanna]

But how do we know it goes so much deeper? Stupid Q, but for me I read The Hobbit so MANY years ago, that I can't see it separately without the context of Arda. And its not a book I re-read often, unlike LOTR. The more I think about it, the more I feel that its going to be a tough movie to make.

[Padme]

Only if it is done badly. The Hobbit is not WILLOW, KRULL or LEGEND.

Even if it is done badly it will not be Willow, Krull or Legend. It's based on a book written by someone with a bit of talent.

[Inanna]

Padme, Hi. Where have you been?

[solicitr]

I seldom agree with solictr, but he's spot on in his views on the tone of PJ's movies

I am most profoundly honour'd, Your Majesty.

[yovargas]

....that averaged over a billion dollars each and became some of the most beloved films of all time, racked up 30 Academy Award nominations and won 17 Oscars including Best Film of the year, and rated extremely favorably with almost all the professional critics whose job it is to review film for a living.

Pretty much the same is true of Titanic. Are you arguing that that was anything but mawkish tripe? Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Academy voters are by and large cretinous idiots.

Not that it matters too much in terms of arguing quality but...LORT's company on imdb's Top 100 is pretty darn respectable:
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

[Padme]

Padme, Hi. Where have you been?

Well first I was away....getting things fixed on me.


and now I am back.



I think PJ/GDT will make a good movie, at least the CGI stuff will be good. I think the movie will be a bit lighter in tone than the other movies, but it will not be the 'childrens' book movie. That said, I doubt many children in todays world would be able to read TH, in fact I know some adults that would have a hard time understanding it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I removed two posts from this thread to Nan Elmoth at the request of the threadstarter. The last thing we need here is petty bickering between solicitr and sauronsfinger. If you two want to bicker, do it there (or preferably somewhere else, or best of all, not at all).

Edit: And I whisked off Wampus response to vison's comments about Tolkien and Myth into a separate thread in the Shibboleth forum.

[Elentári]

The point I was trying to make earlier (before it got past my bedtime!) is that filming TH exactly as it is in the book could make for just another kid's fairytale film like the examples I gave. For all those who wish to keep the charm of the book, will it still make a memorable and unique movie...or will people confuse it with DRAGONSLAYER in a few years?

Personally I would prefer to gently weave in more of the Legendarium so that TH is irrevocably linked to LotR. After all, although it was written as a standalone children's story, we all know that it evolved into a more meaningful part of Tolkien's Myth and that should be reflected in the film.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I split off more of the discussion into the Shibboleth thread, which I renamed Tolkien, Faery, and Myth

Elen, I certainly agree that they are going to have to weave in more of the Legendarium to tie the story more to LOTR, and they have repeatedly said that they are going to do so. But they will need to walk a fine line if they are going to succeed in capturing the charm of The Hobbit itself, as well. Otherwise, I see no real point in the exercise, other than to make money.

[yovargas]

Otherwise, I see no real point in the exercise, other than to make money.

Making a good movie?

[Inanna]

Otherwise, I see no real point in the exercise, other than to make money.

Making a good movie?

Movies reach a broader audience, there is nothing wrong in making the movie better for that broader audience.

[sauronsfinger]

We should all keep in mind that motion pictures are both an art form as well as part of a business structure. As such, the first goal of any business in a capitalistic system is to make a profit if they hope to stay in business. Making a movie in the hopes of making a profit is probably the first goal of every film studio in the land. Hopefully, making a good film that people respond to will further that goal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Absolutely; I have no disagreement with any of those statements. However, when adapting a beloved piece of literature to the film medium, I think the filmmakers do have some obligation to capture something of the original work that makes that work beloved in the first place. Otherwise, why not just make a completely original film rather than ostensibly basing it on a piece of literature? Of course, what it is that makes the original work special is a subjective issue, and whether a film adaptation succeeds in capturing something of that spirit is an even more subjective issues. As we have seen repeatedly.

[sauronsfinger]

However, when adapting a beloved piece of literature to the film medium, I think the filmmakers do have some obligation to capture something of the original work that makes that work beloved in the first place.

Yes, and I think they did that. Others may disagree and that is fine.
I accept the realities of filmmaking at the same time. Beyond doubt, one of the most beloved films of all time is the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ. The changes they made going from book to screen were significant. The age of Dorothy changed greatly which in turn changed the central character. The got rid of entire chapters and events and even changed the color of the all important slippers that Dorothy wore. Much of the political subtext was removed from the story.

I do not know if there are OZ websites and chatrooms where book fans engage in constant debate about these changes and if they helped or hurt the storyline. I suspect that there are.

Film is a collaborative process involving many talented people. Decisions are made by many people for many different reasons. I have read -and we all have probably read - the ins and outs of the Jackson team and how they made various decisions about the making of the three films. I would not have made all the decisions they did and I have little doubt that others would have done it differently also. But in the end, I saw three films that were vastly better than anything I had hoped for in the previous decades when I thought about the trilogy being put to the screen.

[Elentári]

And, of course, there is always a chance that the Jackson team have learnt from their previous efforts and the criticism levelled at them...

Besides, like sf says, we got a Trilogy that was vastly better than the previous attempts or projected screenplays, so I am sure that, especially with the addition of GDT to the same team, we will get a HOBBIT vastly better than anything Hollywood might otherwise have produced.