02/05/2017
There's been a large amount of discussion regarding Tolkien's works in motion picture, audio, and electronic entertainment as of late... So I feel now is an excellent time to discuss these topics.
My first point I'd like to discuss are the characters.
Didn't these characters seem "overly cartoonish" to you prior to adaptation; compared to many other authors prior to Tolkien? Quite frankly, I feel they were; and rightly so. They were and are part of a medium originally intended to target a child to young adult (9 to 17) audience. That kind of personification goes with the narrative, by nature.
In fact, in a 1955 letter to W. H. Auden, Tolkien recollects that he began work on The Hobbit one day early in the 1930s, when he was marking School Certificate papers. He found a blank page. Suddenly inspired, he wrote the words, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." By late 1932 he had finished the story and then lent the manuscript to several friends, including C. S. Lewis and a student of Tolkien's, named Elaine Griffiths. In 1936, when Griffiths was visited in Oxford by Susan Dagnall, a staff member of the publisher George Allen & Unwin, she is reported to have either lent Dagnall the book or suggested she borrow it from Tolkien. In any event, Miss Dagnall was impressed by it, and showed the book to Stanley Unwin, who then asked his 10-year-old son Rayner to review it. Rayner's favourable comments settled Allen & Unwin's decision to publish Tolkien's book.
Even I and my peers were encouraged to read it at a young age, by teachers in elementary school no less. An act I am very thankful for.
By that thought, and through honestly reflecting on my literary passions as a child, now seen from my view as an adult; I can say that I feel that their archetypes were kept simple deliberately. In fact, I strongly feel that very simplicity was what got "The Hobbit" its fame to begin with; especially in the era of which it was penned.
As for the characters...
Bilbo was a whiner. A reluctant and incredibly oppositional, unwilling hero. Childlike in stature and temperament; but innocent to the darkness of the world. Curious, yet cautious and fearful.
Thorin was rude and gruff, yet protective of his kin. Proud and arrogant, these would both be his boon and bane.
Bombor was a fat, comedic relief who offered succor to Bilbo and his companions through song food and drink; and by trying to keep things lighthearted (though he had his complaints too. Like... walking; or even crossing a river).
Balin was a wise, kindly old man similar to Gandalf; but not nearly as enigmatic or distant. A sort of grandfather like figure; who was gentle when needed, yet firm. Willing to offer advice, and fierce in a pinch; but not as spry as he used to be.
The other characters follow the same suit of creative archetypes.
These were how they were portrayed in the novel, as well as the film. As much as I'd like to, I honestly can't fault the studio for adapting the emotion of the source material there. Tolkien had his flaws as any author; though some would call what I say blasphemy. I generally will argue that these flaws only deepened the respect I have for his work; but they are still flaws, first and foremost.
Now, the studios responsible for the new additions are far from faultless. I can and will fault them for dragging it a bit too far... Mucking up the appearance for Thorin, ripping up the back story with Azog (as he's dead before the novel began), adding in a nonexistent love triangle, and whatnot.
But aside from that? I feel it kept temperately close to the source with as little deviation as possible; or regrettably, required for fluff by publishers. Bah...
In the end, I'll say the core characters are fine. It's easy for children to follow and attach to, which is why Tolkien penned it as a tale for his children. After publication, it surprised him as to how many adults were just as interested; and he was asked to create a sequel by his publishers at George Allen & Unwin. These flaws are still present in all film and audio adaptations of The Hobbit; and to my knowledge, no exception has yet been found or created.
2. Many say they greatly dislike the CGI in the films. True, CGI was a bit overused. I personally was appalled at how they abused it on Legolas in The Hobbit (who really had no point getting as much focus as he did. Maybe being mentioned in passing, at best as a sort of retroactive appending; but certainly not a key character.)
But, I feel it was the best and only way to portray some scenes, don't you? Massive armies, large eagles, dragons, some goblins, Gollum, The stone giants, trolls... these are the things of fiction; and some cinematic graphics and special effects were to be expected.
Contrary to the popular stance, I feel it was this CGI that delivered well on Smaug and a good many other creatures. The animation was smooth and palpable for rendering a fictional, nonexistent creature (with such minimal description) in such large capacity.
The confrontation with Smaug and the dwarves is a bit hazy in my memory; but I do recall plenty of panic when he awoke; along with fleeing and fight or flight instinct. That much I can say was present in those scenes; as was Bilbo's interaction and mind games with Smaug (which also failed laughably in the book).
