Between 2001 and 2003, Peter Jackson brought The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy epic, to the big screen. And unlike earlier adaptations, they did not condense them into one movie or make them a goofy cartoon. Instead, they were live-action, incredible films that for the most part did justice to Tolkien’s vision.
Speculation immediately began over whether he would adapt The Hobbit—Tolkien’s earlier tale set in the Lord of the Rings universe—next. And now, in late 2012, we all eagerly await the release of the first Hobbit film in December.
Tolkien fans and non-fans alike have reason to be excited. The Hobbit is a great story, and Peter Jackson is probably one of the few people who could do it justice in a live action film.
But Tolkien fans also have some reason to be worried. While changes must inevitably be made when a book is adapted for film, Jackson—and his script-writing team of Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh—altered Tolkien’s tales beyond what was absolutely necessary. Some of this was for the better, like the depiction of the Ents invading Isengard (which was told in flashback in the books). But several other changes were not, and seem to be the scriptwriter’s attempt to put their own mark on Tolkien’s stories. Early hints about The Hobbit movies from Jackson et al indicate they are taking a similar approach to these films.
So be excited, please, about The Hobbit: I am. And go to see the films. But I think there are few reasons to be worried, which I—as a responsible citizen of the world—am compelled to lay out for you.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
8 Comments
Despite your acknowledgement that you are very much looking forward to The Hobbit and that you enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, you seem to have made up your mind about the new film before it’s even been released.
Firstly, although everyone will find parts of any film that they do and don’t like, especially with such a well-known slab of english literary heritage at the heart of these films, it would be foolish to claim that the LOTR films were lessened in any way by the film-makers’ creativity. What you must bear in mind is that these are FILMS and, as such you cannot expect to see a direct replica of the books on screen. This is the only reason that I can see for points 2, 3 and 4 being made. Suffice to say, although Tolkien purists might well object to the presentation of Faramir in LOTR (and I think this is perhaps the strongest point you make in your argument), the impact of Aragorn’s decision to let Frodo go despite being tempted with the ring would have been significantly lessened had Faramir been perfectly capable of doing the same. Aragorn’s doubts about his kingship, and the justification for these doubts, are made utterly self-evident in the films. However, it is moments such as the one discussed in which the character is allowed to demonstrate the extent of his virtue and thereby his right to take the throne of Gondor: he is a noble character and has been allowed to prove this.
As for point 5, the decision to make three films rather than two has been leapt upon by the critics who gleefully sit back and wait for Jackson to fall from the great heights that he achieved with LOTR. The fact that this development will form a more cohesive link between The Hobbit and the LOTR films seems to have been completely disregarded. Not only will the three films decision make The Hobbit, which is essentially a fairytale set in the world of Middle Earth, much more in keeping with Jackson’s previous films but, it is also a Tolkien fan’s dream! This decision should allow for both an accurate presentation of the tone of The Hobbit, and a cohesive link between Jackson’s LOTR trilogy and the new films.
If the filming of LOTR had received as much attention as this, and had come after an epic masterpiece of cinematography as this has, then we would have seen exactly the same sorts of people wheeling out exactly the same sorts of criticisms which, ultimately, would have been forgotten within minutes of the lights going down in cinemas across the world.
I suppose we must resign ourselves to the reality of having to put up with such banal speculation which comes as a regrettably unavoidable consequence of Jackson’s unparalleled achievements with LOTR. Whatever anybody says, I suggest we all sit back and watch the films BEFORE making up our minds on whether Jackson has done as good a job as he did with LOTR or not.
The Battle for Esgaroth will also no doubt be epic.
It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him…!
good point. I think that is one scene Jackson will definitely handle brilliantly. I meant more that even that isn’t on the same scale as the battles at Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields. But that should be great on screen.
“And for those of you who haven’t read The Hobbit, don’t blame Tolkien for the poorly-acted female elf characters…”
In fairness, that’s seriously jumping the gun. You can’t know that it will be horribly acted until you see it. I can get behind what you’re saying with the lack of female characters creating an artifical need for them in the film, but reserve judgement until you’ve actually seen the results. This character may never have existed in the books, but that doesn’t mean it will automatically be awful. Case and point: Tom Bombadil. If they’d included him, FOTR would have had a seriously messy first act. I thank God they cut him, and can’t understand the fans who complain about him being left out. It’s an adaptation, not a literal translation. If you want a literal translation, look at Watchmen (barring the ending) and how far that got.
Anyway, I’m so not concerned. Will it disappoint? That’s definitely possible, but I am going in optimistic.
There is a lot in this I don’t like such as the hatred towards the tension? WTF is that about? What it basically sounded like was “I don’t like this movie because it’s too serious” I mean all the points in that section were covered in the movie, Aragorn did not want to be king because he was afraid of failing like his ancestors and Theoden was hesitant to help Gondor because Gondor abandoned them when they were attacked by Saruman. And the reason that they changed Faramir was perfectly reasonable! You can’t build the Ring up as a massive danger capable of manipulating any one and then have a man who was says that he would never touch the ring, no, you can’t just say that, as much as I like Tolkien that part is just stupid and sloppy on his part what they did with Faramir in the movie is much better and actually gives him a reason to be there. He was a threat in the movie and was not needed in the book at all. Tolkien himself said that it was impossible to film his book but Peter Jackson did what will always be my favorite movie and I have no doubt that the Hobbit will be just as amazing.
There’s one thing that prevents The Lord of the Rings from being a stellar accomplishment… the entirety of the absolutely horrendous The Return of the King.
With regards to all the changes made to both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, reflect on the words of Gandalf to Saruman, from the orginal novel, when answering Saruman’s desire to be ‘Saruman of Many Colours!’ (i.e. Jackson’s changes via the film version), as opposed to being Saruman the White (the original story).
‘White!’ he [Saruman] sneered. ‘It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.’
‘In which case it is no longer white,’ said I [Gandalf]. ‘And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.’
I thought they did a good job with Faramir… Tolkein was great but it was weird how Faramir was oddly immune to the ring in the book… The daddy issue plot was always there in the book though and they do give reason for him becoming an ally to frodo because he realized that he was going down the same path as his brother…