Tweet
Good morning! Please pull up a chair and share a little of your weekend with us. This morning I’m excited about going to see Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”. Though I am admittedly excited, I’m also extremely wary of it. Judging by the trailers and by how Jackson dealt with “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, it seems to me that it might be a repeat of some truly awesome eye candy, coupled with several awkward moments that will leave those of us who are fans of the book wondering why he cut this or added that.
Then there is the issue of him breaking the story into three separate films, despite being the shortest of the LotR related literature. So instead of “The Hobbit” being released in 2012, we have to wait until 2013 to see “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”, and all the way until 2014 to finally wrap it up in “The Hobbit: There and Back Again”! I’m sorry but to me this smacks of plain greed. Why profit from one blockbuster film when you can get paid three times for adapting one book?
The reason I’m so anal about it is not just because of Jackson’s sometimes inexplicable additions and omissions in some of his films, it’s also because the book, “The Hobbit” is very special to me. Though the entire series has given me many hours of enjoyment, (along with the additions of The Silmarillion and The Children of Húrin), The Hobbit is always going to be a very important book in my life. I read it when I was 16 and starting to sort some very deep issues out for myself. The Hobbit opened a lot of new unexplored areas of creativity within me, it helped me get past a very rough patch in my life and I’ll always associate it with overcoming some extremely difficult challenges.
Though most movie adaptations of books aren’t all I would like them to be, there are some cases where I can see why a directer or screenwriter would add some dialogue because narration is absent but much too often there is far too much license taken. I guess the best adaptation of a book in my opinion is the 1971 version of “The Andromeda Strain”. The only major plot deviation is that they changed the Dr Leavitt character into a woman and they switched poison darts to lasers in the system core. But hey, it was 1971 after all and lasers were all the rage, (though they never explained getting hit by lasers left Dr Hall all woozy). Other than those changes, it was pretty much word for word.
When I look at the cast and character list for The Hobbit, I see that Jackson is apparently going to explore some of the history only alluded to in the book and perhaps the deliberations and actions of the White Council, also only touched upon in the text. I can support those things, especially some of the history. The tantalizing bits that Tolkien only hinted at in The Hobbit were very frustrating and that frustration was to stay with me until my twenties when I found The Silmarillion. But I also see characters listed that are made up out of whole cloth. And not characters that seem to advance the story but people thrown in there to add some non existent sexual tension or romance. I’ll reserve judgment of course but that doesn’t make me optimistic. It is with a sense of mixed excitement and trepidation that I look forward to Sunday.
So what about you? What are some books you’ve enjoyed but been less than thrilled about when it comes to the film adaptation? Have you ever seen a film adaptation that you enjoyed as much or more than the book? Which books have you read that you would really enjoy seeing done on film? The floor is yours.
88 Comments
Good morning firehobbits!
Good morning friend. Well done this morning.
I don’t want to start anything but for me just about the most true to the book film was, is and always will be The Godfather.
Should also add that at least 3 of my coworkers are very excited about The Hobbit.
Hmmm, I never actually read The Godfather. It was pretty close then? I think I’ve heard that before.
I’m still incredibly anxious about what Jackson may have done to the story. There just isn’t any way to make it into 6 plus hours of film without a whoooooole lotta added content.
As close as the two widely divergent medium allow.
I wish they had completed “His Dark Materials” in film but that cop out at the end of “The Golden Compass” pretty much precluded that.
It has been decades since I read the book and being cursed with a terrible memory I am at somewhat of a disadvantage here.
I do recall feeling that To Kill A Mockingbird was fairly faithfull to the book.
Now you’re sending me the wiki.
(sending me TO the wiki)
Here’s a NY Times article about Peter Jackson’s life partner Fran Walsh and her role in writing the scripts for Jackson’s movies with the assistance also of Ms. Boyens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/movies/middle-earth-wizards-not-so-silent-partner.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
According to earlier articles seems that the Hobbit was originally going to be a two movie deal before it became a 3 movie marathon.
Here’s an article about how Jackson and Walsh became involved with the legal case of the West Memphis Three.
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201201/sundance-film-festival-peter-jackson-fran-walsh-amy-berg-damien-echols-lorri-davis-interview
I’d better not say anything else then, in case you decide to read it one day.
Thanks for the links!
I’m also a little concerned. My understanding is that Gandalf’s and the Council’s efforts to drive the Necromancer out of Mirkwood (only alluded to in the book) will make up a part of the movie trilogy. Unfortunately, my confidence in Peter Jackson goes down the more he departs from the original narrative, so these sequences make me worry. I know I’ll see the movies in the theater, but I’m already a little bothered by the darker tone in the trailers when compared to the book.
