# Is Anyone Else Worried?



## DerBerggeist (Apr 10, 2012)

So with the coming out of the Hobbit movies, is anyone worried how actually seeing the book acted out for the first time will affect how we picture the events of the story in our minds? There's a particular way I like to envision everything that happens in the book, and I'm a little worried that that will be ruined. But of course I can't not see the movies!


----------



## Prince of Cats (Apr 11, 2012)

You're not alone! I'll try not to be negative. I really wish we got a new team to take a new and more true-to-the-book adaptation


----------



## Starbrow (Apr 11, 2012)

I understand. I have to work hard to not have the movie scenes in my head while I'm reading TLOR. 
Actually, I don't have too much trouble with the settings or how the characters looked in the movie. I have more of a problem with how they acted.


----------



## Troll (Apr 11, 2012)

For all PJ's inevitably controversial decisions that will spark fan rage for years after the release of the Hobbit films, I'm glad there will be visual/style consistency across the Hobbit/LotR films. If someone else had been in charge of the Hobbit, there is little chance that they would have been able to get all the same actors, Weta Workshop, artists, etc that worked on LotR, with the end result of a much less satisfying saga IMHO.


----------



## Bucky (Apr 11, 2012)

Not worried at all.

The books are the books and the movies are, uh, PJ.

Honestly, for all my PJ bashing, if I weren't a HUGE Middle-earth fan, I'd think the movies are among the best stuff to come out of Hollywood in recent years.

Then again, if I didn't like Middle-earth, I might not say that either.

...And, I loathe modern Hollywood & it's lack of originality too. :*rolleyes:


----------



## Prince of Cats (Apr 12, 2012)

Bucky said:


> Honestly, for all my PJ bashing, if I weren't a HUGE Middle-earth fan, I'd think the movies are among the best stuff to come out of Hollywood in recent years.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...And, I loathe modern Hollywood & it's lack of originality too. :*rolleyes:



I agree with you there Bucky - I get so upset watching the movies only because I know what the real story is and what they could have been

I've used this term before: hollywood-washed. That's how I see the Lord of the Rings movies. One great example is Arwen's first appearance _in the movie_. I can't come close to enjoying them because of it. The scenery and costumes are great, yes. The writing is a tragedy. But still, in contrast to Troll's opinion I do wish there was a new team covering the aesthetics department of The Hobbit. I need something refreshing to renew my hope!


----------



## The Thrasson (May 18, 2012)

I find that no matter how great they make the movies, they will always come up short. That is how great the books really are. Like trying to touch the sky.

I'm an artist and I always envision fantasy animated. I guess that's a little strange, but true. I may be a little influenced by viewing the Rankin-Bass/ Bashki productions when I was young.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (May 18, 2012)

I'm not worried. It's not like it's not like if PJ makes major changes that Tolkien's book will change/be ruined. I don't need a movie to be able to visualize this story in my head when I'm reading. When I read, I really become one with the book and forget about my surroundings, hope that doesn't sound weird. I just get so totally engrossed in the book that I'm reading that hours could go buy and I won't notice until someone snaps me out of my funk. So if PJ wants to make this movie with a few extra changes like did with LOTR, let him, I'll still be loving/holding Tolkien's books to the highest esteem.


----------



## Sulimo (Oct 28, 2012)

I think I'm like Prince of Cats on this One. I understand that everything is well made, but for some reason watching the trilogy for me is the equivalent to nails on a chalkboard. I think that its because Tolkien was such a perfectionist that I do not think he would have allowed the movies to be made in this manner. There is a reason he never finished the Silmarillion. He worked on it for decades, but he never was satisfied with it. 

To me I have no qualms if a writer allows his books to be significantly changed when made into a movie. That's there call and more power to them. However, in my heart I just do not think that the writer would approve, and so it makes the changes very glaring and obvious. 

However, this is a fairy tale, and we all know that stories evolve over time. I feel PJ's rendition will be a pretty to look at twist, but will not come close to the original story it is derived from by a long shot.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 30, 2012)

*Imagination is stronger.*

If you continue to read the book after seeing the film, your original imagination should hopefully prevail over Mr Jackson's casting preferences. 

With three films, the story should be covered pretty thoroughly, though I notice that, in the first film, Benedict Cumberbatch is cast only as The Necromancer, and in the second as The Necromancer/Smaug. That should tell you a bit about where they've cut the story. Interestingly, the cast list for the final film includes Ian Holm as Old Bilbo; and Sylvester McCoy (a former Doctor 'Who') as Radagast. I am all anticipation!


----------



## Prince of Cats (Nov 1, 2012)

*Re: Imagination is stronger.*



Eledhwen said:


> If you continue to read the book after seeing the film, your original imagination should hopefully prevail over Mr Jackson's casting preferences.


 Interesting idea ... it actually has me thinking though to the contrary - I'm still haunted with the image of Elijah Wood and other actors from the LOTR to the point that I can scarcely remember how I originally pictured them. And for that I'm very grateful that Tom Bombadil was spared those movies' attention. I think I might avoid The Hobbit movies to keep intact my own picturing, however isolationist that may be


----------



## baragund (Nov 1, 2012)

I've found that when I return to the books, my original imagination's image of the people and places comes back pretty readily, no matter how many times I've watched the movies.


