# The Hobbit:  The Tolkien Edit



## Incanus

The version of the film by TolkienEditor would be the only one worth having a copy of, in my view.   Sounds vastly superior to the original edits.  The first two items alone would just about make it watchable.

From TolkienEditor:

_Let me start by saying that I enjoy many aspects of Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. Overall, however, I felt that the story was spoiled by an interminable running time, unengaging plot tangents and constant narrative filibustering. What especially saddened me was how Bilbo..._

https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thanks for sharing this Incanus, it's really good.

I agree that the _interminable running time_ really is a problem with the Hobbit trilogy. As much as I enjoyed An Unexpected Journey, which is my favorite, I spent the final thirty minutes or so wondering when it was going to end. The Desolation of Smaug was even worse, with that endless sequence about the Dwarfs fighting Smaug...

So yeah, I would edit that in the first place in order to have shorter films.

The background story about that bloody white Orc was really unnecessary, too. I got sick of seeing the same monster over and over again, and I never understood why he was so important. However I don't quite agree that the skirmishes in the first two films should be removed, they add some fun and excitement.

Why remove Tauriel? _I love her!_

Also, I disagree with removing the Investigation of Dol Guldur. That was one of the best parts of the weak final installment, at least for me... It was really cool to see Saruman and Galadriel fighting, especially when Galadriel transformed like that, it was dark and very impressive.

I appreciate the Old Bilbo prelude of the first film.


----------



## Nimue

AAA I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS SINCE THE FIRST MOVIE CAME OUT thank you for notifying us!


----------



## Mythopoet

This man does the work of Eru! I think I'll actually watch this version.


----------



## Gryphos

While this person has made a few changes that I disagree with (such as the cutting of the Dol Guldur subplot, and the complete elimination of Tauriel's character, as opposed to simply her stupid love triangle) I must say this does work well (and I loved the Hobbit films). However, 4 and a half hours is extremely long for even a middle earth film, which is why if I had my way Peter Jackson would have made two Hobbit films as opposed to a trilogy.


----------



## Incanus

I think this is highly significant:

_The investigation of Dol Guldor has been completely excised, including the appearances of Radagast, Saruman and Galadriel. This was the most obvious cut, and the easiest to carry out (a testament to its irrelevance to the main narrative). _

No matter where in the spectrum you might be in appreciating these films, I think there is a lesson here for all of us who are in the throws of trying to make a story work.  This is an important question:  if these scenes were so easy to remove without a trace of a ripple-effect on the rest of the story, you have to ask--what is this material doing there?  It seems to me that if there were just a few of the obvious tie-ins to the LOTR movies, they would have a much greater impact.  Dozens and dozens of these references only serve to dilute them all.  I think the prelude, and the too-many action sequences, also exhibit this watering-down effect.

Unfortunately, I couldn't tell whether or not the enormous and innappropriate rock-giant-things of the first film got cut or not.  I really disliked that part--such creatures could not possibly exist in Middle-earth.

And while I think Evangeline Lilly is a fine actress, and makes for a wonderful elf, ultimately this section of the movie is just one more Bilbo-irrelevant sub-plot.


----------



## Gryphos

Incanus said:
			
		

> if these scenes were so easy to remove without a trace of a ripple-effect on the rest of the story, you have to ask--what is this material doing there?



What's it doing there? being awesome! I mean, come on, does every single part of a story have to be crucial? Is there no room for harmless, enjoyable fluff? I loved the Dol Guldur scenes because they were cool and interesting, and to me that's all that matters. Maybe others feel differently and strictly follow the Chekhov's Gun principle in their writing, but I like to think that so long as something is enjoyable/interesting to read/view, it can have a place in a story.


----------



## Ireth

I *loved* the Dol Guldur scenes, especially when Galadriel showed off her badassery. We got a glimpse of how powerful she _could_ be in Fellowship, when she was tempted by the Ring; now we can see how powerful she is in her own right. It's a nice callback to the original trilogy. Plus it explains why Sauron is in Mordor during the original trilogy rather than sticking around Mirkwood.


----------



## Tom

Please don't pounce on me for saying this, but I liked the subplot with KilixTauriel. And not because I'm a sentimental person--not in the slightest. I'm the sort of person who ruins romantic scenes in movies by making snide comments and over-analyzing the mechanics of the relationship. My friends have learned never to watch romantic movies with me.

The reason I like it is, it added depth to the movie. Tolkien's chapters about the dwarves' imprisonment in the Elvenking's fortress were always kind of murky for me, because they didn't have a lot of detail or character interaction. I wanted the elves to have names and personalities and stories. I liked Tauriel because she's a well-developed character, and though she and Kili did sort of steal the thunder from Gimli and Legolas' friendship, I liked the relationship. It wasn't overdone, it didn't feel forced. Plus it actually had some very touching moments, such as when Kili shows Tauriel his runestone and tells her of the promise behind it.  

I'm usually a canon stickler, but for The Hobbit trilogy I've decided to relax a bit about PJ taking liberties. Not to say I didn't find a lot of the fight scenes unnecessary and repetitive. However, I actually liked the scenes in Dol Guldur. They added an air of menace to the movie and made the conflict more complex--this enemy is very sinister and shadowy, while Smaug is the more blatant, in-your-face type of villain.

