You'll notice I haven't discussed the upcoming The Hobbit film much. That's because... well, I can't really think of anything to say. Everything that was great and wonderful in Jackson's The Lord of the Rings will probably be great and wonderful in The Hobbit. With that, everything that was frustrating and infuriating about Jackson's The Lord of the Rings will too, probably.
I don't doubt the costumes, props, shots, sets, landscapes and score will be outstanding, right down to the lovingly inscribed Tengwar on the swords, the sadistic practicalities of goblin apparel, and the meticulously carved Khazad runes on the dwarves' armour. I foresee earnest and heartfelt acting from the cast, much effort and enthusiasm from the crew, and eagerness to give due props to the man responsible for it all. At the same time, I don't doubt Jackson's direction will be strongest with horror while faltering with the melodrama, Most of all, while I know the outline of the story will be adhered to, and most of the characters, places, events and things will make it in, they may well be radically altered from their original state.
It's a very different situation from that other upcoming literary "adaptation." With that film, there isn't really any hope that it's going to be anything more than the main character In Name Only, and one can easily discount it as an adaptation. But with The Hobbit, it's more complex. This will still be the story of Bilbo Baggins joining a company of dwarves in the Quest for Erebor, he will encounter a dragon named Smaug the Golden, and a wizard called Gandalf will appear and disappear on some undisclosed business. At the end, Bilbo is present for a massive Battle of Five Armies, and he returns home to Hobbiton enriched and vitalized by the experience.
There's just such a vast gulf of difference. Even considering the horrible handling of Faramir, Denethor, the Ents, Theoden, and Aragorn, and the complete lack of Beregond, the Barrow-Downs, and especially the Scouring, Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is recognizably an adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. So we can argue about the changes being made and interpretations being done until the Kine of Araw come home, but until then, one can say that, for all its faults, Jackson et al really thought they were giving it their all, and were giving the world their interpretation of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
Case in point, a lot of photoshops have popped up with the actors in the roles they have been cast. This fantastic speculative impression of Richard Armitage as Thorin is an example. Similarly, a few photoshops of Jason Momoa turned up from various quarters, suggesting what he might look like as Conan. This is easy to do, when you have an idea of who the character is. Thus far, I haven't seen any photoshops of Stephen Lang as Khalar Zym. Why is that? Because nobody knows who the hell Khalar Zym is. Ah well, I guess I said my piece a long time ago, and I doubt I'll be changing my mind. Even if they get Christina Hendricks to play "Itaril."
I'm more surprised that people are acting surprised at the news that Cate Blanchett will be reprising her role as Galadriel in The Hobbit, and the very distinct possibility of Orlando Bloom reprising his role as Legolas, than I am surprised at the actual news. Not even the fact that three of the most important actors whose characters actually do appear in The Hobbit - McKellan, Serkis and Weaving - are nowhere to be seen.
Various outlets are apparently shocked, shocked I say, at Jackson & Co making such sweeping changes to the source material, and wonders how the fandom will react. Erm... did they watch the same movies I did? Because there were a lot of changes made that can be laid squarely at the feet of Jackson and his cohorts: completely redoing the Siege of Barad-dur, Sauron being a floating eyeball, Lurtz, Arwen's expanded role, butchering the Entmoot, Elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn's Magical Mystery Water Adventure, Frodo & Sam go to Osgiliath, and countless smaller additions than that. Hell, did they even read previous reports, about the spunky female elf, her hot elf boyfriend and the Master of Laketown's toady? Not to mention Galadriel's hardly the first character in the legendarium that doesn't appear in The Hobbit to make an appearance: she joins Radagast the Brown, after all.
It was inevitable that there would be female characters in The Hobbit. Two thirds of the writing team are female, after all. So Galadriel isn't a shocker, and seeing her appear squares with her role in the downfall of the Necromancer, which was coincidental with the events of The Hobbit. I wouldn't be surprised to see Arwen make an appearance either, and I've resigned to the idea of the infamous female elf making the rumour rounds being a likelihood. I can, sadly, see the problem: unlike The Lord of the Rings, there really aren't any female characters of note. I just wish they would keep to the characters that are there, like Galadriel, and not infect the films with their fan fiction.