----------



## HLGStrider (Nov 1, 2012)

honestly , my imagination is not hugely visual. When I read I don't see pictures in my head the way some people seem to. I absorb words and stories, but only very occasionally do I stop and think of pictures. 

I'm actually kind of glad to have the actors replace some of my old Rankin Bass images, though. Gollum, for one, was really weird looking in the cartoon and I'd much rather have the version from the current films.


----------



## Uminya (Nov 4, 2012)

HLGStrider said:


> honestly , my imagination is not hugely visual. When I read I don't see pictures in my head the way some people seem to. I absorb words and stories, but only very occasionally do I stop and think of pictures.
> 
> I'm actually kind of glad to have the actors replace some of my old Rankin Bass images, though. Gollum, for one, was really weird looking in the cartoon and I'd much rather have the version from the current films.



I had that same issue with the Rankin/Bass films! I liked the way they did hobbits, but their wood elves and Gollum were always so...strange.

I'm also pretty similar in the non-visual imagination whilst reading. When I stop and think about something, I can form an image in my head. But generally the words just sort of...flow out. They conjure a lot of emotions and abstract things that aren't easy to put to words or describe as an image, with the exception of landscapes or places (my Khazad-Dum was much more interesting than the movie version). Those seem to be easily described in my head, but I could never paint a picture of how I "see" a character. They just...are!

It's odd just thinking about how I think about a thing while reading, but interesting to be introspective about...


----------



## Mouth_Of_Sauron (Nov 5, 2012)

I was initially thrilled. I commended PJ for three movies for three books. I admired the way he made RotK as the conclusion of a trilogy rather than just "the third movie" which he's taken flak for in the past. When I heard The Hobbit was in the works, I was stoked. When I heard it was a two-parter (for a 200-page book? well, okay...), I was nervous but comfortable. Maybe PJ would throw in the Tom Bombadil he left out in LotR. Oh, he's not? Well, Radagast is making an appearance. That's pretty cool, I guess. Legolas? Huh. Wait, now it's a three-parter?

I've crossed the realm into skeptical, but I hold hope. If only a fool's hope.


----------



## 33Peregrin (Dec 16, 2012)

The only thing that gets me still is the corniness/cheesiness. I've moved on quite a bit from getting as concerned as I had once been about the changes. 

But watching 'The Hobbit', the embarrassment I felt and wasn't so aware of from the LOTR days came back. Like, Gandalf's speech at the White Council. And Gandalf's "What does your heart tell you?" to Aragorn in Meduseld in ROTK comes to mind. Not to pick on Gandalf, it's definitely not just Gandalf.

People seem to think, or at least the non-Tolkien readers I know, that reading real Tolkien would have the same corny feel. Oh, PJ. Those monologues, swelling LOTR music--please don't give that to everyone as a representation of why so many of us are such enormous readers of Tolkien! 

Looks like I have something else to work on for the next ten years or so.


----------



## Kolbitar (Dec 16, 2012)

Well said, 33Peregrin.


----------



## Mahanaxar (Jan 14, 2013)

I still don't get why the some parts of the story had been changed, mainly the part concerning Azog.

I think that he wanted to prolong the 1st Hobbit Movie, I think PJ was worried about "not having enough fight scenes" in the movie, that being said, I've heard several complaints about The Hobbit being a "children's book", and the complaints grew yet more after the movie was made..

i don't know I'm just thinking out loud, the question is: Did PJ really have to make these changes in the script?

I mean sure they mean nothing to the regular people but to us Tolkien fans, the movies are about making all what we read in the books come to life, and I take an invigorating amount of joy in watching the details (Bilbo's home/ The Goblin city/ Imladris / Erebor etc...) the structures making the transformation from word to image, and that's what gives me faith in PJ and the upcoming Hobbit movies. I don't think PJ needed to make these unnecessary changes...


----------



## Dís (Jan 14, 2013)

I don't know if one must call them necessary. He sure has to feed the crowd at least a bit, for crowds make money and money makes more films, so to speak. From my personal point of view I don't mind them. Books and movies are very different from one another. It takes some kind of alchemy to turn the one into the other and many, many fail at that. PJ didn't. I remember how sceptical I was when Return of the King came to the screen. Leaving out the Scouring of the Shire seemed a harsh alteration. But it worked in the movie, it convinced me, who knows the REAL ending in the book. The book is not the same as the movie. Harry Potter 1 was a book set to moving pictures and it was terrible. No alchemy in it at all.

As for The Hobbit I would say it works, too. Take the dwarves. In the book they are hardly distinguishable. Some of them never have a line of their own. They mostly come in pairs FiliandKili or GloingandOin or just as "the dwarves". This does work in a book where the acting character can easily be a plural. If "the dwarves" do - or even say - something there is still something happening that gets the story along. In the movie we saw such dwarves at Elrond's council in The Fellowship of the Ring. All looking like Gimli. Boring. For The Hobbit with 13 different dwarf-characters a way had to be found to make them different, so the audience can identify them and identify WITH them. If you look at the accompanying books to the film (namely The Hobbit. Chronicles, art&design) the producers have given a lot of thought to that process.


