The Hobbit; or: Here We Go Again
Dec. 7th, 2012 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunsen_hI am not a fan of Peter Jackson's work in Tolkien's mythos.
He changes things that don't need to be changed. He adds action scenes that aren't internally consistent, nor consistent with the rest of the story; he removes thematic elements and chunks of plot that distinguish Tolkien's work from the generic extruded fantasy product of other writers.
Look, I don't object to his removing Tom Bombadil from The Fellowship of the Ring, as such, though it did lead to a series of plot deviations based on the knives that the Hobbits (originally) took from the Barrow-Downs. (Those changes could have been corrected early in the story, if Jackson had wanted to.) Bombadil was somewhat incongruous in the original book. And there's only so much time and complexity that can go into a popular movie (though Jackson could have refrained from adding some dramatic but incongruous action sequences).
I won't complain at all if the Elves of Rivendell aren't doing the "tra-la-la-lally" thing from Tolkien's The Hobbit. It's cute in a children's book, but it's seriously weird when contrasted with the Elvish people of The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is notionally written by Bilbo, and he's an unreliable narrator — explicitly unreliable, with regard to his taking the Ring from Gollum. And there's no way that Bilbo's claustrophobic wandering through the tunnels and caves under the Misty Mountains, in total darkness except for a dim glow from his sword and for the greenish glow of Gollum's eyes, could be portrayed in the movie medium. I accept this; these changes are necessary.
But why do we have to have Gandalf telling Bilbo, in advance, that his sword Sting is of Elvish make and will glow blue when orcs and goblins are near? Rather than letting Bilbo discover this for himself... and giving him just that little bit more to talk about to himself in the caves in the dark?
"You have to give an editor something to change, or he gets frustrated. After he pees in it himself, he likes the flavor much better, so he buys it." — Jubal Harshaw, in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. That's what I keep thinking about.
I haven't seen the movie, though I probably will after the initial rush has finished. I've seen some promotional clips, and it seems to keep coming back to Jackson's need to change things that were perfectly fine in the first place, and probably better before the changes than after.
He changes things that don't need to be changed. He adds action scenes that aren't internally consistent, nor consistent with the rest of the story; he removes thematic elements and chunks of plot that distinguish Tolkien's work from the generic extruded fantasy product of other writers.
Look, I don't object to his removing Tom Bombadil from The Fellowship of the Ring, as such, though it did lead to a series of plot deviations based on the knives that the Hobbits (originally) took from the Barrow-Downs. (Those changes could have been corrected early in the story, if Jackson had wanted to.) Bombadil was somewhat incongruous in the original book. And there's only so much time and complexity that can go into a popular movie (though Jackson could have refrained from adding some dramatic but incongruous action sequences).
I won't complain at all if the Elves of Rivendell aren't doing the "tra-la-la-lally" thing from Tolkien's The Hobbit. It's cute in a children's book, but it's seriously weird when contrasted with the Elvish people of The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is notionally written by Bilbo, and he's an unreliable narrator — explicitly unreliable, with regard to his taking the Ring from Gollum. And there's no way that Bilbo's claustrophobic wandering through the tunnels and caves under the Misty Mountains, in total darkness except for a dim glow from his sword and for the greenish glow of Gollum's eyes, could be portrayed in the movie medium. I accept this; these changes are necessary.
But why do we have to have Gandalf telling Bilbo, in advance, that his sword Sting is of Elvish make and will glow blue when orcs and goblins are near? Rather than letting Bilbo discover this for himself... and giving him just that little bit more to talk about to himself in the caves in the dark?
"You have to give an editor something to change, or he gets frustrated. After he pees in it himself, he likes the flavor much better, so he buys it." — Jubal Harshaw, in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. That's what I keep thinking about.
I haven't seen the movie, though I probably will after the initial rush has finished. I've seen some promotional clips, and it seems to keep coming back to Jackson's need to change things that were perfectly fine in the first place, and probably better before the changes than after.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-08 12:24 am (UTC)I will go and see it, but honestly...? I dread it.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-09 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-08 02:01 am (UTC)I think a big portion of changes comes from producers wanting to make sure as many people as possible watch the film so they can make more money, and in order to do this, they have to play to the lowest common denominator, and that the scriptwriters cringe when they hear the words "Our focus groups tell us that .....".
no subject
Date: 2012-12-08 06:49 pm (UTC)The Spouse asked me last night why I hadn't mentioned the Hobbit film to him, and I said I just didn't think of it. Part of it is that he's not a huge fantasy fan (tho we've seen all the HP and LOTR films together), but I realized afterwards that it's mostly because I'm not all that enthusiastic about this Hobbit film.
The only part that really excites me is seeing what Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen will do for Bilbo and Gandalf respectively. Other than that, I expect to wince bunches of times if I do see the movie.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-09 01:12 am (UTC)