The Hobbit presents a problem to Hollywood because there are no women in it. I can just hear "Tolkien was a misogynist!" screaming in the background. So I think a love interest is going to be introduced into the story, but which male character will be smitten by a fair elf maid? Bilbo, Gandalf, The Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain? The possibilities are endless.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they'll switch things around so Galadriel is Bofur's love interest and she can be the one who tricks the Trolls. Legolas can snowboard down the Lonely Mountain on Smaug's missing scale and slam dunk the Arkenstone into a bushel at Bard's feet. Thorin can look into the camera and say "BEEN A BARD DAY'S NIGHT" before giving a thumb's up and a wink.
ReplyDeleteAnd when the Eagles show up, they can be Don Henley and Glenn Frey.
Wish Guillermo del Toro was still on this. :(
I don't mind the addition of Legolas to the Battle of Five armies, it makes an odd sort of sense that he, being the Eleven King's son.. would be there and be in a position of some authority. And the addition of Elven Females to his van would not be unheard of either. But I imagine she will be kick-ass elven bowcaster wench extraordinaire since that seems to be the only sort of female warrior they ever do in movies these days. I imagine that the problem with Mckellen is that he's wanting a LOT more money this time around. Weaving it may simply be trying to work out how to do it, around all the other projects he is working on.. Transformers 3, Captain America, and for all we know the Avengers.. it could just be tricky. I imagine Serkis could be the same thing, considering how demanding physically the Gollum part was previously.. he could just want more money then Jackson is willing to pay. Which would explain why so many of the actors cast so far are virtually unknown to the world at large.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'm still hoping Jackson will cast David Bowie as Tranduil. Just cause it would be awesome, even if it is unlikely to happen.
Actually, I think we have to say that Jackson et al. _did_ give us their interpretation of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Which is sort of the point: it's not Tolkien's interpretation, or my interpretation, or someone else's interpretation (all of which are quite likely to be different!), but their interpretation. We may like or dislike some or all or none of it, but it's just PJ & Co.'s interpretation, at the end of the day. So if they want to patch Galadriel or Arwen in around the edges of the _The Hobbit_ -- eh, it's their adaptation.
ReplyDeleteAs for another Film Project That Shall Not Be Named Here -- well, some adaptations are more faithful, some less. Such is life.
Some might say: "I have known many adaptations. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond the titles. They may be Milius's sub-Viking fantasy averred by the textual purists skeptics, or Funsoft's virtual realm of thud and blunder, or the low-budget plains and shabby halls of Lionsgate. I know not, nor do I care. I still live deep where I live in the minds of a thousand fans and readers; I do not forget the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if multimedia adaptations are illusions, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusions are real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, I appear in a million book covers, comic books, games, action figures, and video adaptations -- and am content."
:)
"Wish Guillermo del Toro was still on this."
ReplyDeleteWhy? I like Del Toro's stuff but his adaptations take just as many liberties with the source material as Jackson's, especially the second Hellboy and by most accounts his Lovecraft adaptation is going to take even more liberties. And his sensibilities really aren't very far from Jackson's as they both love monsters and bawdy humor above all else.
The Hobbit presents a problem to Hollywood because there are no women in it. I can just hear "Tolkien was a misogynist!" screaming in the background. So I think a love interest is going to be introduced into the story, but which male character will be smitten by a fair elf maid?
ReplyDeleteIndeed. While I think the idea that one has to inset female characters in a predominantly male-dominated work - or the reverse, for that matter - is highly insulting to the viewer's intelligence, It's so infuriatingly pervasive that it seems impossible to overcome. That said, I - shock, horror! - don't actually mind the use of Galadriel in The Hobbit. So long as she doesn't do anything really stupid.
