The Hobbit

[Thoran]

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: Imagination might very well be the linchpin to the whole love/hate relationship to PJ's LotR: If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination was better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed.

Where was that foot again? Oh yef... mow Iff vound iss. Even elves would be proud of your dexterity.

I've read the Rings, the Hobbit, the Silmarillion, and the Unfinished Tales multiple times... I've Listened to the Rings, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion on audio cd (the Hobbit multiple times with the kids). I've also read virtually every book that's been reviewed in this forum (well... more than 90% anyway) NO one would accuse me of having a mediocre imagination, and I thought the movies were some of the greatest that have ever been made. The key is not having a good or bad imagination, the key is being able to see someone ELSE'S imagination. PJ and his team created a world that was theirs too, sure they changed a lot that I wouldn't have... but I didn't make the film. I enjoyed both the scenes that exactly fit how I imagined the story AND the scenes that were different and in effect created a NEW story from the one I know so well.

[SixOfSpades]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Ahhh it's good to know that all of us that enjoyed the movies for what they were lack imagination and are shallow. Thanks SoS!

Originally posted by Thoran: Where was that foot again? Oh yef... mow Iff vound iss. Even elves would be proud of your dexterity.

Yeah, I knew I'd be taking some heat over that, but felt morally obligated to post it anyway. Note, however, my use of the word "can." I said "If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination is better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed." That does <u>NOT</u> equate to my stating that liking the films proves that you're shallow.

With that said, however, there are plenty of people in the world with less imagination than PJ. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, either.

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Or you could accept the fact that there is always something lost (and gained) in the translation of book to film, sit back, enjoy and be thankful it wasn't a flop like D&D and every other fanstasy film before this.

True--but wouldn't it have been the ultimate triumph for PJ if he had produced a definitive version of LotR, one that met or exceeded the book's qualities in every way, and was actually *SO GOOD* that it convinced Christopher Tolkien that PJ actually knew which way was up, to the point that Tolkien willingly gave PJ the film rights to <u>The Hobbit</u>? That would have been the best possible outcome for all concerned, and the only way that PJ would ever get to make The Hobbit. But, thanks to his foibles in adapting LotR, that will never happen.

[SpiritWarrior]

Yep but I would say one step at a time, mate.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: True--but wouldn't it have been the ultimate triumph for PJ if he had produced a definitive version of LotR, one that met or exceeded the book's qualities in every way, and was actually *SO GOOD* that it convinced Christopher Tolkien that PJ actually knew which way was up, to the point that Tolkien willingly gave PJ the film rights to <u>The Hobbit</u>? That would have been the best possible outcome for all concerned, and the only way that PJ would ever get to make The Hobbit. But, thanks to his foibles in adapting LotR, that will never happen.

Check you facts SoS. Christopher Tolkien is NOT THE ONE holding up a new film version of the The Hobbit. One movie company (Universal) ones the distribution rights and another (New Line) owns the rights to make it. Once their lawyers settle the difference then it will happen. What CT is holding up is the musuem the PJ wants to open in New Zealand featuring the artwork and props form the movies.


oh and PS- your wrong [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Or you could accept the fact that there is always something lost (and gained) in the translation of book to film, sit back, enjoy and be thankful it wasn't a flop like D&D and every other fanstasy film before this .

Lets see, Princess Bride, Conan the Barbarian, LadyHawk, just a few fantasy movies that are actually very good.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Or you could accept the fact that there is always something lost (and gained) in the translation of book to film, sit back, enjoy and be thankful it wasn't a flop like D&D and every other fanstasy film before this .

Lets see, Princess Bride, Conan the Barbarian, LadyHawk, just a few fantasy movies that are actually very good. </font>[/QUOTE]And yet none did what LOTR's did.

I would add 'Willow' to that list of good movies though!

[Link]

You can't compare LOTR with movies that were made over a decade ago (i.e. Conan the Barbarian) that easily SpiritWarrior.

[Tancred]

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: True--but wouldn't it have been the ultimate triumph for PJ if he had produced a definitive version of LotR, one that met or exceeded the book's qualities in every way, and was actually *SO GOOD* that it convinced Christopher Tolkien that PJ actually knew which way was up, to the point that Tolkien willingly gave PJ the film rights to <u>The Hobbit</u>? That would have been the best possible outcome for all concerned, and the only way that PJ would ever get to make The Hobbit. But, thanks to his foibles in adapting LotR, that will never happen.

The only way that could have happened is if PJ had made Christopher Tolkien's definitive version - he wouldn't have accepted a general-public definitive. If Chris have been involved with the LotR movies, we'd have had another Harry-Potter style movie: stuff taken out, nothing added. That would certainly not have been the the best possible outcome, not even for the majority of Tolkien fans.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by SixOfSpades: Yeah, I knew I'd be taking some heat over that, but felt morally obligated to post it anyway. Note, however, my use of the word "can." I said "If your imagination is shallow or mediocre, you can see the films and be absolutely blown away by the cool imagery. If your imagination is better than PJ's, you can see the films and be disappointed." That does <u>NOT</u> equate to my stating that liking the films proves that you're shallow. With that said, however, there are plenty of people in the world with less imagination than PJ. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, either.

I'd suggest that the same sentiment can be applied in both directions... there's a LOT of people out there who hate the movies because their imagination is too limited to allow more than one (their) interpretation of the text. I've really enjoyed watching the movie and listening to the book on cd and noting the many changes to the storyline that PJ and team made. Some were good, some not so good... but in the end I feel the movie was faithful to Tolkiens vision and the majority of their alterations were pretty well done.

I further believe that it would not be possible to create a 100% faithful version of the story, even if the character text was followed exactly, there would still be poeple complaining about PJ's interpretation of the sense imagery. Additionally there'd be a LOT of people complaining about how slow the story progressed (there was enough of that in these movies)... heck... the hypothetical perfect LOTR movie would be at MINIMUM twice as long as they are now, likely closer to three times as long.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally posted by Link: You can't compare LOTR with movies that were made over a decade ago (i.e. Conan the Barbarian) that easily SpiritWarrior.

Errrr...I didn't, Link. I added Willow (not Conan) to a list of good fantasy movies in the history of fantasy movies.