The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Hobbit Movie (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
Cyberqat
View Profile
Inner circle
You can tell I work on the net from my
2210 Posts

Profile of Cyberqat
Oh... as someone raised on classical music I have to disagree on The Wall.

Musically its probably the only true Rock Opera I know of. Its an incredibly complex piece of composition that you can keep coming back to and finding deeper levels in. (JC Superstar approaches opera as well, but it doesn't have the same depth as The Wall.)

And actually, it was loosely based on the life of another musician... whose name Im pulling a blank on but will remember sometime ion the middle of the night..

DSOTM is a brilliant concept album... but that's all it is. There is nowhere enar the same depth.
It is always darkest just before you are eaten by a grue.
Cyberqat
View Profile
Inner circle
You can tell I work on the net from my
2210 Posts

Profile of Cyberqat
Other excellent movie adaptations of books...

Return to OZ, which is MUCH truer to the Frank Baum books the first movie. (Anyone gonna mention The Dark Side of Oz?)

The Hogfather. It was a labor of love and Pratchet was directly involved with the production.

The Sci Fi Channel Dune mini-series is quite good if you can excuse it a few obvious backdrop shots and the fact that the designer didn't know what an ornithopter is.

Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games where both very good movies, but not being a Clancy reader I can't compare them to the books.

Being a PKD fan, I really liked Scanner Darkly, but it was marred by production running out of money and some badly hacked sfx in the middle. If they could fix those shots it would be a great film.

The movie Millenium was all in all a pretty darn good adaption of the Varley short story "Air raid", and stands as one of the best twisted-world line time travel movies I've ever seen.

I'll probably think of some others later. In general adapting books to movies is hard because movies really don';t have the story-telling space of books. They are closer to long short stories or at most a novella.
It is always darkest just before you are eaten by a grue.
kcg5
View Profile
Inner circle
who wants four fried chickens and a coke
1875 Posts

Profile of kcg5
The dark side of oz is awesome. I really think the wall was more of a concept album than dark side, and I think most of the wall was based on waters own experiences. Dark side was based more so on sid barett, their original lead singer. "Brain Damage" is a good example here, as Syd lost it pretty big on LSD.


Yep, I agree with you also about the Clancy stuff, both of those books were pretty good.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!



"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1191 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I'd definitely add The Shawshank Redemption to the list of great adaptations.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-09-06 12:23, Josh Chaikin wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-09-05 22:07, critter wrote:
The Hitchhikers movie wasn't, strictly speaking, a pure literary adaption. The radio show came before the book, then there was the miniseries, the computer games, the stage shows, and so on...
And I thought they were all brilliant.
I am looking forward to the Hobbit. Have wanted them to do it since the other movies came out since it was my favorite book and cartoon of the series.
And why not do a movie of Dark Side of the Moon? They did The Wall didn't they?
Just saying.


Oh, I'm well aware of that...I have the original BBC radio and television broadcasts and enjoy them...I'm also aware that each version was meant to stand on its own. I just felt that the new subplot was uninteresting and while the bureaucratic sequences with the Vogons added some comedic effect, I felt it was too much, and it took too long for them to reach Magrathea. The visuals there, however, were stunning as Gaddy pointed out and it was funny when Marvin used the POV gun. I understand that the script was rewritten after Mr. Adams sadly passed on...I can't help but wonder what changes were made.

For me, however, the book is still king. (But that's really the theme of the thread, isn't it?)


I love the book "trilogy," but I think the radio show was actually my favorite.
As for the Hobbit, I learned to read from a book and record of the animated Hobbit.
I had other book and record sets, but this one and Robin Hood were my favorites. That's probably why the Hobbit is still my favorite of that series. I'm excited.
Can't ever get enough Gandalf.

Hey, speaking of the Dark Side of Oz, does anyone remember when there was supposed to be an American MaGee(sp?) Oz? They made the toys but the game never came out. I loved his Alice game.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Vlad_77
View Profile
Inner circle
The Netherlands
5829 Posts

Profile of Vlad_77
Folks,

Do not hold your collective breath on The Hobbit movies. Guillermo del Toro has vacated the director's chair, MGM is in such financial straits that they have cancelled the next Bond movie. MGM, as it happens, ALSO had secured the rights to the two Hobbit films. Sir Ian McKellen has stated that he has grown quite impatient.

It seems to me that MGM has two HUGE franchises in their stable. They WILL make a tidy profit with The Hobbit movies and with Bond.

I guess I am the exception to the consensus here, but, I thought Peter Jackson did an excellent job, especially with the release of the extended cuts - of The Lord of The Rings. I DO agree with Kevin that books ARE the way to go. The Lord of the Rings IS a literary experience. I had read the Trilogy 5 times over a ten year period before the release of the film adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring. Certain characters and events are not going to translate well if at all to the big screen. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry would be EXTREMELY difficult for example.