Anyway, since the film appears to be using the whole Necromancer storyline from the appendices/HoME, I'd totally love to see the siege of Dol Goldur, which Galadriel was present for.
I don't mind the addition of Legolas to the Battle of Five armies, it makes an odd sort of sense that he, being the Eleven King's son.. would be there and be in a position of some authority.
Neither do I, really. There's every possibility that Legolas could've been involved. The only problem is it's very odd Legolas never brings up the fact that he fought alongside Gimli's father. So hopefully his presence will be only just enough to not stretch credulity, and they don't do something ludicrous like replace Thranduil's role with his.
I imagine that the problem with Mckellen is that he's wanting a LOT more money this time around. Weaving it may simply be trying to work out how to do it, around all the other projects he is working on.. Transformers 3, Captain America, and for all we know the Avengers.. it could just be tricky. I imagine Serkis could be the same thing, considering how demanding physically the Gollum part was previously.. he could just want more money then Jackson is willing to pay. Which would explain why so many of the actors cast so far are virtually unknown to the world at large.
Sounds about right. Can't really blame them, either.
Personally I'm still hoping Jackson will cast David Bowie as Tranduil. Just cause it would be awesome, even if it is unlikely to happen.
... You absolute bastard. Now I'll never be able to imagine Thranduil without humming "Magic Dance."
Actually, I think we have to say that Jackson et al. _did_ give us their interpretation of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. Which is sort of the point: it's not Tolkien's interpretation, or my interpretation, or someone else's interpretation (all of which are quite likely to be different!), but their interpretation. We may like or dislike some or all or none of it, but it's just PJ & Co.'s interpretation, at the end of the day. So if they want to patch Galadriel or Arwen in around the edges of the _The Hobbit_ -- eh, it's their adaptation.
Perhaps I worded myself wrong: I think it's clear that this *is* Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's interpretation - of course it is, how couldn't it be? - but that their interpretation isn't as close to the text as it could be. In my opinion, of course.
"I have known many adaptations. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond the titles. They may be Milius's sub-Viking fantasy averred by the textual purists skeptics, or Funsoft's virtual realm of thud and blunder, or the low-budget plains and shabby halls of Lionsgate. I know not, nor do I care. I still live deep where I live in the minds of a thousand fans and readers; I do not forget the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if multimedia adaptations are illusions, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusions are real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, I appear in a million book covers, comic books, games, action figures, and video adaptations -- and am content."
ReplyDeleteMitra bless you, Carl, that's one of the best things I've read all week!
Why? I like Del Toro's stuff but his adaptations take just as many liberties with the source material as Jackson's, especially the second Hellboy and by most accounts his Lovecraft adaptation is going to take even more liberties. And his sensibilities really aren't very far from Jackson's as they both love monsters and bawdy humor above all else.
I can't speak for Scott, but I find del Toro a better director than Jackson, personally speaking. They both suffer from the same faults, and benefit from the same strengths, but overall I think del Toro is a tighter, more coherent director than Jackson is. So even though he'd likely make just as many alterations to the source material as Jackson, I think the good bits would be a lot better.
well, I'd originally thought of Jeremy Irons. But the problem with that is, typically, if it is a fantasy movie, and he's in it, it's absolute crap. See Exhibit A) Dungeons and Dragons and Exhibit B) Eregon.
ReplyDeleteThe wild card of course was "The Colour of Magic" in which he had a small part but was otherwise not particularly offensive. I don't think it's that he's a bad actor at all.. just that when it comes to picking which Fantasy films to be in he's not got much of a nose for it.