My reasoning is, when you read The Hobbit, you realize that it's something of a kids' book. It's simplistic, and it doesn't delve into a lot of complex subplots and other details. I think PJ was trying to flesh out the story, make it deeper and tie it more closely to LoTR. When you think about it, in the books the only links between The Hobbit and LoTR are Bilbo finding the Ring and vague mentions of the Necromancer--who, BTW, hadn't even been fully realized as Sauron at that point in Tolkien's writings.

While I'm displeased with some of the extreme lengths PJ took the new subplots to (the orcs attacking the Greenwood and Laketown, for instance), I generally felt like they were there for a reason. After all, in the future, I'm pretty sure that the LoTR films franchise is going to be something like Star Wars. People are going to watch the prequel, The Hobbit trilogy, before LoTR, the original, and it won't make sense if The Hobbit's plot has no bearing on the plot of LoTR. 

So there's my two cents. (Actually, looking back on the length of this post, it's more like five bucks.)


----------



## Ireth

Tom Nimenai said:


> Please don't pounce on me for saying this, but I liked the subplot with KilixTauriel. And not because I'm a sentimental person--not in the slightest. I'm the sort of person who ruins romantic scenes in movies by making snide comments and over-analyzing the mechanics of the relationship. My friends have learned never to watch romantic movies with me.
> 
> The reason I like it is, it added depth to the movie. Tolkien's chapters about the dwarves' imprisonment in the Elvenking's fortress were always kind of murky for me, because they didn't have a lot of detail or character interaction. I wanted the elves to have names and personalities and stories. I liked Tauriel because she's a well-developed character, and though she and Kili did sort of steal the thunder from Gimli and Legolas' friendship, I liked the relationship. It wasn't overdone, it didn't feel forced. Plus it actually had some very touching moments, such as when Kili shows Tauriel his runestone and tells her of the promise behind it.



I have to disagree. I thought the healing scene in Laketown was utterly cheesy, not to mention wildly Mary Sue-ish on Tauriel's part. (Seriously, no elf of her age and lineage should have healing powers equal to Elrond of Rivendell!) Kili's dialogue in that part just made me cringe. It read like a bad fanfiction. I appreciate Tauriel's presence as a badass female character, but for the most part I felt the romance was unnecessary. Though I did feel sorry for her during the Battle of Five Armies, so that's something.


----------



## Tom

Ireth said:


> I have to disagree. I thought the healing scene in Laketown was utterly cheesy, not to mention wildly Mary Sue-ish on Tauriel's part. (Seriously, no elf of her age and lineage should have healing powers equal to Elrond of Rivendell!) Kili's dialogue in that part just made me cringe. It read like a bad fanfiction. I appreciate Tauriel's presence as a badass female character, but for the most part I felt the romance was unnecessary. Though I did feel sorry for her during the Battle of Five Armies, so that's something.



Yes, now that I think about it, my Mary Sue radar was blipping during that scene. The healing was cheesy and canonically incorrect; seriously, couldn't she have just used the _athelas_? It has its own healing properties without the aid of Elven magic. 

That being said, I didn't mind Kili's little speech. I honestly thought it was rather sweet, though undeniably sappy. He gets a pass from me for being half-dead and most certainly delirious. If he had been in his right mind he probably wouldn't have said anything like it.


----------



## BronzeOracle

The edit really shows the impact of extending such a short story into 3 films.  There just wasn't enough of the original material to pull it all together.  For instance, you can't just put Azog on a bus between film 1 and film 3, you have to show the antagonist doing SOMETHING in Act 2, they've got to be hunting, plotting etc etc - hence showing him at Dol Guldur.  Of course in the book its not a problem because its tiny so a short gap between the wolf chase and battle at the end, but there must be something in the 3 hrs that make up the Deso of Smaug.

I agree with Tom, the story is more a kids book rather than a deeper story as LOTR was.  Though there is some depth to Bilbo's actions with the arkenstone, I think that shows a great portrayal of love and friendship towards the dwarves and Thorin in particular, as Thorin realises at the end.

Its also because Tolkien didn't write romances into his stories, so in LOTR the writers needed to expand the interaction between Aragorn and Arwen (which I loved) and introduce Eowen's love interest.  Sorry but a group of guys wondering around the countryside just gets boring after a while particularly for modern audiences.  And then the writers needed to do it again with the Hobbit and there was NO female character at all so they had to create Tauriel.  I loved her kickassery - it was a fantastic compliment to Legolas and showed the martial prowess of the elves.  but yes the romance was forced as it was inserted from scratch and they didn't manage to pull off integrating it into the story, so ultimately its unsatisfying even with lots of eye gazing and tears between the two comely actors.

The other problem was that with the extended screen time they were tempted to add in all sorts of bits and pieces that Tolkien wrote about, because unlike many other authors there is a lot of this stuff published for him.  Hence the scenes with Dol Guldur and the ring wraiths.  For my part I loved these scenes even though they weren't integrated with the story,  as I didn't buy that Sauron was behind it all with the orcs and the 'strategic location' of the mountain - that was just written in an attempt to integrate the Dol Guldur subplot but it didn't work in my opinion.  In movie 1 it was a justification that Sauron wanted a dragon in his army, by movie 3 it was the justification that he wanted the mountain itself.  Make up your mind Gandalf... er Peter.  As it was I liked the Dol Guldur part of Tolkien's writing so I loved to see it on the screen - though I thought Galadriel looked funny rather than fearsome when she sent Sauron packing, like she was telling off a school kid.  Gotta use another method I think to make a beautiful actress look scary.