By the way, I’d like to make an apology, because it looked to me like you thought my “self-righteous snit” comment last night was directed at you. I assure you, it was meant for someone else.
Please recall the aforementioned memory issue. No need to worry about being a spoiler with me.
You don’t owe me an apology EDP. I was being snarky, not offended. :)
Good morning, everyone. Very interesting post, Margaret. I’m not a huge movie buff but I loved LoTR.
I thought the Swedish “Girl with the…” movies stayed reasonably close to the books, except for the first one, where they chose to select one of a bunch of story lines and focus on it. Dragon Tattoo was the most difficult to read, too, partly because of all of the Swedish names, and partly because of multiple story lines that don’t sort themselves out until later books.
Okay. I just wanted to be sure.
Hi Margaret, good to see you this morning. I never read these books. I liked mysteries and biographies; fantasy and sci fi, notsomuch.
Yep. Judging by the list of characters, he may be delving into some of the history only alluded to in the book as well. At least in that case he has something to refer to, (should he have availed himself of it).
I wasn’t really a fantasy fan until I began with Tolkien. But The Hobbit opened up that whole world for me. I hafta say, like I told my sister: if you haven’t read them but may someday do so, do yourself a favor and watch the movies first. I’ve always felt I would have enjoyed the LotR films much more if I had been unfamiliar with the story.
My image of the main character was not what I imagined, in the movie. But I got over that quickly and liked the movie. I saw the Hitchcock movie–a preview this eek. I liked it, mostly.
CRS, eh? I had already forgotten. ;)
Isn’t that odd? Generally speaking the first movie in a series stays the most true. At least that’s the case in the Harry Potter series. Those were fairly well done though. Thanks for reminding me.
Sorry for the drive-by. Saturday mornings are Farmer’s Market days. Have a good one, everyone. This is a very interesting topic!
Good morning!
I devoured the Dragon Tattoo books and very much enjoyed the Swedish films. I am blessed with minimal understanding of film as a medium (i tend to few movies as nothing more or less than mindless escapism) and film making in general so I thought all three Swedish films were pretty true to the books.
Be safe and have a great day Molly.
You may be right. The LOTR movies have had a big influence on how I visualize Tolkien’s setting and characters, but the books are and always will be definitive when it comes to the story. Which is, I think, as it should be.
Les Miserables getting good reviews, so Im told….
Later, folks. Have a good day/weekend.
The second and third books were much more true to the story…I guess he focused more on the single story line in those books and set the context in the first book. The last book (and movie) circles back and pulls in those story lines to wrap it up. They are very well done. I haven’t seen the American version, although I’ve heard it was well done also.
Real nice to see your diary Margaret,
Books to movies or movies to books is a topic that I don’t have a thing to contribute to. I am a very rare movie patron, I don’t subscribe to any channels where I might see old r new ones and don’t tend to ever rent my entertainment.
Maybe I should be doing more reading and seeing more movies. Still a little down about yesterday, reality sure bites. Engaging in small positive steps today.
Definitely! I enjoyed the Potter movies 1 through 5 much more than I did 6, 7.1 and 7.2 because I didn’t pick up the first book until after I saw the first five movies. The books are still the definitive way I look at the series but I also had the benefit of seeing those films without preconceptions cluttering things up.
I need to catch that one too!
What about most disappointing movie adaptations? I’m thinking of the 1984 “Dune”. Such wonderful steam punk visuals but so wasted on trying to cram the entire story into a couple of hours!
I will be on the road today, hope the roads stay clear for my drive up and back.
Take care, everyone.
So much for my memory these days, HP 1-5, a chapter or so almost every night with a 6-10 yr-old in my lap. Never saw the movies, enthralled child (at that time, and I enjoyed trying to separately, ‘voice,’ the characters as I read aloud) who probably remembers every word though.
Be careful out on the road!
I don’t think it matters whether you see Jackson’s version of LOTR first or read the trilogy first, IMHO he did well by the story, with some exceptions.
After all, the movies are his vision of the story.
I’ve seen the Hobbit, in 3D. Many of the reviews of it so far have complained of the dreary and slow opening. Don’t believe them. If you liked the book Hobbit, you’ll love the opening.
Much to do today. (company Christmas party this evening) Thanks for the diversion this morning Margaret. I desperately needed it.
Have a wonderful weekend all.
