Should this be called "The Hobbit"?

[Smaug's voice]

For the past few days since the release of DoS there has been a lot of discussions among fans on the changes and the significant liberties taken from the book. And there really is no denying the fact that DoS resembles very little of what the true story was.
So while this can be called a good (for me, great) middle earth film, but should this be called "The Hobbit"?

Discuss.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I find that DOS has more of a claim to be called "The Hobbit" than the original trilogy has to be called "The Lord of the Rings."

My reasons have to do with the spirit of the Hobbit (as processed through PJ's crazy brain), which I think the film does a decent job of capturing (though not always), but I also think Corey Olsen's arguments for why it is quite a faithful adaptation ring true:

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/12/ ... ens-books/

A number of Potter fans railed against Prisoners of Azkhaban for its supposed impurity, and IMO, it is the most faithful to the tone and spirit of the book. For me, DOS comes closest in that regard.

[yovargas]

I find that DOS has more of a claim to be called "The Hobbit" than the original trilogy has to be called "The Lord of the Rings."

My reasons have to do with the spirit of the Hobbit, which I think the film does a decent job of capturing (though not always)....

Ok, I'm pretty sure now that you are a crazy person.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have some problems with Olsen's arguments in that piece, primarily the idea that Tolkien's 1960 revision really in any way relate to Jackson's adaptation. They don't. This is Jackson's Hobbit, but that is the way it should be. I agree with PtB that it is faithful to the tone and spirit of the book, it its way, and that while the emphasis is sometimes on different things, or in different ways, the important characters and themes are faithful to the book.

Of course, we will have to wait until after TaBA to really comment, so that in regard, my answer is no, in that DoS by itself is not The Hobbit, but the three films together will be a version of The Hobbit.

I strongly disagree with the contention that these films could be any random fantasy and would be the same and as good if they had nothing to do with Tolkien. They are not, and they would not be.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think Olsen is over-stating that particular case, which I never cared for (and wish PJ would stop saying, as it really sounds dishonest and pandering).

I am more convinced by his argument regarding the thematic material.

Ok, I'm pretty sure now that you are a crazy person.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

[sauronsfinger]

The wisdom that best covers the issue of books to film was given to us by Ernest Hemingway - an author who had his share of works turned into movies and some with controversy attached over the adaption. Hemingway said that the best way was for the author and producer to meet late at night on a deserted beach. The author would toss the book and rights to it to the film producer who would in turn toss a suitcase filled with money to the author. They would never see or speak to each other again.

[tinwë]

... should this be called "The Hobbit"?

Discuss.

No. At the very least it should be called "Peter Jackson's Hobbit", or more accurately "Peter Jackson's Lord Of the Rings, Episodes I, II & II", after which they could remarket the LOTR films as "PJ's LOTR Episodes IV, V & VI", which would no doubt create a significant new revenue stream for all involved.

All snarkiness aside, the assertion that the Hobbit films are true to the tone of the book is, in my opinion, rather absurd. I really can't believe this even needs to be said here, but The Hobbit was written as a children's book (albeit with more respect for children than most of what passes for children's literature today, or perhaps ever) whereas the LOTR was written as high fantasy, and although the stories take place in the same world and share characters and plot themes, the tone of the two books is so different that they could have been written by different authors.

These films are being told in the tone of the LOTR films and as such should not be promoted as film adaptations of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit because they aren't.

On a side note, I have maintained from the beginning that most Tolkien aficionados would be less inclined to complain about these films than they did about the LOTR films, despite the fact that they would be less faithful to the source, because for most Tolkien fans the LOTR is the reason they are fans in the first place, and many wish that The Hobbit had been written in the same tone as LOTR. I'm speaking for other people here, which I know shouldn't do, but that is the impression I often get from these discussions. I am guilty of it myself - I said when this project was first announced that I would go see these movies and most likely would enjoy them, and so far I have, mostly, the parts I didn't fall asleep through.

[Elentári]

Pretty much agreed, tinwë. I think Jackson has passed the line with TH that he didn't quite with LotR, despite his sometimes radical changes in that trilogy.

I would say these latest films should be labelled "based on Tolkien's THE HOBBIT" because they go further than a simple adaptation, IMO.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My dear tinwë, I don't think you need remind anyone here of the roots of The Hobbit. Certainly, I am confident that you know that I have a fairly good understanding of that. But at the risk of being accused of being absurd, I am going to disagree with your post to some extent.

