"A question about the Hobbit and the Desolation of Smaug" Topic

I thought I read aomewhere that Peter Jackson got a hold of Tolkien's notes for the Hobbit which had a lot of the add on that appear in the new movies but now I can't find it. So did Jackson have notes or did he just pick up the movie football and run with it??

I'd say picked up the football and ran a crazy double-reverse flea-flicker play… on 2nd and goal at the one.

There's a good write-up in Smithsonian Magazine that addresses that aspect, among other considerations, as they impact the degree to which Jackson stayed true to the letter vs. the spirit of Tolkien (and what he straight up invented).

These two guys believe he did have access to and did reference manuscripts, notes, etc.

link

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

from an interview with Christopher Tolkein in Le Monde.

In my opinion, he picked up the movie football, ran the wrong way and was tackled for a safety.

A lot of the extra stuff is alluded to in LOTR, Unfinished Tales, and the history of middle earth books that Chris Tolkien edited.

But then Jackson just invented a lot more for the film.

Tolkein wrote some story fragments that was collected into "The Quest of Erebor" to link The Hobbit with The Lord of the Rings trilogy. So Jackson drew from that -- too bad he didn't draw more heavily! I really thought Movie 2 would have a lot more of the Quest of Erebor in it, and have the battle at Dol Guldur in it. In the Quest, Gandalf escapes Dol Guldur and reports to the Council. The Council takes action and an army of Elves went and spanked the forces of the Necromancer gathering there. Sauron fled to Mordor as a result. Would have been a really cool battle, Elves against Orcs and Spiders.

link

I think the White Council are coming to Dol Guldur in movie three, Lee let slip he's in the third movie & there's loads of sword play. Can't have the bleedin eagles saving Gandalf again.

As to extensive use of Tolkiens notes, cobblers (IMPO). Jackson is a calamity for Tolkien fans. Fantastic movies though.

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

Yes, I think Tolkien's son pretty much summed it up.

And of course Jackson reference Tolkien's other published works and filled in some of the back story of the Hobbit in making his movie. And in true Hollywood fashion ruined a masterpiece of literature. Jackson may have captured the look of the story on film, but not the spirit of the book.

He "ruined" a piece of literature? Really? The book remains the book, and the movie is a separate thing entirely (as will ALWAYS be the case in adaptations). I think the book remains exactly as it always has been, unless you have knowledge of elfin ne'er-do-wells mucking about with the printing presses at the publisher. 8)=

Regardless if you enjoyed the films many, many more people will end up reading the books as a result of them being made. And they can decide for themselves whether Jackson succeeded in producing a set of quality adaptations. I'm one who thinks he did, and that a straight-up faithful movie of any of Tolkien's work would be pretty awful on the whole.

I think the White Council are coming to Dol Guldur in movie three, Lee let slip he's in the third movie & there's loads of sword play. Can't have the bleedin eagles saving Gandalf again.

I don't think so, because that battle only logically fit into Movie 2. Movie 3 has the much bigger Battle of Five Armies to deal with, so the Eagle rescue theory makes a lot of sense and would allow Jackson to segue seamlessly into Gandalf coming to the rescue with the army of the Eagles in Movie 3…

He "ruined" a piece of literature? Really? The book remains the book, and the movie is a separate thing entirely (as will ALWAYS be the case in adaptations). I think the book remains exactly as it always has been, unless you have knowledge of elfin ne'er-do-wells mucking about with the printing presses at the publisher.

My biggest issue with the movie, from my view, is that Jackson's over the top action scenes, piled so quickly on top of each other, make it tough to watch. Not sure if I need to watch it again for quite a while. That plus some simple continuity stuff would have been nice. I mean, of Bard's barge gets a deep inspection before he can pass through a water gate into Laketown, why is the main bridge to the mainland left so completely ungaurded that bands of Warg riders and groups of elves on horses can just ride in and out unchallenged??

Christopher Tolkien is correct. Peter Jackson's hobbit movies are definitely for kids… today's kids raised on action movies and video games. My son loves the book and also thought the movie was "awesome".

You will also notice that the Hobbit is less gritty than Jackson's LOTR… less blood and much more comic book heroic.
This seems to be a nod towards being oriented towards a kid story… albeit today's kids… which seems correct.

For me… cut about 20 minutes of action out of part 1 & 2 and I would have been happy. I think you could do it easily… you would have a tighter set of movies as well. The kids probably wouldn't find them as exciting.

Joe Collins

less blood and much more comic book heroic

Unless you ignore the half-a-dozen decapitations with heads being severed…

Still beats the crap out of the Rankin Bass version. though truthfully Thorpn's voice will always be Hans Conreid in my head.

Still beats the crap out of the Rankin Bass version.

R&B managed to keep with the story throughout. On that point, it is far superior to the new version of the Hobbit.

I understood that any guard on the bridgw was slayed by the orcs

I understood that any guard on the bridgw was slayed by the orcs

Maybe, but there seems to be no gatehouse on the bridge, unlike the tightly controlled and guarded water gates…so one must imagine that off camera the Ninja Orcs rode unseen up the long well lit bridge, stormed a gatehouse and opened the gates, and then left their (usually noisy) Wargs someplace while they took to the rooftops of Laketown without any alarm being raised…

I liked both movies so far. The one thing I love about books turned into movies is now I can put a face with a name from a book; example Harry Potter will now always be Daniel Radcliffe, Gandalf will be Sir Ian Murray McKellen and so.