I know a lot of parents’ exposure to that story was through the eyes of their children. Oddly, it was two of the most brilliant people I know, (and easily the most brilliant who are a couple that I know), who got me into that series. I refused to pick up the first book though until after Rowling had finished the last. Reading the Stephen King Dark Tower series for twenty years and spending thirty reading Donaldson’s Covenant books have made me wary of books for which I have to wait years and years for the sequel.
Thanks for coming by and hug the fabulous cbl for us!
Thanks. Yeah, I don’t read reviews. Ever. I used to and since they are all based on subjective opinion by nature, I find them pretty useless. I think more about your opinion than I do a paid reviewer’s.
forgot to say hugs for demi wherever you are. miss you a lot.
out
Emphasis added, and I agree.
I can’t help but notice the irony of this, given that The Hobbit is a story in which rather pointed things are said about the corrosive power of greed, and in which things do not end well for the Greedy.
I don’t know whose decision it was to make The Hobbit into three movies instead of one. Perhaps it was Jackson, but more likely in my book is that it was the studio that owned the film rights to the book. “Let’s make this like Star Wars, with a three-film prequel to the popular three-film original series. Look at all the $$$ George Lucas is rolling in . . .”
Jackson obviously has read the story, but I wonder if the studio people have.
Right? Banded iron formations aren’t as ironic.
Oh well, yes, you can trust me!
To be fair, sometimes movie critics do get it right, but there is definitely a herd mentality among these creatures.
One flick in particular that I saw recently despite the overwhelming adverse criticism was John Carter, b/c Burroughs was my introduction to science fiction, thanks to my mother.
Loved it.
There is also the matter of us having to wait two years to complete a story that only took one year from the time Bilbo Baggins rushed out of his hole without a hat or pocket handkerchiefs to the time he rode back just in time to horribly disappoint the Sackville-Bagginses.
Uh-oh. I gotta say, I disliked that one so much that I gave it away to a friend after watching it once. They got the oddest details right but like so many others, they tried to cram several books into one movie and added some content on top of it.
As for critics, I stopped paying attention to them altogether when it became clear that Leonard Maltin had never actually seen “Psycho II”, though he reviewed it like he had. I saw that movie when it came out and saw Maltin’s review the next day and I couldn’t help but wonder what movie he’d seen. Cause it sure as heck wasn’t the one I had.
Good morning.
I rarely engage in such activities, comparing the book to the movie. Many times I approve both, sometimes neither.
Being both a visual and literary person, it is easy to get caught up going either way (book to movie or movie to book) with differences between my imagery gleaned from the words and what’s actually presented. The same is true with music and visuals; Opera, Ballet, and Movies. Then I get to presenting through stills, my visual equivalent of either form, though mostly music to stills. (Edward Weston once remarked “When I feel a Bach fugue as I work, I know I have arrived”).
Makes for complexity, but certainly not boredom!
I have to add one more, important point, in 1967, I took a year long course at Portland State called “The Art of the Film” which examined many facets of film making. I d o not recall that at any time, we engaged in this sort of comparisons. Andre, the teacher, did not consider that valid, for whatever reason I don’t recall (1967, after all!). That moved me away from engaging in comparisons to the degree many do. It isn’t a criticism of comparisons, just a point of view.
I guess that will bring us to the end of another PUAC. Phoenix Woman has her Saturday morning post up, so please give that a read. I have to get going with my chores. Thanks to all of those who attended and a special shout out to demi in case she’s lurking: We miss you sweet lady!
I hope everybody has a good weekend.
I’m sorry the topic wasn’t your cup of tea. Apparently it wasn’t the most popular one with others either. Oh, well, they can’t all be winners! :)
Not at all! I enjoyed reading the comments, Peg. I was prompted to include a different way of approaching the subject, and had this continued, maybe fleshing it out a bit.
I’m glad you did it!
Mornin’ folks.
As someone who has watched a lot of movies made from books over the years, I’ve discovered that you pretty much have to divorce the two.
I will say though that even some bad movies can be good if they pique my interest enough that I go and read the book after seeing the movie.
For example, the movie A Good Year with Russell Crowe and directed by Ridley Scott. They don’t know if they want a RomCom or slapstick so a bit of both but it was enough to get me to read the book which was quite good.
The main reason to my avoiding almost all movies, subscription TV and the like. I cannot morally support them in the same sense that I don’t support professional sports either, with my meager $$’s. I can find better uses for it in other forms of art and/or entertainment. Certainly uses that bring more personal gratification or pleasure.