Overall I think the failings in the movies demanding the edit show the limitations in the original story and Jackson, Walsh and Boyen tried but it wasn't enough to fill so much screentime.

And WHAT was up with Legolas's eyes btw???


----------



## Tom

BronzeOracle said:


> And WHAT was up with Legolas's eyes btw???



What, their bright blue color? That was just the result of using CG coloring instead of the contacts used in LoTR. In fact, in LoTR, Legolas' eyes were _supposed_ to be that bright blue, but Bloom forgot to put the contacts in for some scenes, leaving his eyes their natural brown. In other scenes, when he did remember to wear the contacts, the cameras did some weird color distortion that turned them purple! So, actually, the unnervingly bright blue of his eyes in The Hobbit was correct.

How do I know all this? Because prosthetic makeup and the like interests me, and at one time I was considering a career in it. I love researching the methods they use in different movies. 

For instance, I noticed that in The Hobbit, the dwarves' hands are short and have broad fingers. I thought, "Okay, they must have used either CGI or prostheses to make their hands proportionate to the rest of their bodies." Turns out Weta Workshop used silicone hand prostheses that slipped on over the entire forearm like a glove. I thought that was very cool.


----------



## BronzeOracle

I found his blue eyes a bit unsettling, he looked inhuman and inhumane.  By contrast Tauriel and Thranduil had blue eyes that looked.. er normal


----------



## Tom

BronzeOracle said:


> I found his blue eyes a bit unsettling, he looked inhuman and inhumane.  By contrast Tauriel and Thranduil had blue eyes that looked.. er normal



They were unsettling. Thranduil was also rather unsettling. The way he moved was very catlike, very feral. It accentuated his inhumaness and drew attention to the fact that he's been living in Mirkwood, closed off from all contact with the outside world, isolated from his Sindarin kin, for hundreds of years. No wonder he's gone a bit...wild.


----------



## BronzeOracle

Yes, he was catlike and feral, his face expressionless yet suggesting a deeply held pain from the past.  I thought he was one of the best portrayed characters out of the Hobbit movies, seeing him on the elk in the last film was fantastic.


----------



## Mythopoet

It doesn't really matter what you think of the Dol Guldur stuff or Tauriel. If his goal was to make an edit that was as close as possible to the book The Hobbit, then you can't argue that those cuts were necessary. Those things did not happen in the book The Hobbit, therefore they had to go.


----------



## Tom

Mythopoet said:


> It doesn't really matter what you think of the Dol Guldur stuff or Tauriel. If his goal was to make an edit that was as close as possible to the book The Hobbit, then you can't argue that those cuts were necessary. Those things did not happen in the book The Hobbit, therefore they had to go.



Of course it matters what people think. Just as people have a right to adapt a movie as they see fit, other people also have a right to explain and discuss their opinions of the adaptation. 

I can't argue with the purpose he had in mind when creating the Tolkien Edit, but I can say that I wish it had been done differently. Instead of strictly cutting _all_ non-canon material, I would have preferred he stay true to the spirit of the movie and cut only what would be deemed unnecessary and pointless fluff (e.i., most of the repetitive fight scenes, Tauriel's healing scene, etc).

While I am not a fan of some of the liberties PJ took with the source material, I don't think that cutting every element exclusive to the movies is the best way to go. Though I agree with the spirit of the Tolkien Edits, I disagree with the execution of the idea.

 Movies are a different medium than books, and it's hard and often impossible to strictly follow a book's plot when adapting it to a movie. And that's what "based-on-the-book" movies are--adaptations. Adaptations are rarely completely true to their source material, and often expand on and fill out elements of the original that the adaptation's director feels should be explored in greater depth.

I think the scenes in Dol Guldur--and that whole subplot in general--underscored the main plot nicely. As the events with the White Council and the driving of the Necromancer out of Dol Guldur were taking place at the same time as the events of The Hobbit, it made sense to incorporate them and use them to tie together The Hobbit and LoTR.

Like I said, Peter Jackson may have strayed from the narrative quite a bit, but it's not necessary to cut _all_ material that was not covered in the book.


----------



## Incanus

Tom Nimenai said:


> Of course it matters what people think. Just as people have a right to adapt a movie as they see fit, other people also have a right to explain and discuss their opinions of the adaptation.
> 
> I can't argue with the purpose he had in mind when creating the Tolkien Edit, but I can say that I wish it had been done differently. Instead of strictly cutting _all_ non-canon material, I would have preferred he stay true to the spirit of the movie and cut only what would be deemed unnecessary and pointless fluff (e.i., most of the repetitive fight scenes, Tauriel's healing scene, etc).



I'm with Mythopoet, and TolkienEditor, all the way here.  Anyone is free to learn how to video edit and make their own version.  This particular edit was carried out to bring the movie(s) in line with the book.  Period.  While I'm sure most folks don't like this idea, I'm thrilled about it.  It appears there are at least a few other folks that might feel similar.  Can't we have a version for us?

The bloated version will always be there--its not like this version suddenly removed the official movie off the shelves or anything.  Most casual viewers of the movies will likely never even know this edit even exists, much less see it.

