The Hobbit

[QuadShot]

But...but... I thought it was ART! :) The greed thing is a silly complaint. The lying and misdirection is their perogative which I don't deny them but as their target audience, I also reserve the right to tell them to bite me. :)

...and yet, you'll STILL spend money to go see it :) So, what lesson does THAT teach?

[Bryancd]

I get pissed off at my family sometimes too but I still love them. Duh. :)

[Bromptonboy]

'Ars propter pecuniam' instead of 'Ars gratia artis'.  :) Our hollywood friends would be shocked - shocked to find out that they are capitalists after all.

[QuadShot]

'Ars propter pecuniam' instead of 'Ars gratia artis'.  :) Our hollywood friends would be shocked - shocked to find out that they are capitalists after all.

Yeah...the day one of those "artists" turns down their usual HUGE salary or profit sharing to make a movie...I'll call them artists. It's like the medical industry. Sure, MAYBE some of them get into the field originally out of a sense of altruism, but eventually it turns in to a money maker...

[Jobydrone]

I don't feel like I need to "get a grip" and I resent the implication that I am ridiculous and wrong for suggesting that creators of art such as movies, books, comics and other entertainment media shouldn't be subject to criticism for damaging beloved source material for the purpose of increasing profits.  I'm not saying that happened with the Hobbit, and as I said I enjoyed the movie a great deal, but it is certainly a valid argument that can and has been made.  And there's absolutely no harm in SPECULATING that the Hobbit could or might have been a better film without all the extra material from other sources.

[Bryancd]

I think the issue is the use of the term "greed". It has a very specific connotation of the quest for wealth regardless of consequence or morality or ethics, ect. Companies are merely entities which produce a product in an effort to make a return on invested capital called profit. People can be greedy, companies themselves aren't, they have an obligation to their owners, employees, shareholders to provide that return. Making this film into a more expansive version of the Hobbit plus ancillary material isn't greedy, it's efficient. They have the cast, crew, sets, everything in place. That's a massive and expensive undertaking. So they must make sure they get the most content out of that effort as possible. So they make the call to add material to the source and make 3 films knowing they will never have to do tis again. If Tolkien was still alive or if there were more stories to tell, they could likely be more methodical about bringing it to the screen. But as it stands, this is it for Middle Earth, so if you are going back to the well the last time, better take all the water.

[Meds]

I'm quickly going to try and re-read the Hobbit as I go on the 20th of Jan. I'm hoping the film will give me more, but if i come out of that cinema feeling that they have stretched this further than a rubber band my comments will be harsh. Be prepared oh hairy feet ones. ;)

[Bryancd]

I'm quickly going to try and re-read the Hobbit as I go on the 20th of Jan. I'm hoping the film will give me more, but if i come out of that cinema feeling that they have stretched this further than a rubber band my comments will be harsh. Be prepared oh hairy feet ones. ;)

But knwoing what you know, would that be an equitable way to judge the film? Perhaps see the film first and opine about what the film is as opposed to what it isn't.

[Meds]

Nope, the book is the source, the film is called The Hobbit and that's what I want. If i think the additions help the film flow then fine but if I think that the additions are pointless or (heaven forbid i say this) just an excuse to spread a film over a three year box office guarantee then I will not be impressed.

[Bryancd]

Nope, the book is the source, the film is called The Hobbit and that's what I want. If i think the additions help the film flow then fine but if I think that the additions are pointless or (heaven forbid i say this) just an excuse to spread a film over a three year box office guarantee then I will not be impressed.

I get you, but even the LOTR trilogy had a lot of editorializing done to the story but because the source material is so dense, no one except the most extreme fans went back to fact check the film. I just don't think that's a fair way to evaluate what is actually on screen. I mean if we did that for ever bit of literature that has been made into a film it would be an impossible hurdle for a creative team like PJ put together to overcome.

[Meds]

I agree but as a script writer I am now used to adapting scripts from short and long stories and i understand the fact you have to take some liberties and change and add things. You have to for pacing. You also have to cut things and as LOTR was 3 books made into 3 films you can accept it a little more. The Hobbit being a small childrens book is a little different.
Look at one of my favourite subjects, Holmes. I adore Conan Doyle and i also adore the Brett adaptions but i can see the changes made for filming purposes. I never have had a problem because they were changes that helped the films flow and made it viewable as opposed to readable.
I have always tried to read the books before any film (if its a well know book obviously), Like life of Pi, i read that years ago and now there is a film out, i seriously have no idea how they have pulled that off but will be cool to see but if they have totally changed the key lines that make the book so fun then its not a true depiction is it. At the end of the day surely a true adaption is what everyone wants otherwise you may as well not call it the Hobbit but call it the Tales of Bilbo.

[Bryancd]

At the end of the day surely a true adaption is what everyone wants otherwise you may as well not call it the Hobbit but call it the Tales of Bilbo.

But did people love LOTR because it was a straight adaptation of the books or because those, and let's face it, it was legion of non-Tolkein readers that made those films a success, found a fantasy world that was amazing? I suggest the later and we as fans of the source material should be cognitive of that.

[Meds]

Well i think the first film was a mainly a success because of Tolkien, and then word of mouth at how stunning the film was caused the wagon to roll on. Me, it was Jacksons name that made me see it (fan since Bad Taste) but I get your point. Yes it does its job in a fantasy genre and yes the latter two films had a bigger audience (apart from the end of Return in which 25% of the audience died of old age) because new fans came along and loved the look and feel but I still maintain (and as I always state this is my opinion) that I want to see a core line through The Hobbit that makes me believe they are keeping with the book. We can but wait.... (bit longer)

[WillEagle]

For somebody like me who has never read The Hobbit I wont know whats new material or from the book. Do you think my movie experience will be better or worse for not reading the book first?

[Ktrek]

I think it's actually rare that a movie is "faithful" to the books they are based on because it is a totally different kind of medium. A good example to me is Jurassic Park because the book was so much scarier and interesting from a scientific point of view. The movie tried to do that but they dumbed it down a whole lot to make it kid friendly. The book is so far superior to the movie but the movie has to be taken on it's own merits. It's a fun popcorn movie with awesome special effects and we loved it.

Now with the Hobbit I was a little perturbed that they took the content of a book that could probably have been told sufficiently and well in a single three hour film if it was edited properly but I was willing to accept two films. I think personally that three films was milking the story for every dollar they could make because they know they can't go to the well again as Bryan so aptly put it.

I have not had a chance to see the film yet but am hoping tomorrow or Sunday to do so and I'm sure that I will be visually stimulated and I will try my best to put the book out of my mind while viewing it but that may not be easy to do. The Hobbit has deep rooted connections that go back to my childhood. When I discovered Tolkien I read everything of his and about him I could and have read and re-read his books over the years and they have grown fonder with each reading.  So I'll try and watch the movie for what it is... an "adaptation" and accept it on those terms and thus I'm sure I'll enjoy it in some measure.

Kevin