Ten years ago, Orlando Bloom created an iconic character with his portrayal of Legolas. I’m excited to announce today that we’ll be revisiting Middle Earth with him once more. I’m thrilled to be working with Orlando again. Funny thing is, I look older—and he doesn’t! I guess that’s why he makes such a wonderful elf.
And of course, the news sites act as if this is some impossible-to-foresee event, that Tolkien purists will only now be outraged. As if Tolkien fans were fine with everything up to this point.
Only now.
Again, this is from the people who:
- Added entire sequences from whole cloth
- Rendered Sauron as a floating eyeball
- Made Aragorn renounce his kingship so he can Go On A Journey
- Cut out Glorfindel and replaced his role with Arwen
- Invented an entire secondary antagonist only for Aragorn to kill him
- Rearranged the entire plot structure of the middle third
- Put Elves in Helm's Deep
- Have Frodo dismiss Sam and Sam abandon Frodo
- Completely warped Faramir, Denethor, Theoden and others
- Have the Oathbreakers save the day in the most contrived way possible
- And much, much more
And in the upcoming film already:
- Are expanding a self-contained single story into a two-parter using supplementary material
- Have invented a peppy female elf warrior
- Have already stuck in Saruman, Galadriel and Radagast despite them not appearing in the book
Really, any Tolkien purists who are only now starting to get the idea that they might have problems with the upcoming film have no sympathy from me. The idea that all the many divergences from the stories were perfectly alright, but inserting Orlando Bloom - no, that's a step too far.
I really doubt there are any Tolkien purists thinking that, though: more likely the media just seems to imagine their own things. After all, fantasy fans are still easy targets. The Lord of the Rings trilogy may be among the most Oscar-blessed films in history, The Harry Potter series may be among the highest-earning series, and A Game of Thrones may be one of the most popular TV shows in recent years, but heaven help the guys who still read those musty old tomes. They're still fair game.
I truly don't foresee The Hobbit films being substantially different from the trilogy. They're going to get some things pitch-perfect, they're going to do some things very well, they're going to do some things that aren't in the book but work well in context, and they're going to do some things that have Tolkien fans tearing their hair out. Orlando Bloom's Legolas isn't going to doom or save this film: it's fate has already been sealed in the minds of Tolkien fans, for good or ill.
LOL! Although i've read The Hobbit and LOTR multiple times, i'm absolutely not a JRRT purist, so I have no issue with Legolas (and a host of others) showing up in a Hobbit movie.
ReplyDeleteSo long as they stick to the spirit of the story (rather than blind ahderance to the text) i'm perfectly okay with PJ's changes.
Movies are a different medium that text, and I was okay with almost all of the LOTR changes. And if I hadn't been? It's not like PJ is ringing me at 3 am demanding an endorsement of his artistic vision.
Deal with it.
The Only thing I'm immensely unhappy about is Itaril. It's almost as if Frallippa cannot stand it unless theres sword wielding vagina SOMEWHERE in the movie, they didn't get away with letting Arwen save the day in LOTR, but this time she's got way more clout and can't be so easily stopped.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, having Legolas, Arwen and adolescent Aragorn kicking about at Rivendell, Gloin mentioning his son Gimli, the parents of Sam, Merry, Pippin and Frodo, Galadrial, Radagast, Who they really need to film a scene of him sending that damn moth to look for Gandalf to use in some eventual ultimate edition, Sauruman, and others.. will actually strengthen the connection between the films in the mind of the casual audience member.
I thought the peppy elf warriorette quit.
ReplyDeleteAnd truthfully, a cameo by Legolas is one of the least damaging things that could be done to tie the Hobbit film to Lord of the Rings - as long as it stays a cameo, and not *shudder* replacing a certain plot-relevant archer of Daleish origin. I have no idea whether that concept is anything more than a worse-case what-if being tossed about by the fans; and frankly until I'm sitting in the theater I don't want to know.