----------



## Mahanaxar (Jan 14, 2013)

Dís said:


> If you look at the accompanying books to the film (namely The Hobbit. Chronicles, art&design) the producers have given a lot of thought to that process.



I have great faith in PJ & WETA... I guess when you put out something as the LoTR trilogy you set the bar too high for yourself don't you? 
Personally, I wanted The Hobbit to be a grander trilogy than LoTR but I have to say I find that difficult to achieve.


----------



## Dís (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm hopeful. It blew me away much more than The Lord of the RIngs did, I still have to ponder the reasons for that. I have known the LOrd of the Rings for 35 years, now, I have read and acted and breathed and sung and memorized it, but for all this I never really felt at home in it. I was always a guest at the threshold of Imladris, admiring, drinking it all in but never invited to take a seat at the table. I am at home in The HObbit. One dwarf more or less won't matter. I open the book and I'm at home in it, and I saw the movie and felt the same. The pictures are different from those I created with my inner sight, but they feel the same. 

To give an example. When I was a child television was black and white. It never dawned on me that all the places I saw were coloured in reality. If you had shown me a location of a favorite film, say "Drei Nüsse für Aschenbrödel" (all the Germans on the forum should know what I mean) it would have been all in colours of course and I'd have said "that's not my idea of the place, it looks different". Still, it would have been the very place, of course.

I don't want to say that the film shows the "real" HObbit and Tolkien has the black-and-white version, rather the other way round, but though it looks different, it is the same - to me. 
I have seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy several times, in theatres and on DVD. There are scenes I go out and get a snack from the kitchen now, since I know that Gandalf and Saruman will beat each other up and I doN't like that scene, for instance. 
I have seen The HObbit nine times, so far, in theatres and I still enjoy every single second. For me, this is either magic or craziness. ;*)


----------



## Mahanaxar (Jan 14, 2013)

Dís said:


> I have seen The HObbit nine times, so far, in theatres and I still enjoy every single second. For me, this is either magic or craziness. ;*)



I know exactly what you mean, I've seen The Hobbit around that much times too, but I find it rather less enjoyable because of the 3D... I'm not a big fan of 3D.
Other than that, it is quite enjoyable if you know your background. I think the reason you like it so much is because it brings back childhood memories for you doesn't it ? Naturally, The Hobbit, has some sort of a storytelling feeling, which is why most people who are not Tolkien readers tend to think of it as a "childrens book"


----------



## Dís (Jan 14, 2013)

It IS a children's book. Tolkien wrote The HObbit for his children and his first beta-reader was the ten-year-old son of his publisher, Rayner Unwin, who recommended it for all kids his age. But I was 15 when I first read it and did it more or less to improve my English. I already knew The Lord of the Rings in German and thought something less bulky would be better for a start. So, it's not really childhood memories, but something deeper, a sense of being "at home" with the mind that wrote this story. After doing a lot of Tolkien-reading I like to look at The Hobbit as an acorn. It has the whole oak-tree hidden inside, but you can still put it into your pocket and carried it with you all the time. The Lord of the Rings, not to mention The Silmarillion or the whole History of MIddle-Eart & Co, is a veritable oak-wood, admirable, grand, epic, but not to be carried in your pocket. Still, if you know all the others, it's all there in the Hobbit, accessible if only in a single word or sentence. Like the description of Elrond for example.

As for 3D I'm not a fan of that either, but one of my daughters talked me into seeing it in HFR last week and that was awesome. The clarity of detail made me feel I was seeing it for the first time.


----------



## Mahanaxar (Jan 14, 2013)

Ah well, personally my greatest joy is reading about the first age and early-second age, i.e The Silmarillion. 
I am more enthusiastic to know the origins and Philology and the amount present in The Silmarillion (in my opinion) is the professor's greatest achievement.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Jan 14, 2013)

Mahanaxar said:


> Ah well, personally my greatest joy is reading about the first age and early-second age, i.e The Silmarillion.
> I am more enthusiastic to know the origins and Philology and the amount present in The Silmarillion (in my opinion) is the professor's greatest achievement.



Me too. While I love LOTR and The Hobbit and they're super close to my heart, my first love will be The Silmarillion. My english teacher in high school I remember, he actually was at a book sale and found me a good old copy of it and Tolkien's biography by Carpenter, and he gave them to me. That was the first time I owned this book and I read it so fast, I read it again!


----------



## Bucky (Jan 14, 2013)

Actually, I'm past my rant...

It is what it is...

As Bob Weir once sang:

"I may be going to (Middle-earth's) hell in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying the ride." :*D

What could we POSSIBLY see to shock & madden us worse than Bolg the dead 'Gundadbad Orc'?

Bold = "Go Home" to Sam IMHO.

...I hope. ;*)


----------