The way I see it, ALL the sub-plots eminently qualify as 'unnecessary and pointless fluff'.  Lord of the Rings backstory is a matter for Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit.  I guess I'm cynical, but I can see only one reason to include any of these sub-plots--to make what should have been one movie into three.  I think that's a terrible reason to include anything.


----------



## Gryphos

Incanus said:
			
		

> I'm with Mythopoet, and TolkienEditor, all the way here. Anyone is free to learn how to video edit and make their own version. This particular edit was carried out to bring the movie(s) in line with the book. Period. While I'm sure most folks don't like this idea, I'm thrilled about it. It appears there are at least a few other folks that might feel similar. Can't we have a version for us?



Absolutely. I full well encourage things like this. But as to anything, one can still express an opinion on the matter, say what they'd do differently, etc.



			
				Incanus said:
			
		

> The way I see it, ALL the sub-plots eminently qualify as 'unnecessary and pointless fluff'.



Well, from a storytelling standpoint it is arguable that explaining why a vitally important character disappears for half the story is necessary and far from pointless. I fact, to be honest, what the **** was Tolkien thinking writing the original story that way, even if it was for kids? That's bad storytelling from where I'm standing, and a mistake that should be recognised and scrutinised.

But that's a subjective matter, and many others do feel differently.

But as to something's unnecessariness(?) meaning it should be cut, should it? As I said earlier, I like fluff! Well, good fluff anyway, fluff that entertains me. Yes, the Hobbit cold have been made into one film (just) but then where would all the cool Dol Guldur stuff go? Where would the badass battle scene fit in? Everything would be moving along so fast. Two films would be perfect, I think.


----------



## Black Dragon

While this cut of the film sounds interesting, I think that it would be more accurate to call it "The Hobbit: The Strictly by the Book Edit".

Calling it the "Tolkien Edit" isn't the best description, because a lot of the stuff that is cut actually came from Tolkien.  As far as running time goes, the largest subplot excised would have to be the extensive Dol Guldor storyline.  It wasn't in The Hobbit book, but it does come from Tolkien's writings.


----------



## Incanus

I'd like to go on record that I absolutely appreciate and encourage artist 'indulgences', whether in books, movies, paintings, or music.  In many ways, it is in such places that you are really seeing what the artist is all about, or is a good place for displaying esoteric or specialized knowledge.  That said, like anything else, not all indulgences are created equal.  Making up a number on the spot, I'd say that indulgences should probably never be greater than 10-15% of the whole at the very most.  TolkienEditor has cut away well over half the material here!

@Gryphos--I'm not really understanding your ideas regarding Gandalf.  His coming and going makes perfect sense to me and is explicitly explained in the book, supported both in word and deed.  He says from the outset that he has other things to do and will accompany the dwarves only for a while--Thorin's quest is just a side project for the wizard.  Also, he does not number himself among the group (Bilbo was chosen so that there would not be thirteen, an unlucky number--yet when Gandalf is with them, there are fifteen altogether.)  And then, in the troll episode, he disappears and returns without a word to anyone, sort of setting up his later behavior.  He is characterized as mysterious, unpredictable and unknowable, as well as prickly-tempered.  I consider this good, if not great, storytelling.  Following him around everywhere takes away from most of this.

As far as the title of the edit not matching the description--sure call it anything.  But if accurate matching to the content is what is called for, it seems to me it could be applied just as well to the Hobbit 'movie trilogy'.  I mean, wouldn't it be a little more accurate to call it something like "The Hobbit and the Wizard and the White Orc and the Appendices"?  Seems that concept easily works both ways.

I'm pretty sure I'm not coming off as too much of a jerk, but if I am, I apologize--I'm just a big Tolkien nerd, and get a little riled, that's all.  I think it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## Gryphos

Incanus said:
			
		

> @Gryphos--I'm not really understanding your ideas regarding Gandalf. His coming and going makes perfect sense to me and is explicitly explained in the book, supported both in word and deed. He says from the outset that he has other things to do and will accompany the dwarves only for a while--Thorin's quest is just a side project for the wizard. Also, he does not number himself among the group (Bilbo was chosen so that there would not be thirteen, an unlucky number--yet when Gandalf is with them, there are fifteen altogether.) And then, in the troll episode, he disappears and returns without a word to anyone, sort of setting up his later behavior. He is characterized as mysterious, unpredictable and unknowable, as well as prickly-tempered. I consider this good, if not great, storytelling. Following him around everywhere takes away from most of this.



Aye, I understand the intent Tolkien may have had, making Gandalf this mysterious, unpredictable character. But what he ended up actually making was a walking deus ex machina. Captured by goblins? Gandalf appears to kill the goblin king. War about to start between dwarves, elves and men over the riches of the mountain? Lol, Gandalf appears to tell everyone about a coming orc army that's never even been heard of up until that point, bringing an end to the previous conflict.

What's worse is the way Gandalf's departure before Mirkwood is explained later on when he appears. ("I was busy taking care of the Necromancer"......... Wat? Who? That dude who was mentioned like once or twice towards the start of the novel and presented as being this insanely powerful dude. You just popped off to 'take care of him', just casually, like it was a simple matter, a totally boring matter that the reader totally wouldn't be interested in seeing or even having explained a little bit more. Um, Tolkien, you wanna, you know, elaborate on that?... No?... Okay, fine.


