A question for those who disliked PJ's LotR

[Alatar]

In order to avoid derailing the Hobbit news thread, and cause I'm curious. For those of you who disliked/hated PJ's LotR, do you have any expectation whatsoever that you might enjoy The Hobbit, and if so, why? Given its the same director, screenwriters and crew (mostly), why would you have any faith that it will turn out any different to LotR? Surely the stuff you hated before will be pretty much the same.

I'm not under any impression that LotR was perfect and there were things I really disliked, but overall I was very pleased with it. There's parts of it I love and bits I cringe about. In fact if I start looking scene by scene I find there's an awful lot I didn't like, but somehow the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.

I hope for the same with The Hobbit. I'm sure there will be things that bug me. I just hope that the overall package strikes the right chord with me. But then, I have good reason to hope for that, as it worked for me before. For those of you who it never worked for, why would you expect any difference?


Please note, this is not intended as a "If you don't like the films, go away and stop bugging those of us who do" type post. I'm genuinely interested in why you would be following the Hobbit Movie thread if you fully expect to hate it?

[eborr]

there is always hope ?

[Holbytla]

For me there isn't the same reverence associated with The Hobbit as there is with LOTR. There are fewer story lines, so there is "apparently" less opportunity for altering characters and themes.

Unfortunately, I think this story is ripe for invention, and that is where I envision I will have the biggest issues.

PJ certainly got enough aspects of ME to a recognizable point to assuage Tolkien fans at least some of the time. It was just very uneven, and there were some instances where his actions were unforgivable. I can't totally say LOTR didn't work for me, but they left a lot to be desired. In any case there is no way to not see the films and buy the dvd's.

As long as I can recognize the story and get to visit ME again, I suspect that I will see the films multiple times.

If nothing else, this will give me another opportunity to rail against the people who desecrated Tolkien's holy writ.

[Maria]

I like the visual aspects of LOTR, and the music. However, almost every time the characters open their mouths, they say something *wrong*.

I haven't watched the movies in years because of that. I'm seriously considering watching it in a language I don't understand next time, just so I can imagine they are getting it right.

(I know this won't solve all problems, but it's the only way I can even consider watching them again.)

I don't really closely follow the Hobbit movie info and talk. I'm certain the same sort of things will be wrong with The Hobbit movie as their previous efforts-- but since they got Ian McKellan to play Gandalf again, it'll be worth seeing it at least once. (That hasn't changed, has it???) Frankly, the only reason I click on these sorts of threads is to see what you people are discussing. I'm only mildly interested in the subject matter, but what you all think about it seems important to me. Because I know you. You know. Take that as a compliment!

[vison]

Holbytla and Maria say most of what I would say.

Imperfect as PJ's LOTR movies were, they were better than I had feared they would be. In fact, the opening, with Cate Blanchett's voice, and the scenes that followed, were so thrilling (silly old word, but the right word) I'll never forget what it felt like.

I have little attachment to The Hobbit and have said and will say again that if I had read The Hobbit before I read LOTR, I would never have read LOTR. Still, I think it could be a pretty good movie and one thing is that PJ will probably get the look of it right. As Holbytla says, it's going to be nice to visit Middle Earth again.

Much (but not all!) of my dislike of the LOTR movies stems from the dialogue. It was doubly, trebly annoying because the words were THERE in the book and needed only to be spoken. The splendid scene of Éowyn confronting the Witch King was ruined when she snarled, "I am woman, hear me roar!" or whatever drivel she uttered instead of her beautiful words in the book.

See, this is the thing: people keep saying "he had to do stuff because a movie can't be a word for word, scene by scene repeat of a book" and I do understand that. I knew from the getgo that things would be cut, changed, shifted around somewhat. But the fact remains, and it IS a fact, that the best parts of the movies are the parts where he followed the books most closely and let the characters speak the words Tolkien gave them. The worst, most cringeworthy parts, are PJ's inventions. The man never saw a cliche he didn't like and if one cliche is good, then a thousand are a thousand times better.

The Hobbit could be fun. I hope it is fun. My hopes are no higher than that.

And, of course, PJ has my eternal gratitude for making LOTR simply because I am able to be here arguing about it.

[Alatar]

But the fact remains, and it IS a fact, that the best parts of the movies are the parts where he followed the books most closely and let the characters speak the words Tolkien gave them.

I would certainly agree with that. With the exception of Boromir, who was a far more believable and "real" character in the Movies.

Funnily enough, the stuff that bothers most people doesn't bother me, and the stuff that bothers me seems to be mostly ignored.

My pet hate? Galadriel

Ooooooh I am a spoooky sorceress

I will talk in your mind

I will look at you in a threatening manner

Come look in my magic mirror while I threaten you a bit

See how scary the mirror is? OOoh

Wow, that IS scary, would you like me to give you the magic ring?