Adding Legolas is the one change not worth complaining about - it's well supported by canon, even if one only reads The Hobbit and LotR and skips all the rest. The story concerns his father's kingdom. Legolas is old enough in Man years to call Aragorn (87) and Gimli (139) "you children". He has seen acorns grow into oaks many times over. He most probably would have been of age to fight and even lead troops in the Battle of Five Armies.
ReplyDeleteAs long as they don't saddle him with "game-breaking" stunts like slaying oliphaunts on his own, I'm game. That, coupled with the inclusion of Oathbreakers (turned into insta-death), made the movie version of the Battle of Pellinor Fields really anticlimactic. They had better keep away from immersion-breaking stunts like shield-surfing also. But you just know that's the sort of stunt filmmakers on a "nostalgia" project may rework... like camel punching.
However, I fear that retrofitting The Hobbit into a "proper" prequel for LOTR (focusing a while on the White Council vs. Sauron in Dol Guldur) might be too much spice for a simple dish. The Hobbit's not "The Lord of the Rings: The Phantom Menace".
"Inventing their own targets" brings to mind the image of Tolkien purists who would blow their stacks over the slightest deviations from the text. Well, there's some truth to it, since apparently some people objected to Frodo putting the One Ring on a plinth. But in my experience most so-called purists had "integrity" of the original story in mind rather than little details. Stuff like Théoden flip-flopping over helping Gondor - that hurt integrity.
On that note, my favorite site of LOTR film criticism back in the day - http://oddlots.flyingship.net/arthedain/ - is offline. WHYYYYYY? I even saved those essays in Word. The index site - http://arthedain.netfirms.com/ - is still up though.
I truly don't foresee The Hobbit films being substantially different from the trilogy.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I don't see why anyone would. If anything, Jackson et al will be so drunk on the success of the LotR movies that they'll take even more liberties with the story, so the Hobbit films will be even worse.
But in my experience most so-called purists had "integrity" of the original story in mind rather than little details. Stuff like Théoden flip-flopping over helping Gondor - that hurt integrity.
Integrity was one thing, and for me, Treebeard's flip-flopping was even worse, while blatant character assassination (Faramir) was even more horrible. What annoyed me the most was that the movies totally failed to convey any of the main themes of the book, and in many cases the original material and changes served to sabotage those themes completely. That, more than anything else, in my mind speaks to either a lack of understanding or lack of respect for the source material, which was why I found the movies offensive.
Deal with it.
I do, by not watching the Hobbit movies.
I must be exactly the sort of 'purist' they're referring to: I've seen the movies but never read the books.
ReplyDeleteI quite enjoyed the 70s hobbit film, and I know from it that Legolas doesn't belong. But the other changes mentioned are news to me: Sauron isn't a floating eyeball? Who knew?
So they're officially starting to change things that even a very casual fan would notice and object to.
"...sword wielding vagina..."
ReplyDeleteLagomorph, that choice of phrase, apart from being somewhat sexist (well, pretty much completely sexist, actually), brings an image to my mind that hardly bears thinking about.
I would draw a picture of it (don't think I wouldn't) but I wouldn't dare post it anywhere.
I consider it as being brutally honest.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't interested in including a well rounded, female character. They just want a token kick-ass girl power monolog to represent them on screen.
While they are at it, they need a kid in a wheel chair, a Black kid, an Asian kid and before we know it we have the Burger King Kids Club meets Dungeons and Dragons.
LOL! Although i've read The Hobbit and LOTR multiple times, i'm absolutely not a JRRT purist, so I have no issue with Legolas (and a host of others) showing up in a Hobbit movie.
ReplyDeleteAs changes go, Legolas appearing in The Hobbit is one that's really low on my "Blasphemous Mutterings" list: we know he was alive and in the area, after all.
So long as they stick to the spirit of the story (rather than blind ahderance to the text) i'm perfectly okay with PJ's changes.
And there are many Tolkien fans who agree with you: I just don't think Jackson/Walsh/Boyens did adhere to the spirit of the story - or, at least, the spirit of certain characters, events and elements.