----------



## Incanus

Ah, I think I'm getting it now.  I assumed you may have been a casual fan, who just happened to like the movies.  I see now you actively dislike Tolkien.  That's fine, there's no accounting for taste, and he's not for everyone.  However I see little reason in pointing out the problems with your interpretation of these events.  You're predisposed against him and we'll just end up going around in circles on this stuff.

Tolkien is pretty much my favorite writer, despite the myriad issues with his books (including a great many indulgences!).  It's just that for me, the things he's awesome at end up totally overshadowing his shortcomings.  And then to see these strengths off-handedly tossed aside in favor of love-triangles, farting trolls, and over-the-top actions sequences... ugh!  This might be fine for Spiderman or whatnot, but Tolkien?  I think not.

It's been an interesting, if curious, discussion.  I'm ultimately unconvinced that PJ's unprecedented adaption is worthy.  Thousands of novels have been adapted to film, many quite well, but no short/medium sized book has ever been made into three long films before.  If novels are so naturally adapted in this manner, then why haven't movies been done this way all along?  There is something very, very wrong here.  As far as I can tell, I'm standing on solid ground.  The justifications I've seen for making the movies this way do not stand up very well to rational scrutiny (a four-hour version of a 300 page book would make the events come to fast?  I can't even imagine how a two-hour version of Moby Dick, a 500 page book, might seem to someone who sees things this way.  Oh, well.)

In the meantime, take care all!


----------



## Gryphos

Incanus said:
			
		

> Ah, I think I'm getting it now. I assumed you may have been a casual fan, who just happened to like the movies. I see now you actively dislike Tolkien. That's fine, there's no accounting for taste, and he's not for everyone. However I see little reason in pointing out the problems with your interpretation of these events. You're predisposed against him and we'll just end up going around in circles on this stuff.



I do love Tolkien! I adore his imagination and the mythos he created, and respect him above all else for the impact he's single-handedly had on the fantasy genre. I'm in no way a 'casual fan', and liking the movies doesn't make me one. I just recognise the various flaws in his writings and will not think twice to comment on them, just like how I will recognise the cinematic flaws in Peter Jackson's adaptations and comment on them (for example, I found the Tauriel romance to be tedious, and would rather more of the dwarves' characters were developed [although, as Tolkien pretty much wrote them like bags of sand having to be distinguished by hood colour, I suppose that's another criticism of him]).


----------



## Mythopoet

Tom Nimenai said:


> My reasoning is, when you read The Hobbit, you realize that it's something of a kids' book. It's simplistic, and it doesn't delve into a lot of complex subplots and other details.





BronzeOracle said:


> I agree with Tom, the story is more a kids book rather than a deeper story as LOTR was.



Just... just no. On so many levels no. The idea that just because a book's target audience is young that means it's simplistic... No. The idea that The Hobbit is simplistic... NO. The idea that The Hobbit can be summed up as "a kids book". Seriously? 

The Hobbit is written like a fairy tale, but it is a modern misconception that fairy tales were meant for children. Tolkien understood the true nature of fairy tales and he wrote The Hobbit with this understanding. It is not a "simplistic" tale (simplistic meaning _over_ simple or _too_ simple). Complexity does not equate to quality or to maturity. The themes of the Hobbit are significant and mature, but no they are not "adult" in the sense of only suitable for adults. They are universal. And The Hobbit is neither a kids book nor an adults book. It is universal as all good fairy tales are. 



Gryphos said:


> Well, from a storytelling standpoint it is arguable that explaining why a vitally important character disappears for half the story is necessary and far from pointless. I fact, to be honest, what the **** was Tolkien thinking writing the original story that way, even if it was for kids? That's bad storytelling from where I'm standing, and a mistake that should be recognised and scrutinised.





Gryphos said:


> Aye, I understand the intent Tolkien may have had, making Gandalf this mysterious, unpredictable character. But what he ended up actually making was a walking deus ex machina. Captured by goblins? Gandalf appears to kill the goblin king. War about to start between dwarves, elves and men over the riches of the mountain? Lol, Gandalf appears to tell everyone about a coming orc army that's never even been heard of up until that point, bringing an end to the previous conflict.
> 
> What's worse is the way Gandalf's departure before Mirkwood is explained later on when he appears. ("I was busy taking care of the Necromancer"......... Wat? Who? That dude who was mentioned like once or twice towards the start of the novel and presented as being this insanely powerful dude. You just popped off to 'take care of him', just casually, like it was a simple matter, a totally boring matter that the reader totally wouldn't be interested in seeing or even having explained a little bit more. Um, Tolkien, you wanna, you know, elaborate on that?... No?... Okay, fine.



I think your first mistake is in thinking that Gandalf is a "vitally important character" in The Hobbit. Certainly he is a significant character. But he is not "vitally important" to this particular story. He plays, rather than the role of a protagonist, the role of the Mentor. He advises and aids but he is not an active participant in the quest. It is a role as old as storytelling. 

Gandalf's talk of the Necromancer is, yes, meant to give Gandalf an aura of mystery and (general) importance, but it is also meant to give a feeling of depth to the wider world. The world seems more vast and fascinating because we know there are places we won't see and things we don't know about it. Worlds always feel smaller when they can be completely mapped. This kind of worldbuilding was Tolkien's greatest strength and a good lesson for all fantasy writers to learn. It leaves the reader with a longing for more which is NOT a negative. In the Hobbit it left readers primed for the opening up of the world in LOTR. When readers connect Gandalf's mention of the Necromancer in The Hobbit with the knowledge of Sauron gained in LOTR it's a satisfying moment of revelation about how the two stories are intertwined and about the nature of the world. It is, in fact, masterfully done. It is just one of the reasons why Tolkien's books will live on as classics for centuries.


