This discussion may be opening a can of worms, but I think that it's something that deserves deliberation. As a student of literature who also appreciates film, I can't help but wonder if the departure that directors often take from books is warranted.
Anyways, these are a few of the strongest arguments that I have heard defending it. I'll try to do a fairly quick and succinct summary:
1) All of the things that are written in a book can't be translated to a motion picture. In addition, there are some things that are more easily expounded upon in a film (i.e. battle sequences).
2) The director is also an artist and has the right to make changes, even if he is using a borrowed work (after all, doesn't a conductor sometimes make changes to the musical score?). People have argued this for many, many years in different mediums (i.e. changing the end of a Shakespeare play so that it isn't a tragedy).
3) No matter how hard you try, it just wouldn't be possible to find actors or actresses with the exact same personality traits as characters in a novel. Each actor or actress brings their own experience to the scene, regardless of how they are supposed to act, and therefore changes the film in subtle ways.
On the flip side, here are some of the arguments that I have heard against it.
1) Changing large portions of a book is no different than an agency eliminating words, sentences, or scenes in an effort at censorship. As Ray Bradbury said, "There is more than one way to burn a book."
2) Differing how characters act, or even introducing new characters, is an insult to both the author and the reader.
3) If a book can't be adapted to film without few departures from the original book, then it shouldn't be. Changing vital parts of a book delivers different messages than the author intended.
With two more The Hobbit movies on the way, I was more thinking along the lines of this recent franchise, but if you want to bring The Lord of the Rings movies into the discussion, feel free to. Here are just a few guiding questions to help us along.
1) Has Peter Jackson (director) done a good job of adapting The Hobbit to film?
2) Where do you stand on the points that I listed above? Are there any other discussion points that you want to bring up?
3) What additions are hard to swallow, or what additions might be positive or give the viewer a better understanding of Tolkien's world?
4) After seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, are you looking forward to the sequel The Desolation of Smaug?
Here's a trailer for The Desolation of Smaug, if you haven't seen it. It's scheduled to come out on December 13, 2013.
Have at it! I'll join in the discussion, but I want to see where people stand before I voice my opinions.
M.R. Michel
Anyways, these are a few of the strongest arguments that I have heard defending it. I'll try to do a fairly quick and succinct summary:
1) All of the things that are written in a book can't be translated to a motion picture. In addition, there are some things that are more easily expounded upon in a film (i.e. battle sequences).
2) The director is also an artist and has the right to make changes, even if he is using a borrowed work (after all, doesn't a conductor sometimes make changes to the musical score?). People have argued this for many, many years in different mediums (i.e. changing the end of a Shakespeare play so that it isn't a tragedy).
3) No matter how hard you try, it just wouldn't be possible to find actors or actresses with the exact same personality traits as characters in a novel. Each actor or actress brings their own experience to the scene, regardless of how they are supposed to act, and therefore changes the film in subtle ways.
On the flip side, here are some of the arguments that I have heard against it.
1) Changing large portions of a book is no different than an agency eliminating words, sentences, or scenes in an effort at censorship. As Ray Bradbury said, "There is more than one way to burn a book."
2) Differing how characters act, or even introducing new characters, is an insult to both the author and the reader.
3) If a book can't be adapted to film without few departures from the original book, then it shouldn't be. Changing vital parts of a book delivers different messages than the author intended.
With two more The Hobbit movies on the way, I was more thinking along the lines of this recent franchise, but if you want to bring The Lord of the Rings movies into the discussion, feel free to. Here are just a few guiding questions to help us along.
1) Has Peter Jackson (director) done a good job of adapting The Hobbit to film?
2) Where do you stand on the points that I listed above? Are there any other discussion points that you want to bring up?
3) What additions are hard to swallow, or what additions might be positive or give the viewer a better understanding of Tolkien's world?
4) After seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, are you looking forward to the sequel The Desolation of Smaug?
Here's a trailer for The Desolation of Smaug, if you haven't seen it. It's scheduled to come out on December 13, 2013.
Have at it! I'll join in the discussion, but I want to see where people stand before I voice my opinions.
M.R. Michel