There would have been an interesting question to explore. That happened to me with “The Terminal Man”. The movie, (though awful), and the fact that Michael Crichton wrote the book made me go pick it up and read it.
True what you say about JC, it’s the Princess of Mars with elements of the next couple of books in the series thrown in.
It worked for me, however. At least you saw it and have a valid standing to make your criticism.
But that’s one of the delights of art, having a discussion with friends about likes and dislikes.
WRT the schedule of The Hobbit series, I’ve read, can’t recall where, that the next installment arrives Dec ’13 and the last one comes out in the Spring or Summer ’14.
I feel you on that one. The last movie I paid to see was Prometheus and before that was Potter 7.2 so I don’t spend a lot of money on movies either. Which, I suppose, just cranks up my anxiety over seeing it. Who can waste 20 bucks on a movie and drink if they are both crappy?
From where I live, I an almost walk to a movie house that presents, not only senior discounts ($3), but two fer nights. Of course they ply you with offers inside with high priced popcorn, beer and pizza!
The Internet Movie Data Base has all of that information up. John Carter was eye candy though, so it has that going for it at least.
Another one that did that for me was the movie Ivanhoe. Somehow, I had missed both the book and movie until I was 21 and watched it on Christmas Eve one year when I was not able to get home due to work obligations. It was a good movie as it was but an even better book. (As one who enjoys that type of action romance historical fiction)
Collateral, and yeah, I know, totally EPU-ed…
Our communities of Fargo-Moorhead read The Giver, Lois Lowry’s fascinating YA on a boy coming to terms with a closed community, this fall. Stunning parallels to the recent 60 Minutes profile of the North Korean young man born in a prison camp and the issues of that which followed him even after the escape. Unable to link here in the tall timber, but I highly recommend the read…and going to CBS website to view that video.
It wasn’t a direct adaptation but the movie Excaliber came out about the same time that The Mists of Avalon was popular and I’m glad I saw the one and read the other.
The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy are among my very favorite books. I thought Jackson did as well as anyone could in recreating the Lord of the Rings. If he’d included EVERYTHING, such as the Tom Bombadil chapters, there would have been at least 12 installments instead of 3.
I share your concerns about The Hobbit, but I’ll give Jackson a chance and hope for the best.
As for favorite books that were turned into movies, Frank Herbert’s Dune provides a good example. The first movie, “Dune,” with Sting, was an unmitigated disaster, IMHO. The second one, made for TV, I believe, “Frank Herbert’s Dune,” pretty much followed the book and was much more enjoyable.
The second Dune with William Hurt was pretty great, yep. I don’t share your opinion of Jackson’s adaptations of LotR though. I have them all on extended, director’s cut DVD but there are just too many moments that make me cringe. I disagree about the movies being too long if everything had been included. There was a lot of added bullshit that could have been not included.
William Hurt! That’s right. As for the Lord of the Rings, I remember thinking back in the seventies that a movie adaptation would just be plain impossible. I enjoyed the movies, and have all three directors’ cuts as well, but the movie in my head while reading or re-reading the books is better still.
Which is why I couldn’t sit through The Fellowship of the Ring, and watched no other. Omissions I could understand (the Tom Bombadil story usually get left out in adaptions) but his *changes* and *additions* bugged the hell out of me. This is especially true since there was a NPR radio play done in the early 80s that was very faithful to the original Tolkiena and could have been used as the transcript for the movies.
Like Jackson apparently stuck in a Warg scene in the second movie just because he thought “Wargs were cool”. But if he had wanted Warg shots, Jackson left out the scene where Gandalf almost single-handly drives off a pack of Wargs (which would have explained why Gandalf’s apparent loss in Moria was such a blow to the Fellowship).
The problem is that it took a generation between LTR movies, and because this one was butchered so it means that we’ll have to wait another generation for another attempt to be made.
-stewartm
The warg scene in which Aragorn falls off a cliff is one of the additions I had in mind when I wrote that. It added nothing to the story. It was ten minutes of extraneous bullshit. There were also lines of dialogue throughout that made me cringe. Like when Gandalf puts the responsibility of deciding whether to go through Moria on Frodo’s shoulders. Stupid and pointless!
Two films that come to mind: I thought the 1967 film adaptation of Far from the Madding Crowd was true both to the text and the mood of the novel, and the 1952 film adaptation of The Quiet Man was far superior to the Maurice Walsh short story on which it was based. As for LOTR, I couldn’t imagine it being made in a film when I first read it in 1966-7, and I thought that, in general, Peter Jackson did a good job of it. On the other hand, I’m leery about the way in which he’s stretched out The Hobbit, though I’m certainly willing to hold off judgment till after I’ve seen all three of the films.