----------



## Gryphos

Mythopoet said:
			
		

> I think your first mistake is in thinking that Gandalf is a "vitally important character" in The Hobbit. Certainly he is a significant character. But he is not "vitally important" to this particular story. He plays, rather than the role of a protagonist, the role of the Mentor. He advises and aids but he is not an active participant in the quest. It is a role as old as storytelling.
> 
> Gandalf's talk of the Necromancer is, yes, meant to give Gandalf an aura of mystery and (general) importance, but it is also meant to give a feeling of depth to the wider world. The world seems more vast and fascinating because we know there are places we won't see and things we don't know about it. Worlds always feel smaller when they can be completely mapped. This kind of worldbuilding was Tolkien's greatest strength and a good lesson for all fantasy writers to learn. It leaves the reader with a longing for more which is NOT a negative. In the Hobbit it left readers primed for the opening up of the world in LOTR. When readers connect Gandalf's mention of the Necromancer in The Hobbit with the knowledge of Sauron gained in LOTR it's a satisfying moment of revelation about how the two stories are intertwined and about the nature of the world. It is, in fact, masterfully done. It is just one of the reasons why Tolkien's books will live on as classics for centuries.



True, I would definitely classify Gandalf as a mentor character, but he _is_ an active participant in the quest. On multiple occasions he solves problems for the protagonists, before disappearing again until he's next needed. He's a walking deus ex machina.

As to the sense of a wider world, I totally agree that it can be used to establish a feeling of depth in the setting, referencing things that the reader has yet to know about so as to build curiosity. But, the thing about Gandalf's necromancer antics is that it's much more than a reference. Gandalf is physically taken out of the story because of it, and hence the story is deeply affected by it, but it's not explained. This is most definitely a matter of opinion, but I feel as though an event as important as one to separate a character from the story for an amount of time is an event that needs to be elaborated on. I don't need a separate POV to illustrate his side quest or even need it described in great detail, just something to make me understand his motives, understand why that thing was worth abandoning the main quest for.


----------



## Tom

Yikes, guys, let's calm down a little. Mythopoet especially--I bristled a touch when you mentioned Gryphos' "first mistake". Incanus, too--dismissing Gryphos as a "casual fan" or even saying that he must "dislike Tolkien" just because his opinion differs from yours just doesn't seem right to me.

This isn't a debate, it's a discussion, and I would hope that our goal in participating in it is _not_ to try to discredit anyone else's opinion. We can all share our opinions, but I think forcing our opinions on others or trying to invalidate their own is going a little far.

When I said it was "more of a kids' book" and "simplistic" I meant it doesn't have the extremely complex plots of Tolkien's other works. Look at The Silmarillion and LoTR. The Hobbit's plot is not as intricate as those--and that's a good thing. The Hobbit is so beloved because, like Mythopoet said, it's universal. It was written in a way that both adults and children can enjoy. 

My point was never to dismiss The Hobbit as a "kids' book". (And why would I look down on kids' books anyway? Some of the best books out there are considered kids' books.) My point was to explain that it has a different tone than The Silmarillion and LoTR. Bilbo' story is simpler and less dark than Frodo's or the First Age's, so the style of the book is less complex.


----------



## Black Dragon

Yes, let's be sure to maintain a respectful tone during this discussion.  I don't think that anyone intended to come across as rude or dismissive, but because so much communication is lost when voice and body language are removed, it becomes easy to misinterpret what someone is saying.

Ultimately, this is all a matter of taste and personal opinion, and people are entitled to have differing views. 

 Personally, I am a hardcore Tolkien fan, but I still enjoyed Peter Jackson's interpretation of the Hobbit.  Could it have worked fine as one film?  Probably.  But I liked spending nearly nine hours roaming around his interpretation of Middle Earth.  

It's not the book, but it was never meant to be.  It's an artistic endeavor inspired by the book.  And like all artistic endeavors, some people will appreciate it, and others will not.  And that's totally fine.


----------



## Tom

Can I just say that I enjoyed this thread a lot more in the beginning? It was fun to discuss what we liked and didn't like about the movies and/or books. Now it feels like everyone is getting defensive about their opinions.


----------



## Incanus

I hope everyone can believe that it is my sincere intention to engage in a civil discussion, and I've done my best to moderate my tone.  At the same time, I have opinions to express on this subject.  I guess the line between those two things is rather wide, and somewhat blurred.  I was also hoping my apology a few posts above might hold for a time.

At the risk of sounding defensive, I genuinely respect everyone's opinion here (and elsewhere), and in no way mean to dismiss anyone's view, or cram mine down anyone's throat.  People have expressed opinions quite opposite to mine, but I chose not to see them as dismissing me, or cramming their opinions down my throat, and would never dream of accusing anyone of such.  I would very much appreciate that the same courtesy be extended to me.

I admit to being baffled by Gryphos, but I will happily chalk it up to my own lack of understanding--I just don't get it, but it's OK.