Jackson took quite a few liberties, but, as Mary has pointed out, good films will frequently lead people to read the books. Sales for The Lord of the Rings have always been good, but the movies shot them back onto the mass market best seller lists.

To TRULY do Tolkien's work justice, one would need to create a film of each book in the trilogy whose length would be for DAYS Smile Be thankful at least that they didn't try to do The Silmarillion! THAT would be a disaster.

Kevin, seems you and I are huge Pink Floyd fans. I agree with your assessment of Waters during The Wall period. He FIRED Richard Wright and then made him a "session man"!!

While it was a BEAUTIFUL thing to see them reunite for Live 8 - and they were SO tight - you could see the quite strained, uncomfortable body language on each member when they took their bow. Waters had to practically cajole Gilmour, Wright, and Mason into it.

Now Richard is gone, may his memory be eternal. But, at least we got to see this great band reunite. Beatles fans were not so fortunate. I read an interview with McCartney last year in which he stated that the four were seriously considering reuniting to "do something" perhaps either in 1980 or 1981. The sick jerkwad from Hawai'i dashed THAT dream forever.

Namaste,
Vlad
Christopher Rinaldi
View Profile
Veteran user
348 Posts

Profile of Christopher Rinaldi
Movies lead many people to the books, so there is nothing wrong with that. When I was quite young I had the chance to see The Hobbit cartoon, it only came on tv once in a blue moon and I had only got to watch it twice when I was a small kid.

A few years later I found myself in middle school and checked out the Hobbit book from the school library mainly because I liked the cartoon so much I just had to read the book. UI have since read that particular book dozens of times over the years. I have also read the Lord of the Rings dozens of times throughout my life and when the movies came out I took my whole family.

As a result of the movies a couple of my kids have now read all the books, the movies got them into it man!

I also bought all the video games for the Playsation, boy some of them are hard! I even own the one ring, but my wife wouldn't let me buy Sting! Drat it all!!!!
Alex Rapattoni
View Profile
Loyal user
Seattle, Wa
229 Posts

Profile of Alex Rapattoni
Movies and books are completely different mediums. So different that they are incomparible. I have found that the only way to truly enjoy a book or movie adaptation is to remove yourself from what you already know and to decide if what you saw was entertaining. If the answer is yes then it was a success.
I have this discussion a lot, it seems, but like I said. You can't, nay, SHOULDN'T compare book versus movie. They will NEVER compare.
On a side note, I recently acquired the book/record set of the hobbit. It is quite exquisite, I must say.
Alex
Weird is part of the job.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-09-07 20:06, Alex Rapattoni wrote:
On a side note, I recently acquired the book/record set of the hobbit. It is quite exquisite, I must say.
Alex


Yup.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
stoneunhinged
View Profile
Inner circle
3079 Posts

Profile of stoneunhinged
I've seen some excellent adaptations of books, but most of them had some things in common, one of which is that the movie's director has an artistic vision of his own that he's capable of expressing. Then it becomes something different, like a discussion between artists.

The best example of this I can think of is A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick makes changes--sometimes substantial ones--to the storyline that show he was reflecting on the fundamental themes of the novel, rather than just saying, "what details are superfluous enough to leave out?"

So I wasn't saying that all film adaptations of novels is unappreciated or unacceptable, just in some cases a weird idea. By "literary experience" I meant something like: an experience you can only have by reading a book. I do not think that all books are true "literary experiences".

But in the end, I probably just have this thing about LOTR. My friend Hans says he tried to read it, and his description of why he was so bored by it was a pretty good description of what thrilled me. Different strokes and all that.
Mary Mowder
View Profile
Inner circle
Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA
3649 Posts

Profile of Mary Mowder
I know what you mean Stoneunhinged.

My favorite parts of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are the parts dealing with The Shire, the travel, quiet conversations, what was eaten, poetry (other than Tom Bombadil), who is related to whom and such.

The epic battles are such a clear reminder of the horrible wake of damage done to the lives of several prominent writers of the time (and countless others), Tolkien, C.S. Lewis etc... by WWI that I find them very painful (as they are meant to be). Or, I find them boring (like long scenes of things blowing up and fighting in movies). These are the very chapters that add great depth and meaning, in context, for many readers (and watchers).

- Mary Mowder
Absinthe
View Profile
New user
The Green
8 Posts

Profile of Absinthe
"Frodo of the Nine Fingers... and the Ring of Dooooooom"

Thank you for the trip down nostalgia lane.
Vlad_77
View Profile
Inner circle
The Netherlands
5829 Posts

Profile of Vlad_77
Quote:
On 2010-09-09 13:59, Mary Mowder wrote:
I know what you mean Stoneunhinged.

