Why I'm Not Watching The Hobbit movie

[max]

Pretty simple. It's such a powerfully well-written book that for me, a movie will just throw lesser images in my mind. That's the power of reading, really, that you can imagine characters and settings that are highly particularized, and perhaps even grander, than a mere movie can do.

The movie would wreck it for me.

[westside]

I feel as though many thought the same for Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter.

[ollinger]

This is a sign of great character and integrity.

[r2473]

I was going to start a thread about why I'm not reading War and Peace, but the reason is not quite as noble.......

[Kevin T]

Originally Posted by max

Pretty simple. It's such a powerfully well-written book that for me, a movie will just throw lesser images in my mind. That's the power of reading, really, that you can imagine characters and settings that are highly particularized, and perhaps even grander, than a mere movie can do.

The movie would wreck it for me.

I'm having this issue with the 'Game of Thrones' TV series, though I must confess the producers have done a fantastic job to this point. I'm excited to see 'The Hobbit' because Peter Jackson exceeded my expecations with TLOR trilogy.

[Power Player]

Im going to see the hobbit because the cute girl I am dating wants to go and it's not a RomCom.

[Pete.Sampras.]

Isn't that always the case with books and movies?

Anyway, I understand your decision, especially if you have read the books already.

[norbac]

One of the first books I read and one of my favorites still. Though I'm not as excited as I probably should be (a trilogy, really?), I'll probably go and see it.

[Power Player]

The first lord of the rings series IMO did a great adaption of the book.

[TahoeTennis]

I loved the Hobbit cartoon as a kid, ftw.

[max]

Originally Posted by r2473

I was going to start a thread about why I'm not reading War and Peace, but the reason is not quite as noble.......

Interesting you mention War and Peace. It was the one book I wanted to read for 2012 and I finished it a couple of days ago.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by max

Interesting you mention War and Peace. It was the one book I wanted to read for 2012 and I finished it a couple of days ago.

Was it worth the time and effort?

FWIW, I've read it twice over the past 5 years. Took me about 3 months each time. Well deserved of the title "greatest novel of all time".

If you are interested in a "screen version", this is FOR SURE the one to watch. I liked it so much I bought it (well, I copied it from the library actually):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and...972_TV_series)

By the way, your decision to not watch the new Hobbit film is a good one IMO. But I'm not normally a fan of Hollywood versions of books. The BBC can often be counted on for "good" dramatizations.

If you like Shakespeare by the way, the BBC (released on Ambrose video) made THE DEFINITIVE collection (which I also copied from the library):

http://www.ambrosevideo.com/items.cf...TOKEN=80778860

[quest01]

I want to see The Hobbit but right now I'm looking forward to Skyfall.

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

hmm, I actually thought the LOTR movies did a brilliant job of realising the book(s), much better than I had expected.

It may have been because Jackson chose the elements of the story that most resonated with me and cut some of the things that had always annoyed me a bit
(Tom Bombadil and those damn songs, for example!)

Personally, I am looking forward to The Hobbit, but I do wonder how such a short(ish) book could possibly require two rather large movies to tell its tale..

(in a hole in the ground there lived an accountant?)

[Moose Malloy]

Personally, I am looking forward to The Hobbit, but I do wonder how such a short(ish) book could possibly require two rather large movies to tell its tale..

Its actually 3 rather largish movies, not 2. Which is my reason for not seeing it(would feel like I had 'sucker' written on my head afterwards. this trend of making multiple movies out of one book has to stop)

[dParis]

Originally Posted by max

Pretty simple. It's such a powerfully well-written book that for me, a movie will just throw lesser images in my mind. That's the power of reading, really, that you can imagine characters and settings that are highly particularized, and perhaps even grander, than a mere movie can do.

The movie would wreck it for me.

You may be surprised, max. I felt the very same way about Lone Wolf McQuade, but I was rewarded for going against my judgment by witnessing an epic silver screen translation.

[Dilettante]

I read LOTR right before the first movie, just to go to the cinema knowing the original written material. Didn't enjoy the book really, I was often bored, but the movies were great adaptations. Better than the book in my opinion. I'm more into Sci Fi though.

"Game of thrones" is absolutely brilliant as a TV series. Don't know about the books, although I suppose they're very good from what I've heard.

But Tolkien is not my cup of tea.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by max

Pretty simple. It's such a powerfully well-written book that for me, a movie will just throw lesser images in my mind. That's the power of reading, really, that you can imagine characters and settings that are highly particularized, and perhaps even grander, than a mere movie can do.

The movie would wreck it for me.

I know what you mean... Think of how suckfull The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons where in relation to the book.

That said, LOTRs were widely lauded for how closely they following of the books - especially in how they represented things described visually in the books. Peter Jackson has apparently gone even further with The Hobbit in trying to match the tone/essence/setting of the book. They had so much detail and story to get through and followed the book so closely that it has been split into three films, not two as originally planned.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Kevin T

I'm having this issue with the 'Game of Thrones' TV series, though I must confess the producers have done a fantastic job to this point...

It is fantastic TV for sure but the the issue I have with the Game of Thrones TV series is they skip over way too much detail so they can keep each book to a 10 episode series. The story has been skipping forward too much imo.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

It is fantastic TV for sure but the the issue I have with the Game of Thrones TV series is they skip over way too much detail so they can keep each book to a 10 episode series. The story has been skipping forward too much imo.

I loved both seasons, but I had a couple of gripes as well. The first season was about 90%-95% in accordance with the first book, "A Game of Thrones". Season 2, based on "A Clash of Kings", had a couple of problems with pacing, and did not introduce important characters like the Reeds (They'll do this next season, missing much of Bran's character development). Daenerys took too long to get out of Qarth, whereas in the books, she covers a lot more ground.

Anyway, this is always the case with books and their silver-screen adaptations. Regarding GoT, I would have preferred 12-15 40 minute episodes to complete the story arc entirely. Still, I always enjoy reading the books and watching the films (Playing the games sometimes).