The Only thing I'm immensely unhappy about is Itaril. It's almost as if Frallippa cannot stand it unless theres sword wielding vagina SOMEWHERE in the movie, they didn't get away with letting Arwen save the day in LOTR, but this time she's got way more clout and can't be so easily stopped.
Indeed. That link Martin provided below shows some of the crazy things Fralippa had in mind for Arwen, and I thank my lucky stars Arwen's role wasn't even worse than it was.
On the other hand, having Legolas, Arwen and adolescent Aragorn kicking about at Rivendell, Gloin mentioning his son Gimli, the parents of Sam, Merry, Pippin and Frodo, Galadrial, Radagast, Who they really need to film a scene of him sending that damn moth to look for Gandalf to use in some eventual ultimate edition, Sauruman, and others.. will actually strengthen the connection between the films in the mind of the casual audience member.
Indeed. Changes and additions like that are not the sort of things I'm worried about at all, and if you *had* to make two Hobbit films, they're the only sort of changes I'd really be fine with. And definitely agreed on the moth, that scene always bugged me (Hi-YOOO)
As long as they don't saddle him with "game-breaking" stunts like slaying oliphaunts on his own, I'm game.
The thing is, I could buy the idea of Legolas being a one-man killing machine: I just wish they did it in a way that didn't make me feel I was watching someone playing Devil May Cry.
Well, there's some truth to it, since apparently some people objected to Frodo putting the One Ring on a plinth. But in my experience most so-called purists had "integrity" of the original story in mind rather than little details. Stuff like Théoden flip-flopping over helping Gondor - that hurt integrity.
ReplyDeleteHeh, now that you bring it up, putting the ring on a plinth does kind of bother me. I guess I was so blinded by the other changes I didn't even notice it! Still, though I don't like it, it's not a change I consider particularly profound, like Theoden's foreign policy.
On that note, my favorite site of LOTR film criticism back in the day - http://oddlots.flyingship.net/arthedain/ - is offline. WHYYYYYY? I even saved those essays in Word. The index site - http://arthedain.netfirms.com/ - is still up though.
Fear not, I managed to find an archived backup of the site: it doesn't have most of the pictures, sadly, but it has the text mostly intact.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090613063540/http://arthedain.netfirms.com/
I've saved the essays now, don't want to lose them again.
What annoyed me the most was that the movies totally failed to convey any of the main themes of the book, and in many cases the original material and changes served to sabotage those themes completely. That, more than anything else, in my mind speaks to either a lack of understanding or lack of respect for the source material, which was why I found the movies offensive.
I believe it's a lack of understanding combined with personal biases. Jackson isn't a LotR fan so much as a fantasy fan, and so he had all the preconceptions from Dungeons & Dragons and other fantasy fiction colouring his perception. Boyens and Walsh were the Ringers on the project, but even they seemed to have their own issues (mostly in that they seemed to want to change Aragorn and Faramir into more 20th-Century men).
I quite enjoyed the 70s hobbit film, and I know from it that Legolas doesn't belong. But the other changes mentioned are news to me: Sauron isn't a floating eyeball? Who knew?
Gollum reveals that he's seen Sauron, and that he has four fingers on one hand. Which indicates a pretty humanoid physical form. Plus it brought up the movie-centric plot query of just what a giant eyeball would do with a ring...
While they are at it, they need a kid in a wheel chair, a Black kid, an Asian kid and before we know it we have the Burger King Kids Club meets Dungeons and Dragons.
... Dammit, if the Burger King Kids Club was still around, you know that's exactly what they'd do. And now my morbid curiosity's got the better of me...
I aim to please, Al.
ReplyDeletedon't know if anyone mentioned this...but they kinna f*é?)d up in a way many years ago...when the fellowship film was out ,in the intro when we see bilbo finding the ring..
ReplyDeleteupon finding the ring and putting it in his pocket, gollum is heard from deep in the cave ,screaming about his precioussssss being lost ..
i just hope they just fake it never happened and don't try to "correct" it for internal-cohesion -continuity ,cause the riddle-game is one of the key elements of the story