My favorite parts of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are the parts dealing with The Shire, the travel, quiet conversations, what was eaten, poetry (other than Tom Bombadil), who is related to whom and such.

The epic battles are such a clear reminder of the horrible wake of damage done to the lives of several prominent writers of the time (and countless others), Tolkien, C.S. Lewis etc... by WWI that I find them very painful (as they are meant to be). Or, I find them boring (like long scenes of things blowing up and fighting in movies). These are the very chapters that add great depth and meaning, in context, for many readers (and watchers).

- Mary Mowder


Hi Mary,

Interesting you should remark on these battles. Tolkien had stated that Mordor's appearance was informed by what he saw in the trenches as a signal officer in the First World War.

Sam Gamgee, Tolkien has remarked were the rank and file Tommy-bots, to him the real heroes of World War One, and in essence, in the finest literary tradition, the representation of "everyman."

Namaste,
Vlad
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
I still would have liked to have seen Tom Bombadil in the flickers. He was one of my favorite characters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhpNatUfV0

And my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
jeffdell
View Profile
New user
Nashua, NH
66 Posts

Profile of jeffdell
I for one really enjoyed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and found both the theatrical and extended versions to be enjoyable. While I think there were some elements that were cut adapted from the novels to the screen, Peter Jackson really kept the spirit of the books within the films and I know I intend to see The Hobbit movie when it comes out.

A couple of things that I do think get lost in the adaptation to the screen is the emphasis Tolkien placed on creating, in my opinion, a modern day mythology. Middle Earth has its own races and those races have fully developed languages, and I think some of that does get lost.

There were a couple of things left out of the movie I would've liked to have seen added -- Tom Bombadil would have been an interesting addition, though I see why they left it out. Also, I didn't really like the way they had killed off Saruman. I prefer Tolkien's handling of Saruman in The Return of the King.

Even with that, I'm sure Peter Jackson will keep to the spirit of the novel and if the Lord of the Rings films are any indication of what we can expect I for one will wait patiently Smile.

Jeff
Christopher Rinaldi
View Profile
Veteran user
348 Posts

Profile of Christopher Rinaldi
Quote:
On 2010-09-13 12:22, jeffdell wrote:
I for one really enjoyed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and found both the theatrical and extended versions to be enjoyable. While I think there were some elements that were cut adapted from the novels to the screen, Peter Jackson really kept the spirit of the books within the films and I know I intend to see The Hobbit movie when it comes out.

A couple of things that I do think get lost in the adaptation to the screen is the emphasis Tolkien placed on creating, in my opinion, a modern day mythology. Middle Earth has its own races and those races have fully developed languages, and I think some of that does get lost.

There were a couple of things left out of the movie I would've liked to have seen added -- Tom Bombadil would have been an interesting addition, though I see why they left it out. Also, I didn't really like the way they had killed off Saruman. I prefer Tolkien's handling of Saruman in The Return of the King.

Even with that, I'm sure Peter Jackson will keep to the spirit of the novel and if the Lord of the Rings films are any indication of what we can expect I for one will wait patiently Smile.

Jeff


Well put Jeff and I feel the same way about Sarumans death in the movie.
Jestnjoker
View Profile
Elite user
440 Posts

Profile of Jestnjoker
I don't think many studios ever bill a movie as "The Book as a Movie." It is impossible to perfectly adapt a book to a movie. As mentioned above, they are different mediums. That's why we are using the word "adaptation" in this thread. The ideas of the book need to be adapted to be effectively portrayed on the screen. Are sacrifices made? Often! You try fitting 5 gallons of water into a 2 gallon jug and see what happens. Many books simply don't lend themselves to perfect film representations. So I agree that you need to set them apart. Is this a good book? Yes or no. Is this a good movie? Yes or no? Asking, "Is this a perfect copy of the book." is a question that will rarely have a positive answer, but it doesn't mean that the film is a bad as a film. Compare apples to apples.

I recently had this thought when watching The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The film had several changes that went so far as to change the plot of the book, but rather than seeing that as a negative, I appreciated the fact that these changes actually made for a better movie. They needed to be made to make a good movie within a reasonable time.

Also I'd like to add to the list of good adaptations: The Coen Brothers' Adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men. Whoo! Both the movie and the book are incredible. Watching it makes me want to read the book and reading the book makes me want to watch the movie. And both are enhanced by the other. That says a lot about both and about the actors in the flick.
Jeff Wright
www.WrightEntertainment.biz
Voted Best Party Entertainer in Cleveland, Nickelodeon Parents' Picks Awards
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Hobbit Movie (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.2 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL