Should this be called "The Hobbit"?

[Holbytla]

In all seriousness, this is the Hobbit. In reality this is "The Hobbit".
And I say that with a mind towards adaptation.

PJ is wot tuk the holy writ uv Tolkien and turned it unto prfofits as it wuz.

[N.E. Brigand]

I think that if, five years ago, someone with a time machine presented the plot of this film as their prediction for what the then-unmade movie would look like, that she would have been subject to much derision from fans for defaming Jackson & co., who surely understood Tolkien better than that.

For that matter, just thirteen months ago a Tolkien scholar and Jackson fan of my acquaintance wrote, on the Mythopoeic Society mailing list, that those skeptical about the forthcoming Hobbit films were too negative in their expectations: he was confident that even a "very large part of the dialogue will be authentic".

[Pearly Di]

Just curious, what are the most controversial changes in Azkaban? I saw it recently and while my memory of the book is hazy, I didn't notice anything major. Just the sort of abridgements, compression, and artistic license to be expected in any adaptation. I did think Sirius Black was underdeveloped though.

There's nothing major. It was just fans making a fuss. The 'most controversial changes' were very bland. The Marauders' backstory was left out. (Who cares?? I don't even like the Marauders. ) Fans didn't like the talking head (with Lenny Henry's voice) on the Night Bus or the talking heads in Hogsmeade. But I thought this kind of quirkiness suited JKR's magical world beautifully.

Some HP fans were genuinely taken aback by Cuaron's directorial style. Some of them seemed to prefer the more plodding approach taken by Columbus.

Oh, and Hogwarts looked different, and the set design in the first two films was better. And how dare the film director change the location of the Gryffindor common room?! I kid you not, that was actually an objection.

And then people would say, in all seriousness: "Oh, if only Peter Jackson had directed! His LotR was so faithful!"



Instructive, how widely perceptions differ outside one's favourite fandom.

[Anduril]

Tolkien's been dead for 40 years and he's not worrying over fidelity of adaptations now. We could do the same: those who like it, just continue liking it, and those who don't like it, just let it go. Stuff happens but life's too short.

There's nothing major. It was just fans making a fuss. The 'most controversial changes' were very bland. The Marauders' backstory was left out.

I don't think they explained that it was Lupin and friends who made the magic map, which was sort of a plot hole because how then does Lupin know how to operate it? It had special instructions.

But yes I thought Prisoner of Azkaban was much better than the first two, it had a spark to it the previous ones lacked.

[Smaug's voice]

Just so everyone knows, by the original post I didn't really mean that this should not be called "The Hobbit". Nor did I imply that it should be. I am still trying to think and clear out the stuff, though I think I need a second viewing (which won't happen till next Wednesday at least) but I thought this would be a good topic to debate. And it has been, I am enjoying reading all the views and thoughts.

And yes. My quote, "bears very little resemblance to the book" was meant for prodding.

ETA: Only a single post about HP so that I don't derail this thread. I think the first two films served well. Like the books, they were meant to be films for children. They were meant to serve as an introduction to the world of HP and so it did brilliantly. (Not to mention, the acting was superb for 9-year olds. ) And till today I regret that Harris couldn't live longer to play Dumbledore. One of the main things I love from films 1 and 2 that I find missing in all the rest was Richard Harris' Dumbledore.
I guess they could have picked up many good actors, but in the end I really don't like Michale Gambon's style.

[Elentári]

I guess I was thinking it needed something stronger than that, really, up front. As SV points out, how loosely can something resemble the novel and still be classified as an adaptation?

Wizard of Oz.

I understand that the film totally deviates from book canon. (I've not read the book).

That stupid adaptation a few years ago of Susan Cooper's novels, The Dark is Rising - the film was called The Seeker and bore hardly any relation to her stories, plus it was dumb. What they did to one of my favourite childhood novels The Little White Horse - absolutely ghastly.

All of the above much, much, MUCH worse than anything PJ has ever done.

In my humble opinion.

The two latter Narnia films deviated from canon. But not as grossly as with the Cooper and Goudge adaptations.

Oh, and the 2012 Woman in Black. Very, very different from Susan Hill's novel. Yet still recognisably the same story. Ghost had the same motivations, inspiring both horror and pity.

I rest my case.

So, "Based on" basically gives directors carte blanche to re-imagine the author's work...

In cases where a film bears very little relation to the story the author created then perhaps we need a looser term to better reflect that, such as "Inspired by..."

[kzer_za]

Ernest Hemingway's novel To Have and Have Not was about a rum smuggler in the Carribbean who takes too many risks and gets killed. John Huston's movie of the same title is a romantic + WWII espionage story in the Carribbean with a happy ending. The rum smuggler is turned into a goofy sidekick who drinks too much.

Interestingly, the movie was made because Huston thought the book was awful and made a bet with Hemingway he could still make a good film out of it!

[yovargas]

So, "Based on" basically gives directors carte blanche to re-imagine the author's work...

In cases where a film bears very little relation to the story the author created then perhaps we need a looser term to better reflect that, such as "Inspired by..."

Screw "the author's work", this happens with adapting freakin' reality ! I watched Argo recently, which says it's "based on a true story", but a quick google and wiki afterward showed that almost nothing, literally almost no event, in that movie actually happened and the few things that did actually happen didn't happen the way they were portrayed. And in this case it was telling the audience false versions of some significant historic political events. And he won an Oscar for doing so.

If film makers aren't expected to even portray real historical events with anything resembling accuracy, I doubt many are gonna get bent out of shape over accuracy towards a novel.

[Alatar]

Then there's Braveheart...

[yovargas]

Braveheart? Why would you bring a documentary into this discussion?

[Smaug's voice]

Answering my own question here after near three months of "relapse",

No the film by any chance is not a good adaptation of either The Hobbit or Tolkien's wider legendarium.

If I were to breakdown the content it would be 50% Tolkien, 5% Appendices and 45% Jackson and co.

The tone of the book is quite lost throughout the film.

I thought Billbo had enough of a presence but the more I think of it, he truly has been sidelined as a secondary character here (the ONLY two scenes Bilbo is prominent in the entire film is Mirkwood and the Smaug-conversation- so that's ridiculously small for the chief protagonist here)


The two plus points right now that I can truly commend is the acting and most of the VFX. Even the score has diminished for me. I
loved it in the beginning but as I listened to them over and over, they seem to have "wore off" for the most part (unlike LR) - though "Beyond the Forest" is still lovely.


Anyway, "should this be called The Hobbit?". No.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes.

[Smaug's voice]

[Alatar]

Yeah, that was a bit rude V.

[Elentári]

Answering my own question here after near three months of "relapse",

No the film by any chance is not a good adaptation of either The Hobbit or Tolkien's wider legendarium, to me, so it should really be named something else. And the ending credits ought to be renamed "based loosely on ..."

If I were to breakdown the content it would be 50% Tolkien, 5% Appendices and 45% Jackson and co.

I gather this later viewpoint of mine is more real for me, as the initial charm of seeing a new ME-film in the cinema wore off.
The tone of the book is quite lost throughout the film.

I thought Billbo had enough of a presence but the more I think of it, he truly has been sidelined as a secondary character here (the ONLY two scenes Bilbo is prominent in the entire film is Mirkwood and the Smaug-conversation- so that's ridiculously small for the chief protagonist here)

All the running-jumping skimming till they reach Laketown to me now feels like an extended version of the Paths of the Dead we saw in RotK - marginally better since it is more creative.

The only two plus points right now that I can truly commend is the acting and most of the VFX. Even the score has diminished for me. I loved it in the beginning but as I listened to them over and over, they seem to have "wore off" for the most part (unlike LR) - though "Beyond the Forest" is still lovely.


Anyway, "should this be called The Hobbit?". No.

I'm increasingly finding SV is a spokesma n for my feelings regarding these movies! Obviously others' mileage varies as to what they enjoy and find acceptable in an adaptation, and far be it for me to be a constant downer...

I would still say there are more plus points than detractions... apart from the actors, one also cannot fault the production design - Howe, Lee, Richard Taylor and Weta, Howard Shore, the wardrobe dept, etc have all delivered in spades, as have the VFX guys - but ultimately the movies stand or fall on the script and direction, and to me those have been the weakest links.

I would not go so far as to say TH should not be called "The Hobbit" (if legalities had allowed, I'm sure Jackson might actually have considered calling it "The Quest for Erebor" ) but I thnk the term "based upon" allows too many liberties whilst still retaining the illusion that it somehow represents the author's intentions. As I said before, perhaps "inspired by" would be a more accurate label....

[Smaug's voice]

I think AUJ is "The Hobbit" very much.
DOS on the other hand, neither the tale follows the book as it could have been, nor does it tonally resemble The Hobbit. So why indeed should I call it The Hobbit?
"Inspired by" is the right word imo. As large parts of it is fanfic inspired by Tolkien.

ETA: I didn't acknowledge the artwork and costume because they are never
wrong. So it's a given.

[Dave_LF]

It follows the book a whole lot more closely than do a whole lot of other adaptations that this board's posters care less about.

Think about it this way: suppose Jackson had released as an original production a film that was identical to the one we got in all respects except for having new names substituted for all of Tolkien's. How likely would the Tolkien estate have been to win the inevitable lawsuit?

[Smaug's voice]

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

[Frelga]

It follows the book a whole lot more closely than do a whole lot of other adaptations that this board's posters care less about.

Think about it this way: suppose Jackson had released as an original production a film that was identical to the one we got in all respects except for having new names substituted for all of Tolkien's. How likely would the Tolkien estate have been to win the inevitable lawsuit?

Did they sue the makers of Eragon?

[Dave_LF]

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

I don't know about a good adaptation, but it is certainly an adaptation, and I think that's enough to justify sharing the title.

It may be Peter Jackson's The Hobbit, but it is still The Hobbit.