Good morning!
And yes, there’s no reason aside from greed to split The Hobbit into three films. Hell, there wasn’t a reason to split Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows into two films, not when Order of the Phoenix was easily made to fit into one. But I’m afraid now that lazy directors (and/or ones who are too cowed by book fans to do judicious editing) and greedy companies mean that this trend is here to stay.
Jackson’s been getting undeserved kudos for his earlier work when what people were reacting most favorably to, whether they knew it or not, was the New Zealand landscape. Now the impact of New Zealand has worn off, he’s being exposed at his true skill level.
Back from my Saturday errands. I wouldn’t give too much thought to a low turnout today. We are into the “last weekend before Christmas” with shopping, parties, etc. and people are out doing that. I think the topic was very interesting and fun.
I get movies from Netflix, their 2 movies a month on DVD plan which is $5.34 a month, and that’s cheap entertainment and plenty of movies for me.
The Performing Arts Center where I volunteer has very inexpensive movies, it is sorta an “art house” theater with lots of foreign language and classic films. Rarely anything you’d see at the mall multiplex. They showed the entire “Girl with the…” series, Swedish versions, a year or so ago, and that’s where I saw them, although you can rent them also, I think. And you can get a soda and popcorn for $2, so it can be a pretty cheap evening for students and community folks.
It was, indeed.
Sci-Fi books have suffered terribly. The worst one was Asimovs Nightfall (1988) – astonishingly bad.
There have been so many others: Gibson – Johnny Mnemonic, Campbells Who Goes There? (The Thing – several times), A Dog and his Boy – Ellison
Battlefield Earth (2000) – L. Ron Hubbard, is a special case, I cannot decide which is worst, book or film.
Although I love staring at Christian Bale, Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho was a better book than movie. Sorry to chime in late, not feeling very good today:(
Should have said Sci-Fi stories, since some of those were short stories.
I would like to see Neil Gaiman’s American Gods as a movie.
Three decades ago we had a summer “art,” movie theater where one saw “foreign,” films, classics and contemporary art works. Now is a 20 minute drive and the usual commercial offerings. Back on those lazy summer nights the next door tavern porch seating was a gathering place where one could sip a glass of wine, have a light snack and discuss the film. That chance (opportunity) and crowd and community is just not there.
I’ve really enjoyed reading this thread. A lot of good things to add to my to-do read/see list
Going to HBO?
I was going to note that there was also no reason to split the last book in the Twilight series into two films, but now that I think about it, there was really no good reason besides greed to make the movie at all.
The 1941 Huston/Bogart “Maltese Falcon” does great by sticking very close to the novel (with the big caveat that changes required by the Hays Office production code squashed a lot of the life out it).
In contrast, the 1939 Wyler/Olivier/Oberon “Wuthering Heights”, as well as many other great old Hollywood adaptations, had no compunctions about drastically reshaping their source material for the sake of making good movies.
I have a special appreciation for David Lean’s 1948 filming of “Oliver Twist”, which I am sacrilegious enough to say I think actually improves on Dickens in a lot of ways: heightening the key dramatic episodes while excising much of the sentimental claptrap.
And BTW, I saw “John Carter” recently on the cable TV, and I thought it was pretty good! It certainly didn’t deserve the critical savaging and instant bomb status it acquired.
I read the first few Barsoom books years ago, and clearly this was only a very free adaptation, but what’s wrong with that? (see me on Wuthering Heights, supra)
I can’t think it is a coincidence that Disney’s John Carter disaster (though apparently it did good box office in Europe) was quickly followed by the company buying the Star Wars franchise. Sadly, the Barsoom fiasco has no doubt been taken as a lesson by the studios that they are better off endlessly prolonging established money-makers rather than trying something new.
Cool, I didn’t know that!
They are both awful but since we are talking about bad adaptations, I think that ranks right up there with the worst.
They certainly did completely change the end of Golden Compass in a manner that destroys much of the plot.
Are they planning production for The Subtle Knife?
How could the proceed.
I enjoyed both the book and the film of Golden Compass except for the end of the film.
Admittedly, the end of the book is pretty grim.
Both Phillip Pullman and Chris Weitz have said they would like the series to continue with The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass but I just don’t see how they can even do the latter, after the way they ended The Golden Compass.
Margaret, thanks for hosting today.