Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The new Hobbit film

 So, how does everyone feel about the new Hobbit trailer? C'mon, you've got to have an opinion. As for me, I love seeing the world again. Being a huge fan of fantasy since boyhood, anything dealing with magic, Elves, Dwarves and dragons gets me amped. On the other hand, the trailers seems chock full of Legolas, who is a cool character, however..... Legolas is not in the book. Tolkien did not write him into the story. Is it right to throw him in just because he's popular?

It makes me wonder if my family would be pissed if Hollywood changed my stories were they to be made into movies. In addition, Peter Jackson has created characters that never existed as far as I can tell. Tauriel I believe is the name of the new Elf girl played by Evangeline Lilly. Where did this character come from? An appendix?

And where did the White Orc come from? Admittedly, I haven't read the book in some time, but I really do not remember this bad guy. Thorin's ultimate nemesis? Huh? Since when? Am I missing something? So, I suppose if I take the movie as a separate entity, I will enjoy it.

Any thoughts on the subject?


  1. I think we do have to take the movie as an entirely different entity from the story itself. I don't think the actual book could be a three part movie. The addition of characters, well, I don't know why Legolas is in there or why this new girl is appearing. Perhaps it comes from some of Tolkien's notes or other books that had more detail and depth of Middle Earth. There must be parts that were removed from books and kept as notes only. Who knows? But as for the movie, they have to continue action and bring in new players sometimes. This is why book to movie adaptations sometimes tick off the fans. But we need to remember this is still a separate entity. It'll be okay. :D

  2. It is interesting--I had the opportunity to her Rick Riordan speak right after "Percy Jackson and the Olympians--The Lightning Thief" was made into a movie. He was asked what he thought about the movie, as it bears only a marginal resemblance to the book. Riordan said that he had never seen the movie, and he probably never would. He said that when he sold the movie rights, he let go of it. The books are what he wrote and cares about, and he will be remembered for the books. Disney will be remembered for the movie.

    I think the same goes for the Hobbit. Tolkien will be remembered for his work.

    Peter Jackson will be remembered as the man whose movies induced a new generation of readers to crack open Tolkien's work to see for them selves what REALLY happened.

  3. If the Hobbit had been made before the LOTR it could have been as it was ... a stand-alone story that was more of a romp than an epic. But coming after the awesome that was the defeat of Sauron, that would have been a let down. And indeed, why not take the opportunity to explore more of Tolkien's wonderful world while we can? I admit, I'm part of the audience that Tauriel is aimed at, since the one thing Tolkien's books lacked was a proper romance. (Even in the original LOTR, the whole business with Aragon and Arwen happened in an appendix!) Will it be different than the book? Absolutely. Will it still be an homage to Middle Earth? I think so. I'm eager to see where Jackson takes this.