On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:35:00 -0500, Kenneth wrote:

>> The original book is for children...
> 
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and
> it just seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt
> like it was talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.
> I also got a real kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the
> movie), Bilbo comes across as a rather quiet and somewhat serious
> 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking the overly-comic traits that are
> way overused by his film counterpart. If anything, it seems to me that
> the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than the book is. Yet it
> does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the darker and
> more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)

It may have been mentioned by now, but the Hobbit films are not just 
culled from The Hobbit, but are set in a much larger "historical" context 
of middle earth.  Tolkien had built about 1,000 years of history around 
Middle Earth, and the films actually try to take that history into 
account, which does give it a darker edge.  As one review I read put it, 
the difference between LOTR and The Hobbit (all three films) is that 
Sauron was looking for the one ring in both, but in The Hobbit, he was 
looking in the wrong place.  His intention had been perceived to be to 
recruit Smaug to his cause; Sauruman was becoming evil (he wanted the 
ring for himself), etc.

It helps to be familiar with more than just The Hobbit to understand what 
Jackson is doing with these films - he's getting into a lot more of the 
overall history of Middle Earth and the goings-on while the Dwarves were 
trying to take back Erebor (something that's not really part of The 
Hobbit per se, but was a part of the "historical" reasons for them 
wanting to return home).

Jim

Post a reply to this message