I just read Patrick Rothfuss' very interesting post in his blog and I thought I'd share it.

Mostly because you can watch the first ever Hobbit movie adaptation.

 

Well, I think he had entirely too much fun writing this little snippet. Also, I adore the LotR movies and have high hopes for The Hobbit.

 

You forgot the best part of that whole blog, Covil.

 

I read that, but everytime it said "she" or "her", etc, I instead could not stop myself from reading the Hobbit.

Highly reccomend that to anyone participating in No Fap February. Absolutely terrifying...

Edit: Oh God, then I got out of posting only to see that picture above. What the fuck...

 

As much as I don't see what is his problem, because to me books are books and movies are movies, it was a fun read. But considering a rather lengthy shy girl/porn star metaphor now I wonder if that actually happened to Rothfuss in the real life.

Also, do we really need a new thread for this instead of using the already existing?

 

This was the only thing going through my mind throughout the blog. Books can get away with a bit more in terms of subtlety, although the LoTR films were great in their own right and captured the /feel/ of the world better than any other movie, which I think is what matters.

Also, I love the nerd mentality, "I know that this probably won't be good and will rape my childhood (that was pretty much the metaphor) but I'm going to see it anyway and provide financial incentives for this sort of movie." To be fair to Rothfuss he doesn't go crazy with it but it's there.

 

John Watson is Bilbo Baggins :O

 

I also think that books and movies are different things... for example it would be nearly impossible to make a good film out of The Name of the Wind because it is nearly impossible to describe the thoughts and feelings of Kvothe in a film and that is the problem with nearly all book adoptions.
But that metaphor made it worth reading...

 

I don't think the problem is in the challenge of adapting a character's thoughts and feelings to film; that can be done practically every time, with varying degrees of difficulty. IMO, the problem is that some books, like LOTR, require very long films to have the same impact, and long films aren't easy to market. Other books, like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, have their beauty in the story itself and playing with the reader's tension (who dunnit?) These are easier to adapt as the characters don't require hours and hours of screen time to develop and be interesting.

 

I think that everyone is missing the central point.

They've called the dragon, "Slag."

 

Please say that's an error. If they honestly fuck up Smaug's name, Jackson is going to lose any credit ever given to him.

 

In the original 12 minute film that Rothfuss has up,

 

With very few exceptions (ASoIaF, for example), adaptations have to be treated as completely different things to the original. This applies to film -> film, book -> film, and, well, about everything that ever can be adapted.

Surprisingly enough, this is because adaptations are completely different things. Tolkein told us a story and Jackson is about to show us one. For that reason alone, if it's too similar to the book and unable to stand on its own merits as a completely independent creative entity because we're being told and not shown, he has failed.

The only reason adaptations are made from books is because there's already an audience for them - there's a place where similarities should and do end in the fifteen or so adaptations out of the twenty highest grossing films of all time. Overzealous faith to the original can hurt, and there's essentially no reason Tolkein fans should treat The Hobbit as anything but a completely new gig. That applies to book as much as Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, by the way. Anything beyond resemblances will fall short, and the production knows this.

So chill. I'm sure they'll be an incredible pair of films. Going in and expecting to watch a faithful retelling of a book like The Hobbit is unrealistic.

 

The only movie I've ever seen that held to the book near-perfectly was The Princess Bride. And that's half because the writer had a manic obsession with film at points in his career and wanted it to be so.

Both iterations of The Hobbit are/will be enjoyable. Jackson's receiving two films for his adaptation for a reason.

Changes you should expect:
Some sort of love story inserted that has no purpose except to draw mass appeal for the audience.
Stressing of several key points in the book more than others (i.e. the riddle game with Gollum, every single fight scene).
The discovery of the Necromancer and his ousting from his hidey-hole to be a full on-screen 20 minute portion of the movie.

And these changes are only in the first act of the film. The only thing I think I won't like is the love story implementation that they'll add. But it's kind of like Arwen in LotR. You understood from a film perspective why that relationship needed to be more prominent on-screen than it was in the books.

I'm excited most for Beorn. Because he resembles Tolkien's favor towards Bombadil closer than any other character in his books. And although I understood him not being in LotR, I desperately wanted to see it played out on the big screen.

 

Why does that have anything to do with getting the dragon's name wrong? Do they not have all the rights?

 

A little worrying news about The Hobbit. If it looks how I think it looks then I can understand why people are complaining. I like my movies to look movie like, not reality show like, though some may argue that we shouldn't stop advancement in filmmaking, just because people are used to a inferior technology.

Still, it's not finished, so everything can change till the premiere.

 

Simple answer is we adapt. But i can see where they are coming from, you'll be able to see the make-up and it'll break the immersion factor. Or you can watch the normal version and keep everything the same.

 

I had that exact same kneejerk to the higher framerate, HD-look when digital cinema began to be taken more seriously on this side of the pond. I recall fucking hating it. Now I literally don't work in anything else.

There may well be a buffer as people get used to it, but 48 and 50 probably will catch on as delivery formats (they're already used ish as capture formats). Such things evolve, and will continue to.

Oh, and if you're going to see it in 3D, you can shut the fuck up about framerate, because you obviously don't actually give a shit about the 'cinematic look' of the film.

 

Meh... film snobs be snobbin'.