Should this be called "The Hobbit"?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Having just watched it again, it isn't even an arguable point, in my opinion. I was once again struck by just how much of the book (or the part of the book covered by this one/third of the trilogy) actually is there, even with all of the additions. It certainly is as much "The Hobbit" as any of the LOTR films are "The Lord of the Rings".

Now, if you said that "The Bourne Identity" shouldn't be called "The Bourne Identity" I think you could make a pretty good argument. Despite the fact that the film is at least as good a film as the book is a book.

[Smaug's voice]

Nope.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Smaug's voice]

...

[yovargas]

So basically, any film which follows the core plot-map of the book is a good adaptation?

I think that's pretty much the definition of an adaptation so yeah, pretty much. There are moves with far more alterations than their sources that still qualify as adaptations. It's kinda like a cover song. If I were to take the Beatles' Yesterday and play it as a loud, fast, shouty punk song, you'd still call it Yesterday. It's just a different version of Yesterday.


eta - as I expected, somebody had already done it, so here's a loud, fast, shouty punk version of Yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm2NfVjde84

[Smaug's voice]

To end, I did not wish to put my opinion ions up for debate, just to express (some would say "vent"?)
DoS is as close to The Hobbit as the RDJ Holmes is to Conan Doyle's stories. (and there's significant similarity imo. The names, places, sets, vfx, the entire Victorian age is all there. But it is in no way Sherlock Holmes)

[Smaug's voice]

So basically, any film which follows the core plot-map of the
book is a good adaptation?

I think that's pretty much the definition of an adaptation so yeah,
pretty much. There are moves with far more alterations than their
sources that still qualify as adaptations. It's kinda like a cover
song. If I were to take the Beatles' Yesterday and play it as a loud,
fast, shouty punk song, you'd still call it Yesterday. It's just a
different version of Yesterday.


eta - as I expected, somebody had already done it, so here's a loud,
fast, shouty punk version of Yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm2NfVjde84

The question was ,does DOS deserve to be called an adaptation of "The Hobbit"?i.e. Is it a good adaptation of the said book?

[yovargas]

And the answer is - it obviously meets the definition of adaptation so yes, of course it should be called The Hobbit. Whether or not you find it "good" is as subjective as whether or not you like punk covers of old Beatles songs.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Incidentally, the succint response you gave to me a few hours back was also your first response when the thread began.

Well there you go. At least I am consistent. And honestly (and without meaning to be rude or disrespectful) I don't think the question deserves any more analysis than that. You may not like the film. You may not like the adaptation. And you may not like what the film industry typically does when adapting books to film. But all that being said, "The Desolation of Smaug" is absolutely an adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, or rather, one third of an a three-part adaptation. And by Hollywood standards, and extremely true one at that. It's not even a particularly close question.

[Smaug's voice]

I loved DOS as a film, as an extension of Tolkien. But not as an adaptation. I find it a perfectly valid question.

[Smaug's voice]

I have corrected it now. Apologies V!

[Frelga]

To end, I did not wish to put my opinion ions up for debate, just to express (some would say "vent"?)
DoS is as close to The Hobbit as the RDJ Holmes is to Conan Doyle's stories. (and there's significant similarity imo. The names, places, sets, vfx, the entire Victorian age is all there. But it is in no way Sherlock Holmes)

Well, actually! While the storyline is entirely invented for the movie, the adaptation is surprisingly close to the characters and spirit of the original, and I am prepared to write lengthy posts in defense of this proposition as soon as I file my taxes, finish repainting the living room, and get bored with that other thread on TORC.

In brief, then - I think there are three elements to consider in any adaptation: plot, characters, and message. My personal take is that of the three, the plot is the most expendable, as long as the adaptation still can be perceived as "story of" in the same sense as the original work.

[Smaug's voice]

To end, I did not wish to put my opinion ions up for debate,
just to express (some would say "vent"?)
DoS is as close to The Hobbit as the RDJ Holmes is to Conan Doyle's
stories. (and there's significant similarity imo. The names, places,
sets, vfx, the entire Victorian age is all there. But it is in no way
Sherlock Holmes)

Well, actually! While the storyline is entirely invented for the movie,
the adaptation is surprisingly close to the characters and spirit of the
original, and I am prepared to write lengthy posts in defense of this
proposition as soon as I file my taxes, finish repainting the living
room, and get bored with that other thread on TORC.

Holmes is not a 19th century James Bond, first of all.
As for characters, I thought only Watson was true to the book's character. No one else.

[Frelga]

19th century James Bond, that's exactly what he was. He boxes, fences, shoots, goes undercover in disguise, rescues maidens and runs secret missions for the government. RDJ is more true to the stories than some of the stuffy adaptations.

Law's Watson, like Freeman's, is much more of a departure in that both adaptations give them sufficient self-esteem to call Holmes out when he treats them like doormats, although both are still devoted friends and helpers.

[Smaug's voice]

Nothing. Apologies

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Needless to say, this is not the thread (or forum) to discuss a Sherlock Holmes adaptation. Please continue this discussion in the Cottage forum

[Passdagas the Brown]

Whether or not DOS resembles the Hobbit book very much, I find it feels a lot more like Middle Earth than the LOTR films. There's a pulse and texture to it that feels more like a faery world that once existed, and less like a pretty stage with costumed actors.

But to answer your question: yes.

[Frelga]

V, well, I've know posts magically move to their proper threads, but fair enough.

On topic.

As I've been saying, to me, an adaptation must preserve the characters and the message of the original. The plot is flexible, and usually impossible to get into the new medium in its entirety. The setting is more important to Tolkien's books than many others, but even that is open to interpretation.

In that light, the book is "the story of the little, ordinary Hobbit who became a hero and saved the day with courage and kindness." The movie, especially DoS is "the story of a dwarf king who is driven to reclaim his kingdom despite everything." So, not The Hobbit.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Actually, the book is very much both "the story of the little, ordinary Hobbit who became a hero and saved the day with courage and kindness." and "the story of a dwarf king who is driven to reclaim his kingdom despite everything." And the film (in three parts) is also very much both "the story of the little, ordinary Hobbit who became a hero and saved the day with courage and kindness." and "the story of a dwarf king who is driven to reclaim his kingdom despite everything."

So yes, The Hobbit.

[Passdagas the Brown]

For me, the Hobbit book is at its core about the push and pull between the modern and the heroic spirit. Bilbo (pragmatic, humble, prosaic and merciful) vs. Thorin (idealistic, proud, poetic and vengeful), which is then reflected in the "mixed" Bilbo that returns to the Shire (the Took-Baggins blend, which is probably Tolkien's "ideal type" - or just reflective of Tolkien himself!).

In that context, The Desolation of Smaug is most definitely The Hobbit. Or rather, one third of it.