I think we all know that The Hobbit hasn't been as well received by the rest of the world as by most of us Tolkien fans. Some of it is probably justified, but some of it simply comes down to ignorance where Middle Earth and its history is concerned. I found an article that argues "our" point well, and I thought I'd post it here in case some of you wanted to read it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

If you haven't read the book, you should be warned that it contains some spoilers.

_________________


by Lembas

Thanks for posting it, I enjoyed reading it! I think they made a very good comparison with a Jane Austen novel: if a film director would have paid too little attention to the background of that time-period, everyone would have criticized that director, while apparently exactly the opposite holds for the Hobbit (e.g. the main criticism is 'too much background-details').

Ofcourse I understand why people who haven't read the books get lost in the story due to the addition of background information. The three Lord of the Rings movies are more true to their corresponding books, and most of the information that even hints at the vast effort Tolkien took in creating Middle Earth did not make it to the screen. Compared to that the Hobbit might seem boring to people who have little knowledge of the more in-depth information and who just wanted to see the movie for its action and fun.

I can only say I'm glad Peter Jackson took the effort to bring some of the more complicated material to the screen, as I doubt that there will ever be a chance material like the Silmarillion will be made into a movie

_________________

This is true, but then there is so much more information already present in LotR. The Hobbit, the way the book is written, wouldn't make a very good movie because it would be all voiceover all the time, and no one would understand what's going on. I think, if the bits about Erebor etc hadn't been in there, the critics would complain that no one understands the point of the journey they go on. Without the history sequences there is no point to the main story. Which is why I think articles like this one are very important

And yeah, I don't think there's much chance of something like Silmarillion ever getting made into a movie, because it's too complicated. Children of Húrin, maybe, except it's probably not famous enough.

The only thing I don't really like about the article is that he gets almost petty at the end, in his criticism of other reviews. It's possible to write something that expresses a contrasting view without being childish.

_________________


by Lembas

I was thinking the exact same thing. The style of writing for the Hobbit and LOTR almost couldn't be more different, given they come from the same author. The Hobbit just focuses on the story at hand, with very little to no detours to background information, while LOTR is already far more extensive beyond the main story. Indeed a movie of just the Hobbit would not be very interesting.

The end of the article was absolutely not one of the best parts, and it also made it a bit lecturing. Reading this as a non-Tolkien fan could almost make you feel stupid, since you don't appreciate the Hobbit as you should according to this article

_________________

That was a great read, thank you for posting. I'll definitely be sharing it amongst friends. I think Peter is stuck in a situation of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' when it comes to recognizing the history prior to The Hobbit. Though I do wonder if the story is worth stretching into three films versus two, I still enjoyed it immensely and think that critics are just suffering from some self-given superiority complex; "Ohh, I remember when the trilogy came out-- it wasn't the same." That's nice, sugar, but it never was going to be the same because it's not the same book(s).

And as much as I love the Silmarillion, I do ever so hope it will never be touched by film. More Alan Lee and John Howe illustrations would be welcome, however!

_________________

I actually think it's well worth stretching out into more than one movie, because while it is a short book (and this is something PJ has commented on as well), as soon as you start adapting those scenes for a screenplay, they stretch out immensely. Just think of a scene like the party at Bilbo's house. It's all covered in a chapter (or two?), but there is A LOT going on, and while Tolkien wrote it all very quickly, it will necessarily take more time in a movie. So while the book is short, the story is long, and so it makes sense that it's more than one movie. If they had tried to contain it, I think no one would have been happy because everything would've been too rushed. If they had stuck with only stuff from The Hobbit, two movies would've been good, but considering the fact that they're also using stuff from the appendixes, I think three movies makes sense. Provided that they do a good job of it, of course, which I think we'll find that they have

_________________


by Lembas

It's true, pacing within a book is eons different then within a movie. In that, I certainly see where you're coming form. Something tells me that two films still could have been appropriate maybe with some picky shaving of prior history? But I'll reserve any serious thought on that until I after I see the next film. Either way, I'm looking forward to them. The critics refereed to by the article have a right to their own opinion of course, but at the same time, they seem to go out of their way and make it impossible to enjoy something given unless it's %110 to their personal liking. It's a pity.

_________________

^that's probably true, but why would we ever want less when we can have more? These are the last movies set in Middle-Earth we are likely to ever get, so I think rather than complain that they are making too many, we should be really happy we actually get as many as we do

_________________


by Lembas

it annoys me because some people say it stinked because it strayed(sp) too much from the books (sorry if you don't like Tolkien and didn't read the appendix but at least learn that the rest of the material was taken from there, not from PJs mind), others say it was too much like LOTR and others say it WASN'T close to LOTR, there's just no pleasing everyone. Me and mom both loved it and I told her what the book was about (without spoilers) and told her that if it had been done EXACTLY like it, without the dept taken from the appendix, it would've been a kid's movie, kinda boring even.
Personally I don't really care how much it is like the book or not, all that matters is if I LIKE it, one thing is a movie, another one is Reading the book.

_________________

Interesting article. Something like this helps me relax and deal with stress. I was wondering about signs of daddy issues in a woman and asked here for help. This is a website that provides professional services for psychologists and psychotherapists in Australia. On the site, you can find information about various types of therapy, find specialists with a certain specialization, and register for a consultation online or in person

An interesting article can captivate readers with its thought-provoking ideas, insightful analysis, or compelling storytelling. Need to follow this go to website and learn more new ways for Americans dual citizenship.It may offer new perspectives or solutions to existing problems, stimulate discussion and debate, or provide valuable information on a particular topic, leaving readers informed and engaged.

I’ve also found that articles like this can really open up conversations we often avoid. For me, exploring stuff like unresolved family patterns and anxiety was a big deal. What helped was starting online therapy for anxiety it gave me a safe space to unpack things at my own pace without needing to explain everything upfront. It’s way easier than I expected and helped me connect the dots emotionally. Definitely worth trying if you’re sorting through that kind of stuff.