Folks should be free to express opinions.  I count myself as a single member under the term 'folks', and am thus due exactly one opinion, no more, no less, just like everyone else.  In the interest of brevity, however, I can't always soft-peddle my statements, or burden them down with disclaimers.

I honestly am interested in an exchange of ideas, and much less interested in finger pointing or in questioning intentions.

Is everyone cool with this?  Am I making any sense?


----------



## Mythopoet

Tom Nimenai said:


> Yikes, guys, let's calm down a little. Mythopoet especially--I bristled a touch when you mentioned Gryphos' "first mistake".



Did you take note of the "I think" part? Is there something wrong with thinking that someone made a mistake? I don't see why there should be.


----------



## Tom

Mythopoet said:


> Did you take note of the "I think" part? Is there something wrong with thinking that someone made a mistake? I don't see why there should be.



Yes, I did take note of the "I think" part. But while I did appreciate your point of view on Gandalf's role in The Hobbit, what you said about Gryphos' "first mistake" irked me. I think it's perfectly okay to explain your own interpretation of a character and his role in the story. However, calling Gryphos' view a "mistake" wasn't okay in my opinion. 

Having a different interpretation of a character's role is not a mistake; no one's interpretation is the "right" one, as we're all different and see the world a different way. There might be one interpretation that's more accurate than others, yes, but that doesn't mean other people are making a mistake by interpreting it differently.


----------



## Mythopoet

Having an opinion that directly contradicts someone else's opinion is not disrespect, nor is it an insult by any measure. And honestly, I am sick and tired of voicing my thoughts and opinions in disagreement with others and being pounced on from all quarters as if I've committed some kind of atrocity. Surprisingly enough, one can express one's firm beliefs and opinions in disagreement with others without disrespecting them as a person. I respect all persons and their right to their own thoughts, but I do not believe that opinions themselves are owed any respect. Opinions should be held to the highest standards of reason otherwise they become meaningless.


----------



## Tom

I was not pouncing on your opinion--in fact, I respect and appreciate your opinion. I was merely stating that it felt as if you were calling someone else's opinion a mistake. Sorry if I stepped on your toes.


----------



## Incanus

Getting back on point here, I think the decision to make a short book into three long films bears scrutiny.  All the adaption choices and padding and non-relevant sub-plots are a direct result of this decision.  I asked this earlier, but it got sort of buried, and we got a little off track, so I'd like to repeat it:



Incanus said:


> Thousands of novels have been adapted to film, many quite well, but no short/medium sized book has ever been made into three long films before.  If novels are so naturally adapted in this manner, then why haven't movies been done this way all along?



I can think of only one extenuating circumstance that has some bearing on this:  Tolkien's greater legendarium.  Many, if not most, stand-alone novels don't have this meta-feature, a story that takes place in a world written about in other works by the same author.  While I can see how this might inform an adaption, it hardly suffices to triple the length of a film based on a slim novel.

One more question:  If the Hobbit had been made BEFORE Lotr, would anyone, anywhere have even considered making it into three films?  Highly doubtful.  It would have been one, 2-hour feature, or 3 tops.  And it would have been just fine.  I submit that the evidence points to (note that I'm not saying 'proves') monetary considerations, not artistic ones.

I'm just asking a couple of honest questions that I don't think have been satisfactorily explained, at least to me.  Maybe there is something I have not considered; I may very well be missing something, or glossing over something.  If so, I'll change my tune accordingly, though I'll never 'love', or even 'like' these films much.


----------



## Tom

For sure. I think the decision to divide The Hobbit into three films was a money grab for certain. 

Despite all the films' disappointments and sometimes utter ridiculousness, I still like them. Seeing Tolkien's world vividly depicted is my real reason for sticking it out; otherwise the Tauriel subplot would have ended it for me. Tauriel as a character was okay. Tauriel as a member of a love triangle...less okay.


----------



## Gryphos

Oh absolutely it was a money grab – no question about that. But I'm less inclined to complain, mainly because I happen to love the films. I could have easily spent another half hour watching that sick battle.


----------



## Black Dragon

Incanus said:


> I can think of only one extenuating circumstance that has some bearing on this:  Tolkien's greater legendarium.  Many, if not most, stand-alone novels don't have this meta-feature, a story that takes place in a world written about in other works by the same author.



Yes, that is the primary justification for making it a trilogy.  The Peter Jackson version of the Hobbit was never really just "The Hobbit."  It is The Hobbit + LOTR Appendices + The Quest for Erebor (from Unfinished Tales).  People who were expecting a straightforward adaptation of The Hobbit novel are justified in their disappointment.  Personally, I enjoyed seeing Tolkien's greater legendarium interpreted for the screen.  That's what I was hoping to see, and was more than satisfied with the results.



> One more question:  If the Hobbit had been made BEFORE Lotr, would anyone, anywhere have even considered making it into three films?  Highly doubtful.  It would have been one, 2-hour feature, or 3 tops.  And it would have been just fine.  I submit that the evidence points to (note that I'm not saying 'proves') monetary considerations, not artistic ones.



For the studios involved (MGM & Warner Brothers) I have no doubt that the possibility of a greater profit motivated them to make this a trilogy.  But they weren't the ones who ultimately made that call.  It was Peter Jackson's idea to turn the 2 films into a trilogy after his original 2 film edit didn't quite work.  

