The Hobbit was a poor attempt to cash in, 9 hrs of films with new characters that were not in the book, with little of the darkness and all the time your thinking well we know where this is going....
Either they will have to introduce new characters, and hope people care about them, or lose all narrative uncertainty, since we know how the characters end up.
OR, as is the wont these days to precede everything with a warning, warn that "these programs are only suitable for viewers who have neither read the books nor seen the films".
There are lots of things they could adapt, based on the LotR appendices, and books like The Silmarillion. Some of those were touched on in the movies and books (Lay of Luthien, Elrond's wife, Thrain...the dwarf rings, Aragorn's mother, the 'Necromancer', the Last Alliance etc) all of which could potentially be a rich narrative stream....
The Hobbit is a truly delightful children's book which you can go back to as an adult and enjoy at that level. In my regard it is one of the greatest children's books ever written.
Lord of the Rings is overly extended reinvention of Norse/Angle Saxon sagas, unimaginative, over winded, slightly adolescent and incredibly dull. And I used to be a huge fan of Tolkien when I was 14, 15 or there abouts.
PS Game of Thrones is "Dallas and Dragons" with Cersei Lannister as Sue Ellen
I have to admit that I found LOR unreadable. But I was impressed by the films, I think they captured the Norse saga genre perfectly, better than the written word could. I hasten to add that all the English Lit graduates I listened to disagreed with me.
Plenty of material for amazon to work with but they need to nail it from episode 1. However i think Amazon need something big to compete with Netflix. Amazon prime is still behind Netflix when it comes to shows.
An important part of the book was missed in the film version - ''The scouring of the shire' right at the end of book 3. Important for me because Tolkein himself explained that it reflected his view of the changes made to England after the First world war. The fact that the heroes return home and find their homeland ruined and changed. Probably too dark for the film version.
Thank goodness. yeold! Always thought it was a weak part (more suited to the Hobbit, in some ways. Also, though, thinking about it .... some elements of that section of the book could be material for the 'prequels')
re, Scouring of the Shire, billy, I think they just cut 'extraneous' plot lines. I don't think they were worried abut 'darkness' as such, given the themes in the rest of the trilogy? There's probably an interview with the director somewhere that would explain it.
I always thought it a shame it was missed out ... and I think it isn't the only part that have overtones of WW1 (I think the Frodo-Sam relationship does too). It (scouring of the shire) also offers a strongly anti-industrial perspective that appears elsewhere (Saruman destroying Fangorn, for example) that is a bit simplistic imo (bucolic = good; industrial = bad).
Tolkein said that it reflected his childhood, growing up in Sarehole, a village in Warwickshire (that had a water mill),that was slowly overtaken by the growth of Birmingham's suburbs after WW1.
I loved reading the Hobbit, but I couldn't get past the first 100 pages of Ringlord. I enjoyed the films, though. Although this video does have a point, concerning the plot:
Finished watching 13 Reasons Why the other evening. Not for the faint hearted, but I really liked it, powerful stuff and brilliantly acted. If you`ve not seen it I would highly recommend, but it won`t be everyones cup of tea. ;ok
Comments
Mindhunters sounds interesting maybe switch...
Really struggle to see what they could bring that was different to the films.
And this between the Hobbit and LotR timeline.
Episode 1 Bilbo goes for a cup of tea...
There are lots of things they could adapt, based on the LotR appendices, and books like The Silmarillion. Some of those were touched on in the movies and books (Lay of Luthien, Elrond's wife, Thrain...the dwarf rings, Aragorn's mother, the 'Necromancer', the Last Alliance etc) all of which could potentially be a rich narrative stream....
Lord of the Rings is overly extended reinvention of Norse/Angle Saxon sagas, unimaginative, over winded, slightly adolescent and incredibly dull. And I used to be a huge fan of Tolkien when I was 14, 15 or there abouts.
PS Game of Thrones is "Dallas and Dragons" with Cersei Lannister as Sue Ellen
GoT, I wot not of.
re, Scouring of the Shire, billy, I think they just cut 'extraneous' plot lines. I don't think they were worried abut 'darkness' as such, given the themes in the rest of the trilogy? There's probably an interview with the director somewhere that would explain it.
I always thought it a shame it was missed out ... and I think it isn't the only part that have overtones of WW1 (I think the Frodo-Sam relationship does too). It (scouring of the shire) also offers a strongly anti-industrial perspective that appears elsewhere (Saruman destroying Fangorn, for example) that is a bit simplistic imo (bucolic = good; industrial = bad).
I thought everything after chucking the ring into Mount Doom could have been left out of the film, it just dragged.
I enjoyed the films, though. Although this video does have a point, concerning the plot:
Like the LOTR films and after first watch could never sit through the hobbit again...
Go figure....
As horror it wasn't very scary, as comedy it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny and I enjoyed every minute of it.
And I think that everyone involved with the film would admit that the plot owes more than a little to Groundhog Day.
Next up this weekend Ingrid Goes West.
Doing the double bill Force Awakens into the Last Jedi for a midnight showing. ;wahoo