So who is actually excited by the new movie?

[Earniel]

I get the impression that excitement for the new Hobbit movies is no where on par with the excitement seen ten years ago when the LoTR movie came out. Not just here on the Entmoot, but in the media too.

I'm curious to see what other people think of that.

Is it because LoTR is so much more popular than the Hobbit? Or that young girls just happen to find cute Hobbits and long-haired Elves more interesting than a bunch of bearded Dwarves? Have people tired of Jackson's filming style?

[Valandil]

I wonder if it's only because The Hobbit movies are coming SECOND. If they had been done first, the greater excitement might have been over them (not sure though). But as we wait for The Hobbit movies to come, we have the LOTR movies in hand. As we waited for LOTR, we only had the books.

[The Gaffer]

I'm somewhat more excited than the LOTR films, if that's possible.

I had low expectations for the films. Now there is no excuse not to do a brilliant job on the Hobbit, which ought to be easier to adapt to the big screen.

Plus my kids are the right age to get into it properly.

I am a bit worried about the two films thing, and suspect that Jackson may interpret his Oscars as meaning "It's OK to make a film with a script like this", rather than "Enough already. We're impressed, please stop now."

[GrayMouser]

Yea,I think a glance at Entmoot might be revealing:

LOTR: Threads-1366 Posts-49,400

Hobbit: Threads 245 Posts- 7304

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yea,I think a glance at Entmoot might be revealing:

LOTR: Threads-1366 Posts-49,400

Hobbit: Threads 245 Posts- 7304

Overwhelming, but not a fair comparison. We're post-LOTR movies and pre-Hobbit movie, which could make a big difference.

[tolkienfan]

I am ridiculously excited for the new movie. So are all of the Tolkien fans I know.

I can't comment on the media or really add anything else, just wanted to throw in my two cents

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yea,I think a glance at Entmoot might be revealing:

LOTR: Threads-1366 Posts-49,400

Hobbit: Threads 245 Posts- 7304

Hm, interesting. But we shouldn't forget that The LoTR movie forums had over ten years to amass those high numbers, and both movie forums also contain threads dealing with the animated movies, not just Jackson's.

[Valandil]

Actually, GM was giving book posts. But even then - it's possible the LOTR movies would have prompted much more posting in the LOTR book forum.

And yes - LOTR is a much more detailed, layered and complicated story. Much more there to talk about, compared to The Hobbit.

But hopefully we'll still manage to make a lot of Hobbit talk around here for the next couple years.

[Earniel]

Oh darn, didn't notice the numbers were from the book forums. Silly me.

[Mark of Cenla]

I am psyched about the upcoming movie(s). None of my close friends care that much about it though. Peace and goodwill.

[Rían]

I'm very excited

I think, though, that Tolkien fans are in general more obsessive about LOTR than The Hobbit. I think there will be a surge in Tolkien interest, but not as much as before the LOTR movies.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Oh darn, didn't notice the numbers were from the book forums. Silly me.

Yea, sorry for not providing context- the idea was to show that people were more excited by the LOTR movies because people are just more into LOTR.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think, though, that Tolkien fans are in general more obsessive about LOTR than The Hobbit.

Perhaps because The Hobbit is considered to be a children's book - which it is to some extent - and therefore not taken as seriously?

[Earniel]

I suspect the lenght of The Hobbit as compared to LoTR will probably also be a factor. Far more material in LoTR to go over and dig in than in the Hobbit.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

Perhaps because The Hobbit is considered to be a children's book - which it is to some extent - and therefore not taken as seriously?

Yes, although IIRC Tolkien didn't like the "children's book" distinction (or was that Lewis? or both of them?). But I think that LOTR is much deeper (as well as MUCH longer! ) and that's why it touches people more deeply.

However, after years of being a little dismissive of the Hobbit, I've started to appreciate it more lately. They really are BOTH amazing works (although certainly LOTR is far deeper and more complex).

[The Gaffer]

I'm surprise at the lack of chat hereabouts..

Anyone read this? Interview with Christopher Tolkien, lamenting the "evisceration" of his father's works:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-s.../#.UO2gsKxv2Sr

Any thoughts on this?

[Niffiwan]

My thoughts on this are that ideas and artistic works are like children. And at some point, you have to let them out into the world, you can't just hold on to them forever. It stunts their development, and it shows that you don't hold much respect for your fellow humans.

For all the good he has done, I don't think Christopher Tolkien should have that kind of power to shackle a beloved work many decades after publication. No artist should.

At most, an artist should have the power to prominently display a "mark of disapproval" on a derived work's cover/poster, but should not be able to prevent it from being made entirely.

EDIT: That last paragraph just gave me an evil idea that might just be a good compromise. Picture this: Christopher Tolkien allows any adaptations (by anyone) to be made as long as 20% of the space on any advertisements, posters or product case covers is reserved for use by the Tolkien estate. If he chooses, Christopher can use that space to make it clear that this adaptation is a total butchery of his father's work, or make any other statements. Moreover, because the people doing the adaptation know this, they're more careful not to make an enemy of him while they do the adaptation because they know that if he wanted to he could bash the movie on the very ads they use to promote it. But they also have the freedom to go against his wishes and suffer the consequences if they so choose.

EDIT2: Another argument can be made here as well: Tolkien's intention with Middle Earth was to create a mythology for the English culture. Well, the thing about mythologies is that they are absorbed by the people and they change and are retold in different ways. So it almost seems as if Christopher is complaining that the very thing that his father wished for is coming to pass.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm surprise at the lack of chat hereabouts..

Anyone read this? Interview with Christopher Tolkien, lamenting the "evisceration" of his father's works:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-s.../#.UO2gsKxv2Sr

Any thoughts on this?

cool picture - he really looks like his father in that picture!

It's so ridiculous for the movie producers to say that they didn't make a profit so that they wouldn't have to pay the Tolkien estate any money (double- )

[GrayMouser]

There's even a Wikipedia entry devoted to "Hollywood accounting".

Some movies that, surprisingly, didn't make any money, according to the studios when faced with payouts to authors etc. :

Return of the Jedi
Coming to America
Spiderman
JFK
My Big fat Greek Wedding
Forrest Gump (the author refused to allow them to use the sequel he had written, on the grounds that since they said the movie had failed to make any money he felt morally obliged to protect the studio from further loss.)

[The Gaffer]

Yes, the whole "no profit" thing shows what a bunch of venal scumbags run industry, and it's not just the film industry. We have similar issues here with Starbucks saying they don't make any profit in the UK and therefore shouldn't pay any tax. Or oil industry types who claim they don't make any profit from petrol sales. But I digress.

I think CT has been quite restrained given what his views are, but I do agree with you Niffiwan, that if you really want it to be taken up by the broader culture it may well be changed beyond recognition. The fact that it has been is a mark of its success.

In understanding whether or not this is an evisceration I think we'd have to consider the experience of people who saw the films first, then read the books.