Jackson explains what happened in the Blu-Ray extras, and it's pretty interesting.  He made a rough edit of the two-part version, in which the first film ended with the dwarves escaping from Mirkwood in the barrels.  No matter how he tweaked it, it never felt right with the first film ending there.  By ending the first film with the eagle rescue sequence, and expanding the project into a trilogy, he was more satisfied with the results.

Also, if you listen to the commentaries and watch the Blu-ray extras, it is very apparent that Peter Jackson wasn't looking for a cash-grab.  He is extremely passionate about these films, and this really comes through in the commentaries and extras.  For him, this was a labor of love.


----------



## Incanus

Interesting.  Thanks for the honest replies.  I'm a pretty big movie fan, and normally I would be OK with a big fantasy action blockbuster kind of thing, forgiving of the over-the-top action and whatnot.  If this was a brand new story, not based on a loved novel, I'd probably even be a fan of it.  On the other hand, I'm not much of a comic book fan, or a fan of all these movies based on comic books.  I place Tolkien pretty high on the literature ladder (despite the fact that he is generally either loathed or ignored by the literary 'elites'), and just don't like seeing any of his stories brought down to what appears to be a comic book level.  I hope I don't sound too pretentious saying that; I do consider comic book stuff to be a close cousin to my favorite genres, and I like a few of the movies, here and there.  And, I'm the last person to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't enjoy.  I seek out the things I love, and expect that others are doing the same.  It's all good.  I'm not trying to pass judgements, just expressing tastes (at least that is my intention, though it wouldn't surprise me to suddenly find my foot planted firmly inside my mouth!)

PJ may have been passionate about these movies, but it doesn't seem to be coming across in the results.  For LOTR, they really worked their butts off to pull it all off; for this one, they seem to be sort of floating through it all, resting on their laurels.  It just feels like PJ is doing a cheap re-make of LOTR, rather than starting something new and fresh.  It's looking like he's got at least one thing in common with George Lucas:  weak-prequel syndrome.

More than ever, I wish they did the Hobbit first, before LOTR.

I swear I'm not normally a jerk!  This whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.  I guess this is more 'rant' than anything else.  Just thought I'd provide a little more context on my not-so-popular viewpoint.


----------



## Ireth

Frankly, I love both the movies and the books, flaws and all. I just prefer to think of the movies as fanfiction -- albeit VERY expensive, VERY time-consuming fanfiction made by VERY dedicated people. It doesn't make them bad; it just means they're not the same as the books. They're enjoyable on their own merits.


----------



## Incanus

Ireth said:


> Frankly, I love both the movies and the books, flaws and all. I just prefer to think of the movies as fanfiction -- albeit VERY expensive, VERY time-consuming fanfiction made by VERY dedicated people. It doesn't make them bad; it just means they're not the same as the books. They're enjoyable on their own merits.



A very good way to look at it; reasonable and healthy.  I wanted so very much to have a Hobbit movie to like.  I just can't quite make this leap.  It's even remotely possible that I'll ease up over the ensuing years and begin to see it this way.  In the meantime, thank goodness for TolkienEditor!

(By the way, I LOVE your avatar, Ireth.  Where is it from?  I mean I know it is Wizard of Oz, but that's not the exact witch from the movie.  She wasn't that hot!  Who is that?)


----------



## Ireth

Thanks, Incanus! My avatar is Elphaba (aka the Wicked Witch of the West) as she's seen in the musical Wicked, not The Wizard of Oz. Can't recall the actress's name offhand.


----------



## Jabrosky

I know I've said earlier that I didn't mind Tauriel so much in the movies, but now I'm seeing her creation as part of a larger Hollywood trend that I can only describe as cynical and exploitative.

Remember that African-American Annie from last December, and the recent announcements that James Bond will be cast as Afro-British and the Ghostbusters as women? None of these changes would seem objectionable in isolation, but taken in sum, they give off the vibe that Hollywood's using the theme of diversity to disguise their ongoing fetish with reboots and adaptations.

"See, we're not 100% rehashing the cinematic past, because we decided to change X's race and Y's gender!"

(Or in the case of _The Hobbit_, change one minor elven character's gender and give them a bigger role in the story.)

It's like they believe moviegoers will forgive cinematic cannibalism if it gives certain characters a cosmetic yet politically-charged makeover.


----------



## Mythopoet

Ireth said:


> Thanks, Incanus! My avatar is Elphaba (aka the Wicked Witch of the West) as she's seen in the musical Wicked, not The Wizard of Oz. Can't recall the actress's name offhand.



The musical Wicked is of course based on the book Wicked by Gregory Maguire which is quite a good read. Recommended.


----------



## Ireth

Mythopoet said:


> The musical Wicked is of course based on the book Wicked by Gregory Maguire which is quite a good read. Recommended.



I read the book before seeing the musical, and I have to say I prefer the latter. The book is too heavy on sex, gore and politics for my taste.


----------



## Tom

I had a friend who loved Wicked--when it was touring at Shea's she pushed me to go see it. She preferred the musical over the book as well. She and I lost contact a few years ago, and I still haven't seen it.


----------



## Mythopoet

I've never seen or heard the musical. Never really felt any desire to (despite being a huge fan of many musicals). I knew it was going to be different from the book and I liked the book. Yes, it was pretty heavy but it had a big emotional impact on me.


----------