As for not mentioning Gloin, that's entirely reasonable. He perhaps never actually interacted with him. Especially considering the decidedly poor relations his father had with the dwarves in question. I would be very disappointed if Thranduil went the way of Glorfindel.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I'm hoping, is that the rumours of the movie having Aragorn in it as a Cameo proove to be misunderstood. I'm not entirely sure of the chronology of his time at Imladiris but It's not outside the realm of possibility for him to have been their when Bilbo and the Dwarves visited. But, He was 87 in the Ring's movies, which since Bilbo was 111 in that, and is 50 in The Hobbit.. He would only be 25, And I'd say that more roughly coincides with his time spent in Rohan or Gondor.
The worst things of the original movie trilogy are:
ReplyDelete-Gimli is a MORON.
-The cuts (they made a horse important, but they don't explain from where he came. They made Lembas important, but they don't explain from where he came. They made savage men and east warriors important but we never see them fight)
-Frodo and Sam in Osgilliath.
-The Death of Denethor.
-The "slimer" army in Minas Tirith (thrill of the battle, go away!!).
-Mordor being a minuscule amusement park.
-And, most important of them all, The Dark Lord being a FUCKING LIGHTHOUSE.
The rest of the changes really don't bother me. I always hoped the Hobbit being a better adaptation because it is more a lighthearted straightfoward adventure. It is easier to transform it into a movie... but they want to make TWO movies of epic proportions with many references to LOTR as possible. So, actually, I don't know what to think.
You said that Del Toro suffer from the same faults than Jackson: you are absolutely wrong. he suffers from the OPPOSITE faults.
ReplyDeleteJackson sacrifices MOMENTS for the movie STRUCTURE. Guillermo sacrifices the movie STRUCTURE for the MOMENTS. Jackson sacrifices the PSYCHOLOGY of the characters for his MOTIVATIONS. Guillermo sacrifices the MOTIVATIONS of the characters for his PSYCHOLOGY. Jackson sacrifices MAGIC for SIMPLICITY. Guillermo sacrifices SIMPLICITY for MAGIC.
That's why I found VERY interesting the colaboration between the two. But now... we will have both "The Hobbit" and "The mountains of madness" and, unfortunately, I really don't know if I will enjoy any of them.
I don't think it's that he's a bad actor at all.. just that when it comes to picking which Fantasy films to be in he's not got much of a nose for it.
ReplyDeleteIrons once apparently replied to the question "why did you do Dungeons & Dragons?" with "Are you kidding? I'd just bought a castle, I had to pay for it somehow!" Eh, if I'd just bought a castle I'd probably do that too.
As for not mentioning Gloin, that's entirely reasonable. He perhaps never actually interacted with him. Especially considering the decidedly poor relations his father had with the dwarves in question.
Hmm, it could be made to work, yes. Overall, including Galadriel and Legolas aren't as bothersome to me. It would be like including a Thoth-Amon subplot in The Hour of the Dragon: though his story wasn't detailed in the novel, we do know the jist of what he was up to. Not that they should include Thoth-Amon in a HotD adaptation, just saying that as alterations go, it wouldn't be the worst I could imagine. Same with the likes of Zenobia, Albiona, Tiberias, Trocero and Hadrathus.
Can't disagree with any of those faults, either. I do think Denethor's entire characterisation was wrong, though, and that infuriated me. Honestly, the list of things that bothered me about the LotR trilogy could fill an entire blog post, but it's kinda been done to death.
I'll clarify what I meant by del Toro/Jackson's strengths and faults (or reall, strength and fault):
- Both directors have a strong sense of the macabre and horrific, which are usually the strongest parts of their films.
- Both directors really love their slapstick humour, which can sometimes get a little too cartoonish. I actually think del Toro is worse than Jackson in this regard, but at least his slapstick is meant to be funny (and usually is).
- Both directors suffer a bit from turning drama into melodrama, though del Toro succeeds more often than he fails.
- Both directors are guilty of making their characters look like idiots for seemingly arbitrary plot-driving reasons. The difference is del Toro only does this once or twice, which makes it all the more glaring: Jackson seems to give every character a moment of idiocy.
I'm a bit unsure of your comparisons, personally. Perhaps I was being too specific.