Friday, November 7, 2014

Don your armor boys and girls because there's elf and dwarf blood to be spilt in the aftermath of Smaug's death!

From what I understand, at the time that the Hobbit was written, J.R.R. Tolkien didn't really have an idea that it would be more of a story than it was. He'd only started to expand on possibilities racing through his head, i.e., the war of the ring, and so on and so forth. So is it really all that bad that Peter Jackson (in adapting the Hobbit) has made so many changes for the sake of continuity in what may be the finest example of a six volume film edition of the best that fantasy has to offer?

I know many people who are fans of the books, and some of them insist that the Hobbit is supposed to be a personal story about Bilbo. I say boo hoo. So Peter Jackson pretty much shoved that concept off the planning table and decided to approach it on a grand scale; I think if you're one of his critics that you should be thanking him for it.

He's given increased speaking parts to the dragon (who here would not leap at the chance at having Benjamin Cumberbatch do your voice mail?), explained the story much better by borrowing from the Silmarillion, and inserted female characters (and Legolas) where there was none before. And there are the complaints that center around the question: where are all the songs? Honestly, when I read the Hobbit I skipped the songs and continued with the text underneath them. In my defense, I read the book when I was a kid and I really had no mind for poetry at the time (although now I quite enjoy it).

In short, I like the drama, the seriousness of it, and how (tonally) the movie is a far cry from being a children's story. Anyway, this is the end of my "mini-rant." I'm very excited for the Battle of the Five Armies, and the first trailer hit the interwebs this week. If you haven't seen it, click on the trailer below.

Don your armor boys and girls because there's elf and dwarf blood to be spilt in the aftermath of Smaug's death! And the huge rock trolls with trebuchets on their backs is really f'ing cool, if I say so myself.

What say you? Are ye a fan of the Hobbit films or do you think Peter Jackson has done a terrible job at adapting Tolkien's books?

16 comments:

  1. I skip all the songs, too, and even though I'm middle aged I still haven't developed any taste for poetry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said! I could care less that he changed things - the story is now epic and far more enjoyable than the book. Yes, I skipped the songs. And the pages and pages of description regarding Biblo's house. Ready to rock the final installment and enjoy!
    But first, hitting the theater this afternoon for a little Interstellar...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I never thought the book was that good and the first movie was okay, but didn't really make me want to see more. However, everyone seems to say these movies are great..so I will give them another try.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I fell asleep between 3 and 5 times during previous two films and that as a person who adores anything epic :) I still can't wait to see my king Thranduil riding into the battle of the five armies on his royal elk :) and to see armies of powerful elves parting in one single movement in front of my Lukey :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love The Hobbit files and Lord of the Rings. I think the movies mesh well with each other and show the development of how Middle Earth grew so dark and dangerous. I also enjoyed the books. In fact, I'm reading The Hobbit now (just started and I read it originally in 2002), and I can see the movie as I read the book, which is great fun. I even pulled out my Hobbit soundtrack to listen to the songs. Even though the words are a little different between movie and book, I can hear them singing as I read.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think Jackson does great films. But an opinion is an opinion and I'm sure there are people who think Beautiful Creatures movie was an amazing adaptation while I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What? Smaug dies? Heard of a SPOILER ALERT?

    Just joking; I read the book in high school and knew what happened to Smaug.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah...
    That's not how it happened.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They just made it into three movies to exploit people and make more money.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Andrew: I take it you are one of the Tolkien purists. Please take the time to enlighten us as to why it's better for an adaptation of a book to be absolutely true to the book with no deviation at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm one of those increasingly rare, weird creatures who never got into The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. I enjoy the flicks when I happen to catch them, but that's about it. So if an excellent director is taking the storyline in a new direction, and the late author's estate doesn't mind (I'm assuming there's still an estate and copyright issues), then I don't mind. Maybe Tolkien would be proud of how he created a storyline that is so rich it is spawning new ones years later.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I skip the songs, too. Still. I have a hard time going from reading prose to poetry--my brain doesn't want to make the leap, so I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You mean Benedict, not Benjamin

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am definitely looking forward to the film. From what I could tell, it has been amazing.

    www.modernworld4.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. First two movies dragged for me. I don't mind changes or even extensions, but did feel like a lot of padding.

    mood

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm loving the movies, and i grew up on the books and the original animated and rotoscope films.

    I mean, if we went just by the book, the battle of five armies would be one in 5 seconds, because Tolkien just glosses right over it. But i want to see the battle, i want to be heartbroken at the losses and feel the weight of that history when i watch the LOTR films again.
    Are they a little long? Yes. I think 2 is better than 1, though and i'm super excited to see 3.

    ReplyDelete