I'll note that, though disappointed, I didn't hate the movie. Far from it. I just didn't love it, which I was hoping to. So this is me:
'Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it is good, both as a series of movies in its own right and as a (by my lights) faithful retelling of the story as a part of Middle Earth, with the perspective granted by time, and the ability to make it mesh with what is, in literary terms, the greater of the two pieces of work. I think that is the reason you see so many people talking about how they disapproved of the stuff that was changed or added, but concluding with “I still really liked it, though I don’t know why, and I guess I’ll just have to wait until next Christmas to see if the whole thing pays off.”'
Reshared post from +Doyce Testerman
It doesn't matter what I titled this post, because not hating the movie is going to draw the maximum amount of vitriol without any other factors considered.
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug is Better than the Book It’s Based On |
In the very first printing of The Hobbit, there are a few tiny errors. Inconsistencies in map labels. Misspellings of a few words. And a little thing Tolkien charmingly referred to as “the issue with Chapter Five.” What he’s referring to is that, in the first published version of the story, …
I got out of the shower this morning (the "idea box") and said to Kate "I have a good/terrible idea for a blog post and title."
Great minds, man.
+Doyce Testerman I was thinking about this a bit more after I rushed to share this then had to dash for the train.
I think we agree that there were changes that had to be made for the medium, for the expected audience, and in the context of the greater Middle-Earth Saga (I'd call it the Ring Cycle, but that might confuse some folks). Some of the changes were introduced by the expansion of the book into a pair, then trio, of series, in part driving toward a bigger picture saga, in part because each time you set up an additional move to fit in just X more story, suddenly the beats all change and you have to rewrite gobs, which opens up new possibilities for still more new stuff — for better and for worse.
(Btw, I like your idea that Tolkien would have rewritten "The Hobbit" — especially if it had not been published. He was an inveterate tinkerer of worlds — in a sense, the books he did publish were largely because he wanted to zero in on bits of that world's history, and then had to deal with new and/or better ideas down the line.)
I think your focus was more on the need for representing the story to fit the new medium, the new audience (both demographically and culturally). My focus (on the negative half of the review, at least) was more on some of the bad (or less wise) decisions PJ and the writers had where they were Making Up Stuff (which you alude to but, except for some comments about Tauriel, don't go into detail on). (Which does make me wonder about your thoughts on the everything that goes on in Erebor after Bilbo flees Smaug and runs into Thorin.)
(Re Tauriel, my final eye-rolling moment was "Aw, jeeze, the token woman and not only is she mooning over the guys, but now she's taking care of the sick — what next, she does dishes?" That may be unfair, but …)
(That said, thanks for noting the Eldar geekiness of all the starlight bits. They were a good thing.)
I've figured out my other criticism of the movie — not nearly enough Galadriel. I suspect we'll correct that next episode, but I want more than just a started "Uh-oh" look.
Re: my thoughts on that last action scene in Erebor.
I was talking with Kate about my thoughts on that after reading this reply, and we both realized I have easily another post just on that topic. So… expect one tomorrow! 🙂
… Dave stares at the screen as Doyce departs to type another post on the subject. "What have we done …?"
Here you go. 🙂
http://doycetesterman.com/index.php/2013/12/one-more-hobbitdesolation-post-closure/