The Hobbit: The Tolkien Edit

[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]

@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]

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]

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 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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.