BWAHAHAHA I AM REEEEAALLLLLY EVIL!!! Oh wait, no I'm not...

[Frelga]

Very good summary, Al. When it comes down to it, that's kind of how it was in the book.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

True, but the difference is that that there is a subtly to the presentation of Galadriel in the book that is arguably missing in the films.

[WampusCat]

Al, I share your opinion of Galadriel.

[vison]

True, but the difference is that that there is a subtly to the presentation of Galadriel in the book that is arguably missing in the films.

Ya think?

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think PJ understood either Galadriel's "power" or the temptation of the Ring for a being such as she was.

Galadriel was the greatest and noblest being in Middle Earth when Frodo and the guys met her. And the temptation of the Ring was almost as strong as she was. But she passed the test, remember? And went into the West.

As it was written in the book, it was moving and her internal struggle was clear. But in the movie, it was just silly. Not as silly as some parts of the movie, but silly enough. I suppose it was terribly difficult to translate those scenes to cinema.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is scary! How is that we have disagreed so consistently for so long, and suddenly are so in accord?

[vison]

This is scary! How is that we have disagreed so consistently for so long, and suddenly are so in accord?

Scary, indeed.

[Alatar]

Groupthink

[eborr]

Never in all my long years have I been in such danger of agreeing with what other posters are writing, the problem is that when folk pick at this bit and that, I nod my head and wonder, where the wonder that I experienced during my first viewing of the Fellowship came from

[Frelga]

True, but the difference is that that there is a subtly to the presentation of Galadriel in the book that is arguably missing in the films.

Oh, I don't think anyone ever accused PJ of subtlety. And Nuclear Galadriel of the Creepy Voice is, arguably, just silly.

I do distinguish between lacking subtlety to convey complex background of a minor character in a short scene, and completely changing, say, a noble and tragic lord into an egomaniac and slob. And even that I can overlook, so long as it makes sense within the story told on film. It's when the internal consistency is so broken that an eight-year old who never read the books exclaims, "That makes no sense!" (he takes after his mom ) that I get up in disgust and go do laundry until the scene is over.

[vison]

Ah, yes. Denethor.

Well, there you are. No more needs to be said.

[WampusCat]

To me it's all worth it simply for the chance to visit Middle-earth. Which is what the movies felt like to me. That's where the greatest wonder happened for me.

[narya]

In the tradition of retelling a story with embellishments, as all the story tellers of old have done, I think PJ told a great story. It's different than the previous telling of it, but its PJ's version of it, not JRRT's.

When I tell the creation story of my ancestors, I can embellish it how I like, and tell it in English instead of Tlingit, and use current slang and metaphors. Everyone you talk to who knows that mythos will recall it a little differently, leave parts out, and add some in. Some people have made movies or cartoons of it, that are markedly different from one another. Yet they are all recognizable as the same basic Raven myths.

So is JRRT rolling over in his grave that PJ didn't do a faithful copy, or is he happy that his mythos for England has seeped into our collective psyche in D&D, movies, Tolkienesque fantasy novels, and many other renditions of the recognizably same materials?

PJ has a horror-genre background, so I wasn't surprised that his Galadriel was radioactive, and his orcs were particularly disgusting-looking. For the Hobbit, I expect the elves will be more sinister and will not be going "Tralalalee down in the valley" and there won't be "Attercop" songs about the spiders. And I won't miss either.

What I am afraid of is PJ's fascination with battle footage - there was in my humble opinion way too much battle footage in LOTR. I expect the battle of 5 armies to be translated to about 2 hours of footage, with lots of gore, squishy sounds, and mud, which is about 1.5 hours too long for me.

My other concern is how to tell all the dwarves apart without nametags. They weren't that well differentiated in the book, and then at least, their words were all preceded with "so and so said".

[Elentári]

Great points, Narya...and JRRT did have thoughts on the subject, as I have quoted before, in the SIL scripts thread (bolding mine):

“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… I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd.”

As for your concern about differentiating the dwarves, Prim has discussed this very point in the General Movie News thread:

viewtopic.php?p=216218#216218

It may also work. The filmmakers have a lot of arrows in their quiver there. As a writer, Tolkien really could work only with manner of speech and temperament, plus occasional snippets of description (which is why I think he was, um, hasty in going with thirteen Dwarves to begin with). Whereas PJ et al. have face, voice, manner of walking, clothing, height and weight—all kinds of characteristics that will always be there on screen to help the audience distinguish one Dwarf from another. Combined with what Tolkien already put on the page, it should be possible to keep them pretty distinct without going over the top.

This is not to say that PJ won't still go over the top at least some of the time.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Tolkien also said that given a choice between evils (I paraphrase from memory), he would prefer vulgarisation to sillification. Well he got that with PJ.
To be even handed, PJ did get some transcendent things right though. Chief among them and rarely noted but plainly delineated was that the Ring only ceased to exist when Frodo chose life over death.