While I watch The Hobbit and see all the money it's making a part of me wants to scream, "Don't you people see the difference? Jackson & Co. took Lord of the Rings, caressed it lovingly and made a true work of art. They're just wallowing in The Hobbit.", I also understand the latter's appeal; it's a much simpler story. It's not surprising that it has such mass appeal. It still amazes me that a movie with as dense a story as LotR did as well as it did (I, I think, like most people, consider it one long movie). I forgive Jackson for everything that they left out (farewell, Tom Bombadil*) or changed by thanking them for all the things they got right (Legolas walking on top of the snow; actually showing Gandalf fighting the Balrog: that beautifully sequence of the the watchtowers going off across the mountains as Howard Shore's score soared over the top of it [Ah, that score! How many pieces of art have I done listening to it?]). LotR was clearly a labor of love (thanks for mentioning Howe and Lee, BTW). The Hobbit feels more like an excuse to sell merchandise.
Hmmm... I should admit here that I haven't seen the Desolation of Smaug. Yet. I have some friends (whose opinion I value) warned me off of it saying that all the acting is good and there are a lot of good parts but like the first, there's just way too much of it. I will see it when it comes out on video because, well, Martin Freeman (he does confused so well). Okay, and Cumberbatch as Smaug. I just wish they'd done The Hobbit as one good three hour movie--and then Jackson could go and do something else (I could easily give him ten sf or fantasy titles that would make beautiful movies).
Don't feel bad about defensive about something you love. I still defend Star Trek because it opened me up to science fiction, fantasy and well, reading in general (ironically, if it weren't for Star Trek, I likely never would have read LotR. My life would be completely different if I hadn't as a teenager, watched those reruns --over and over. And over and over. I now admit that a lot of those episodes were mediocre to really bad, but the doors that the idea behind the show opened in my head...
*Has it ever occurred to anyone else that Beorn and Bombadil were changelings that got switched and put in the wrong books? They both serve the same purpose; as a waystop for a weary group of travellers, but the werebear that is the enemy of the orcs could have been a dark character that would fit so well into LotR while the happy song singing Bombadil seems more suited to The Hobbit. Or maybe it's just the silly song that makes him so off-putting. He is after all, the only character upon whom the ring has no effect, and he does save the hobbits from the barrow-wights (the first really scary point in the book). One feels there is much backstory that is never told about him. If only he'd had more than one silly song to sing--over and over.
no subject
While I watch The Hobbit and see all the money it's making a part of me wants to scream, "Don't you people see the difference? Jackson & Co. took Lord of the Rings, caressed it lovingly and made a true work of art. They're just wallowing in The Hobbit.", I also understand the latter's appeal; it's a much simpler story. It's not surprising that it has such mass appeal. It still amazes me that a movie with as dense a story as LotR did as well as it did (I, I think, like most people, consider it one long movie). I forgive Jackson for everything that they left out (farewell, Tom Bombadil*) or changed by thanking them for all the things they got right (Legolas walking on top of the snow; actually showing Gandalf fighting the Balrog: that beautifully sequence of the the watchtowers going off across the mountains as Howard Shore's score soared over the top of it [Ah, that score! How many pieces of art have I done listening to it?]). LotR was clearly a labor of love (thanks for mentioning Howe and Lee, BTW). The Hobbit feels more like an excuse to sell merchandise.
Hmmm... I should admit here that I haven't seen the Desolation of Smaug. Yet. I have some friends (whose opinion I value) warned me off of it saying that all the acting is good and there are a lot of good parts but like the first, there's just way too much of it. I will see it when it comes out on video because, well, Martin Freeman (he does confused so well). Okay, and Cumberbatch as Smaug. I just wish they'd done The Hobbit as one good three hour movie--and then Jackson could go and do something else (I could easily give him ten sf or fantasy titles that would make beautiful movies).
Don't feel bad about defensive about something you love. I still defend Star Trek because it opened me up to science fiction, fantasy and well, reading in general (ironically, if it weren't for Star Trek, I likely never would have read LotR. My life would be completely different if I hadn't as a teenager, watched those reruns --over and over. And over and over. I now admit that a lot of those episodes were mediocre to really bad, but the doors that the idea behind the show opened in my head...
*Has it ever occurred to anyone else that Beorn and Bombadil were changelings that got switched and put in the wrong books? They both serve the same purpose; as a waystop for a weary group of travellers, but the werebear that is the enemy of the orcs could have been a dark character that would fit so well into LotR while the happy song singing Bombadil seems more suited to The Hobbit. Or maybe it's just the silly song that makes him so off-putting. He is after all, the only character upon whom the ring has no effect, and he does save the hobbits from the barrow-wights (the first really scary point in the book). One feels there is much backstory that is never told about him. If only he'd had more than one silly song to sing--over and over.