Jackson's over the top action scenes, piled so quickly on top of each other, make it tough to watch

Jackson, for all his accomplishments, lacks subtlety. Each scene needs to be MOAR EPIC!!1!!1! and EXTREME!!!111!1 than the last.

Still beats the crap out of the Rankin Bass version.

R&B managed to keep with the story throughout. On that point, it is far superior to the new version of the Hobbit.

I'd rather be forced to watch a Smurf marathon than sit through the R&B monstrosity. I'll take PJ's version any day of the week. In fact, despite its flaws, I'll probably see it again.

I liked both the Rankin-Bass cartoon and the Peter Jackson version. Neither one is perfect, and neither one is 100 percent true to the source material. Still, they're great for what they are: a cartoon and a set of epic movies, respectively.

Sour grape comments from someone who has made a career out of collating "Notes that fell of Dad's desk behind the radiator" about someone else'd approach… amuses me.

The movies will still be the movies, and the books will still be the books.
Just remember that up to now, all we knew of the history of Middle Earth was the notoriously halfling centered Red Book. There has to be more to the story.

Jackson's LoTR brought familiar characters and places to life. In the Hobbit pt. 1 he made those same things unrecognizable.

IIRC Jackson can only use what's in the Hobbit and Lotr, the rights to all other works including Unfinished Tales etc still resides with the Tolkien estate. This means he can't really touch characters or story points from the likes of the Silmarillion. Not sure what the status of things like notes and letters are.

Chris Tolkien is a sour old man who hates anything that anyone tries to do with his father's stories. But he doesn't mind cashing the checks from selling the rights to his father's work.

I loved the LOTR movies (and books). Gotta say that I didn't care much for the Hobbit, tho'. Too much like an Indiana Jones movie for my taste. But, if people enjoy it. then good for them. And good for Peter Jackson who at least tried to entertain us.

The best part of Jackson movies is watching the Purist Faction absolutely flog themselves publicly. Who doesn't enjoy that?!

Here, watch, I'll stir the pot:

"Thranduil riding a moose…"

I don't think so, because that battle only logically fit into Movie 2. Movie 3 has the much bigger Battle of Five Armies to deal with, so the Eagle rescue theory makes a lot of sense and would allow Jackson to segue seamlessly into Gandalf coming to the rescue with the army of the Eagles in Movie 3…

We'll see next year, but check out Mr Lee, around 7 min 35 sec in. YouTube link

Jackson's LoTR brought familiar characters and places to life. In the Hobbit pt. 1 he made those same things unrecognizable.

Yep!

…so one must imagine that off camera the Ninja Orcs rode unseen up the long well lit bridge, stormed a gatehouse and opened the gates, and then left their (usually noisy) Wargs someplace while they took to the rooftops of Laketown without any alarm being raised…

Having said that, these are Ninja Orcs with morgul weapons, so it only stands to reason that they also had access to the same winged mounts that the Nazgul rode in the first trilogy – the Ninjorcs had the winged mounts land them on the roofs (after carefully gagging them first to avoid waking up anyone with their screeching, and that is how they avoided detection ;)

I thoroughly enjoyed both Jackson's LotR and the two Hobbit movies. That said, I would still like to see someone make The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit. Jackson's movies are more based on characters from the books than they are based on the books. Still good movies just not Tolkien.

Well, if y'all are gonna apply logic and sound military strategy to a Tolkien story, we're gonna be asking why they didn't just do the famed Eagle Bombing Run to Mount Doom to dispose of the One Ring…

Sauce for the goose on that one.

But, let's address the Laketown "defenses." You're mistaken if you think Laketown's water gate in the film was a defensive military guard post. It wasn't a guard post; it was a Customs post— there to collect taxes via the only (used) trade route into Laketown! That's quite clear in the film. It's also clear that the Master of Laketown wouldn't waste a single copper of his, err, "the town's" revenue on "excessive military spending." His guards were basically his little pocket Gestapo; they weren't tasked with defending the town from anyone— they were tasked with maintaining his power over the townspeople (and, of course, his personal wealth). Corrupt governments rarely care about external defense. The Master would no more have bothered to defend the bridge route than he would have bothered to man that crossbow on the roof (which you'll note wasn't manned). No trade came that way; no trade went that way— so why bother? And even then, there were no enemies nearby as far as Laketown knew (besides a dragon that hadn't stirred or harassed them in forty some-odd years). To the west were the elves— good friends and trading partners, and certainly (one would assume) an effective blocking force. To the south were more trading partners via the river, and to the east, well, pretty much nothing. Defenses? Against whom? "Everyone" knew the orcs were well to the north and west of Mirkwood, in distant mountain regions no one had even seen. Heck, nobody in Laketown had probably ever seen an orc. Why would they expect an orc raid, or any other sort of raid at all?

So the lack of any effective defensive effort is perfectly reasonable in the context of both the film and the book (if you recall, in the novel, Bard is a captain of the town guard, and presented as the only one with any real military sense or expectation of possible danger— and even then, he's taken by surprise by the arrival of thirteen water-logged dwarves and a hobbit with a head cold).

While I didn't much care for the ninja-orc business, that had more to do with the stupid Fili storyline than objections to how they got into and out of town.

(By the way, where did Legolas get that horse?)

"and to the east, well, pretty much nothing."

Actually to the East were the Dwarves that lived in the Iron Mountains.

As to the Fili storyline well we know how that ends.

So come the 3rd movie a lot of individuals who have never read the Hobbit are going to be really upset.

More likely a lot of people who have read the Hobbit are going to be really upset.