While it is true that Jackson has brought the story more in line with LoTR (as he almost had to do after making LotR first), these films (including DoS) are still tonally more in tune with TH. An example is Bombur's barrel fighting. You would never have seen something like that in the LotR films (the 'Leggy' moments, while equally absurd, were of a different type of absurdity). AUJ was even more in line with the tone of TH (or at least tried to be, how successfully is a matter of debate). I anticipate that TaBA will move closer still to the tone of LotR.

In essence, what I think Jackson is trying to do is to make an adaptation of the full Red Book as one entity. Picture if you will the title page of the Red Book with both Bilbo and Frodo's handwriting containing the two full titles. That I believe is what Peter Jackson is trying to capture.

At least, his version of it.

[Pearly Di]

But isn't what they're labelled anyway?

'Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien'.

The LotR films had this in the credits. Surely PJ's Hobbit films do. I've not missed that, have I? (I have to confess that I didn't stay for the entire closing credits this time, unlike with LotR).

Surely every single book-to-screen adaptation you can name has this disclaimer. Am I missing something?

As for whether the films should be called 'The Hobbit', yes, it's fine they should be because it's obvious what book they're based on.

PJ is no different from any other film director who makes changes. His changes are sometimes better, sometimes worse, than other adaptations, but he's not in a different class than the people who adapted Narnia or Harry Potter, IMO.

ETA: That hadn't occurred to me, V-Man, but I think it's quite brilliant. And I agree. I am one of those who really, really likes the bigger-picture, epic feel PJ is bringing to the story.

And I adore the book as Tolkien wrote it. When I came home last night, I read a bit of The Hobbit to remind myself how much I like it.

Still pretty fine with what PJ has done.

[yovargas]

An example is Bombur's barrel fighting. You would never have seen something like that in the LotR films

I really, really loved Bombur's barrel moment and it's unhinged, unapologetic absurdity. But being willing to be silly and absurd does not automatically make you "closer" to the spirit of TH. Monty Python is silly and absurd too but it ain't The Hobbit. DOS has the names, places, and events of TH but what spirit it has is of the lineage of Pirates of the Caribbean or PJ's own King Kong.

[Elentári]

But isn't what they're labelled anyway? Confused

'Based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien'.

The LotR films had this in the credits. Surely PJ's Hobbit films do. I've not missed that, have I? (I have to confess that I didn't stay for the entire closing credits this time, unlike with LotR).

Surely every single book-to-screen adaptation you can name has this disclaimer. Am I missing something?

As for whether the films should be called 'The Hobbit', yes, it's fine they should be because it's obvious what book they're based on.

PJ is no different from any other film director who makes changes. His changes are sometimes better, sometimes worse, than other adaptations, but he's not in a different class than the people who adapted Narnia or Harry Potter, IMO.

ETA: That hadn't occurred to me, V-Man, but I think it's quite brilliant. Smile And I agree. I am one of those who really, really likes the bigger-picture, epic feel PJ is bringing to the story.

And I adore the book as Tolkien wrote it. When I came home last night, I read a bit of The Hobbit to remind myself how much I like it.

Still pretty fine with what PJ has done.

Yes, you're right that it does say "based on novel by J R R Tolkien at the end credits... It has to, of course...

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?

[narya]

If the dear professor wanted to create a mythology of Middle Earth for the people of England, rather than a novel, I would assume he'd be OK with the concept that like any "publicly owned" mythology, there will be a wide variety of art, fanfic, toys, radio productions, games and movies, of differing quality depending on the co-creator and the intended audience. This thought applies more to the Sil and LOTR but could be extended back to The Hobbit. So yes, I'd say PJ's movies can be called The Hobbit.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I strongly disagree that DOS is in the tone of LOTR. It feels very different than that to me.

To me, it feels more like the darker stories in the original Grimm tales. And since DOS covers the portion of the Hobbit that begins to darken a bit, I find that style appropriate to the spirit of the book.

Understand that this is not about narrative resemblance. This is about the visual language of the film. I think in many ways, that visual language does a good job of translating the text to screen, with one main exception: the manners.

PJ's DOS has no manners or quiet charm. That is a big difference between him and Tolkien.

But I like that he isn't trying too hard to be someone else anymore. The period of pandering is over.

[Pearly Di]

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.

[yovargas]

I present to you the spirit of The Hobbit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2C68Nh-ltQ

(Seriously, watch the whole thing. It's really fun!)

[narya]

That isn't anything like the ride. Not cannon at all.

[yovargas]

[kzer_za]

A number of Potter fans railed against Prisoners of Azkhaban for its supposed impurity, and IMO, it is the most faithful to the tone and spirit of the book. For me, DOS comes closest in that regard.

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.