The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (trailer)

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Movies have no obligation to be faithful to their inspiration.

True, but then you can't blame us for wanting to see a faithful representation of the original work, either.

 

[Umbran]

This. Movies have no obligation to be faithful to their inspiration.

There is a difference between, "I take inspiration from a previous work" and "I actively market this as the previous work in a new form"

If I hand you a box, and tell you a birthday cake for you is inside, and you open it to find a pile of hay... aren't you within your rights to be rather disappointed, at least? I mean, unless you are a guinea pig or a horse, that's not much of a birthday cake, is it?

If it really is just an inspiration, then you're correct. The musical "West Side Story" is basically a retelling of Romeo and Juliet - but they don't *call* it "Romeo and Juliet", so the existence of songs and dances not in the original is totally okay. However, if you use the title, you are making an active statement - "this thing is the same as that thing". In calling it The Hobbit, they are inviting the comparison, and actively choosing to set an expectation in the audience. It is fair to critique how well they fail to meet the expectations they themselves set.

Is it an "obligation" in some legal sense? No. But don't tell folks they should not be disappointed when the thing Jackson & Co. told them would be there... isn't. They chose to take the risk, and don't need you to shield them from it.

 

[Morrus]

If I hand you a box, and tell you a birthday cake for you is inside, and you open it to find a pile of hay... aren't you within your rights to be rather disappointed, at least?

Sure. You have a right to be disappointed at anything you want. Nobody's claiming feelings are subject to legislation or anything.

If it really is just an inspiration, then you're correct. The musical "West Side Story" is basically a retelling of Romeo and Juliet - but they don't *call* it "Romeo and Juliet", so the existence of songs and dances not in the original is totally okay. However, if you use the title, you are making an active statement - "this thing is the same as that thing". In calling it The Hobbit, they are inviting the comparison, and actively choosing to set an expectation in the audience. It is fair to critique how well they fail to meet the expectations they themselves set.

If anyone on the entire planet is under the mistaken impression that these three movies are accurate word-for-word depictions of one small children's book, then I'd say that's on them. They're clearly not, nor pretending to be. They've been pretty honest about what these movies are.

But don't tell folks they should not be disappointed

He didn't. He didn't even mention the word!

 

[Umbran]

If anyone on the entire planet is under the mistaken impression that these three movies are accurate word-for-word depictions of one small children's book, then I'd say that's on them. They're clearly not, nor pretending to be. They've been pretty honest about what these movies are.

I know they aren't going to be word-for-word, Morrus. But it isn't like not being word-for-word means they should just do anything they please. Really, they set up the expectations, and in many senses they have failed.

Which is a shame - because Martin Freeman does *such* a good job. Perfect casting, somewhat wasted by the material he's given.

He didn't. He didn't even mention the word!

So, do tell me, what other purpose does pointing out that they are under no obligation to be faithful have, than to dismiss complaints that they were not faithful, and imply those complaints are unwarranted?

 

[Morrus]

I know they aren't going to be word-for-word, Morrus. But it isn't like not being word-for-word means they should just do anything they please. Really, they set up the expectations, and in many senses they have failed.

I disagree. I don't think they set up any expectations at all that they were the same. Massive publicity told us about the extra content and more long before even the first movie started.

Whether you *liked* the movie is another matter. But they were clear about the content.

So, do tell me, what other purpose does pointing out that they are under no obligation to be faithful have, than to dismiss complaints that they were not faithful, and imply those complaints are unwarranted?

It tells you how the poster himself feels about the changes. I feel the same way as him.

 

[Ryujin]

If anyone on the entire planet is under the mistaken impression that these three movies are accurate word-for-word depictions of one small children's book, then I'd say that's on them. They're clearly not, nor pretending to be. They've been pretty honest about what these movies are.

I'm not one of the Tolkien purists, who constantly whine that Galadriel's dress was the wrong colour or that Tom Bombadil was slighted, but I think that the alterations in The Hobbit movies go too far. It would have been one good Jackson length movie if done closer to the source. This strikes me as too much like "Star Trek III: The Quest for More Money" than it does a Tolkien movie and I find that very disappointing, given how well I think Jackson did with the trilogy.

 

[EricNoah]

If the changes made the films better I wouldn't have that much of a problem. But I was SUUUPER bored during the first one, especially. I honestly thought there was no way having "more Hobbit" could be anything but awesome, but I was wrong...

 

[MarkB]

I disagree. I don't think they set up any expectations at all that they were the same. Massive publicity told us about the extra content and more long before even the first movie started.

Whether you *liked* the movie is another matter. But they were clear about the content.

The extra content, yes. But there's a difference between adding to a story and gratuitously changing the existing story. There was sufficient cause to at least hope that the events of The Hobbit would be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.

 

[trappedslider]

The extra content, yes. But there's a difference between adding to a story and gratuitously changing the existing story. There was sufficient cause to at least hope that the events of The Hobbit would be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.

Bilbo gets dragged along by Grandalf on a journey with Dwarfs, runs into trolls, bumps into golum gets the ring during a very questionable game of riddles ( depending on who you ask ) and that's just the first movie..

 

[Morrus]

The extra content, yes. But there's a difference between adding to a story and gratuitously changing the existing story. There was sufficient cause to at least hope that the events of The Hobbit would be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.

Which gratuitous changes are you referring to? I didn't notice anything egregious or gratuitous, except for the additions (which were very heavily advertised in advance). The events of The Hobbit appear to me to be there, intact, within the larger canvas of the movies.