Bearing in mind that this particular item [The Hobbit] in Tolkien's work was meant to spark imagination in children, I can't help but feel he tried to leave room for personal immersion. I think that's what Jackson tried to leverage to deliver the emotion of those scenes; albeit some were very disappointed. (Interestingly, those are also the hardest scenes to deliver on screen and keep people interested, without dragging).
3. Did you know that Tolkien specifically stated he was willing to adapt films under the right conditions? Or that he was generally against producing it in other mediums if it detracted too much? Or that he was staunchly against selling his work to big studios known for massive edits like Disney?
Did you know that he disliked that people who were not from the UK were fans of his work (calling them all a sort of lunatic), due to them being overly invested, overly critical and reading into things too much; which was a problem he couldn't readily address with haste in that time?
Technically, since that is the case as shown in his letters; that means ALL Tolkien based mediums that are not his original literature or worked upon hand in hand with Professor Tolkien himself, are considered unacceptable by the original author; and thereby, the nature of his entire estate. What this means, is purists like his son Christopher are potentially bastardizing his intent for the world and tales of Middle Earth, by blatantly ignoring the willingness to work with other publishers outright.
Call it as you will; but I and many others who respect Professor Tolkien consider his son's absolute ban on other media nothing more than a selfish tantrum; one brought on by the nostalgia for a paternal bond, born of love for his father and their time together, from one of his own kin. Ironically, Christopher is showcasing many traits of Gollum in his handling with his father's creation when it comes to other studios.
"It came to me. It's mine. My own."
True, Tolkien did create this for his kin. But it grew past that.
"It is precious to me, and I would not part with it."
Pretty much how he's handled everything since his father passed. Very curious that this is the total opposite as to what the good Professor intended; sparking creative thought and enjoying a whimsical fancy in fiction.
(Here's a fairly cool article on that: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/06/03/72359-what-would-the-professor-have-thought-of-peter-jacksons-version-of-the-lord-of-the-rings/ )
Let's not split hairs here; because it's plain that the estate has kept up this method of thought by not permitting any of the other works to be produced (outside of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy); and they've held that stance for decades.
The only reason they can't revoke what publishing rights there are already, is because they were sold by Professor J. R. R. Tolkien during an attempt to entertain creative expansion of Middle Earth. That's why they're out there, and will never be revoked due to the wording of that agreement, much to the annoyance of the estate's heir. Even the animated Rankin Bass works are begrudgingly tolerated by Tolkien purists, and Tolkien's next of kin.
Granted, preserving the original heart and soul of the world and its stories is an honorable (and well respected from where I sit) prospect; but stifling the world and the heart of the story in favor of stagnation, is a publisher's nightmare. When good works die, they die from the spirit drying up; from being left as is for too long. In a sense, creative liberty is both good and bad. It drums up newfound interest in old content; but pushes away previous fans with inaccuracy.
Follow up question.
For what they (WingNut Films) were coerced into working with by financial backers at WB, New Line Cinemas, and several other publishers (who have held the rights pretty much exclusively since the 1960's); did they or did they not manage to deliver a decent product by fighting back unreasonable demands best they could? Technically, Jackson and his crew weren't even originally involved in the project; Jackson himself stating that he didn't think he'd be able to match the same spirit and quality of the Lord of the Rings films he produced. That would be reasonable to think about; considering how long it took to create them. How many hours of shooting, casting, rehearsal, costuming, and post production were poured into it.
Put bluntly, he was spent. Burned out on Tolkien's world. He had done well enough, and that took its toll.
I suppose it's only fitting that we see a degradation and diluting of potency; especially with the (quite literally) impossible demands he and his fellows were given.
I cannot even fathom a way that they or any other director and their crew could work within the constraints they were issued; can you?
Being fair, I don't believe it was right for New Line and WB to be so pushy with such a flimsy trilogy concept; and I do feel that all things considered... we could have seen far, far worse of an outcome with any other team.
While that may sound like I'm making an excuse for Jackson and his crew; I'm thankful that it wasn't worse. These are passable films that can get fans into the books; and that's how I will suggest their use.
It’s a question many of us have asked, but none of us can answer: What would J.R.R. Tolkien have thought of Peter Jackson’s version of The Lord of the Rings? Because I’ve read a lot and thought a l…
