Re: The Desolation of Smaug pre-release thread [SPOILERS]

[bungobaggins]

I don't think we'll ever know whose idea it was to split the movies into three films.

I think I have to agree with Eldo that money probably wasn't Jackson's primary motive (I'm sure he has more than he knows what to do with, he seems to be interested in helping out NZ a lot with his money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Jackson#Charitable_activities). I really don't want to think that Jackson is a bad person out for a quick cash grab. I honestly think he's making these movies for his die-hard fans (the kind that want him to make The Silmarillion, the kind that aren't offended by small and large changes from the source material).

I do believe that money was primary Warner Bros motive. That's one more movie release for them, at least two more DVD/Bluray releases (Theatrical and Extended), they now preside over one of the biggest IP's ever (in terms of film). The more franchises a studio owns, the more films they can crank out (although this is probably the end of the road for Middle-earth, but they can reissue home video releases and sucker a bunch of chumps into re-buying it with whatever harebrained gimmick is attached to it). WB is going to milk it for all it's worth.

Just as an interesting side note, here's an infographic showing which major studios own which franchises.

[Eldorion]

I think bungo's point about franchises is an important one.  The major studios (and hell, even some of the mid-sized ones) have become more and more reliant on major "tentpole" franchises to underwrite their operations.  Warner Bros. has done very well for themselves in recent years, but the three-film decision was made during a period when the studio's future was uncertain (and it still kind of is).  Harry Potter and the Magical Money Machine wrapped up in Summer 2011 and right around that same time, Warner Bros.' first attempt at launching a non-Superman, non-Batman superhero franchise flopped (Green Lantern).  They also knew that the Nolan Batman series was wrapping up, leaving the future of the most popular DC superhero somewhat uncertain.  As for MGM, they don't have much in the way of currently-relevant properties other than their partial stakes in The Hobbit and James Bond. Being just a few years past their near-death as a company, I'm sure they're happy to have another big payday on the horizon.

[chris63]

[Sinister71]

I don't think money was Jackson's motivation at all but I do think he played submissive to WB and was told to make the series 3 films. From past experience working for a company owned by WB they are the greediest, most manipulative company I have ever worked for. They get what they want... Period. The reason I say it was their decision is the 3rd film would take almost no capitol to finance in comparison to what they had already bankrolled for the 2 film project. But the return on that minimal investment will be worth hundreds of millions.

Plus looking at the direction Jackson is taking with the Hobbit these films are all over the place. They aren't a cohesive piece of work even within itself, let alone when its held beside LOTR it neither matches style wise nor is the story telling as good this time around. They have made up their own story lines, invented characters, altered existing character arcs, rewritten 90% of Tolkien's dialogue, and shown no respect to the source material and have made statements about "enjoying deviating from Tolkien" which to me just seems disrespectful.

Not saying what the crew and cast have done isn't hard work. It most surely is and I give them an A for effort. But give them failing marks on telling the story of the Hobbit. Sure the Hobbit in some bastardized form is in their but all the scenarios from the book have been altered into Jackson's version of them without having the same feel and tone as the original. Many of those scenarios not making sense when held in comparison to the book.

Like I said I don't think Jackson had a choice when it came to splitting the films. I think WB told him what to do and like a good monkey he complied. Plain and simple.  

[Eldorion]

PJ is one of the few filmmakers who I would think has enough clout and proven success under his belt to stand up to a major studio over creative decisions. Even on LOTR, when he was unproven, he was given considerable autonomy (though of course he was working with a still semi-separate New Line at the time). But I think he would have been consulted and wooed on the decision if he was reluctant at first.

[bungobaggins]

I've been trying to ween myself off of franchise films. I feel that, overall, they will be a huge detriment to film as an art form and will perpetuate "the great stagnation" (a term I just came up with to describe the industry's favoring of adapted works/sequels/prequels) in the film industry.

However, I'll be the first to admit that I've seen my fair share of franchise films. Leading up to the summer I really wanted to see Star Trek, and was looking forward to it, hoping that it would be good (and also fearing that it would just be a Wrath of Khan ripoff). So I waited, and I saw the very positive reviews it was getting, but I still didn't go. I did a little more reading up on it, and of course the villain was Khan, we all knew it from the get-go. So I *ahem* found a bootleg copy on the interwebz, don't judge me *ahem* and I watched it.

I was so disappointed, but also glad I hadn't wasted my money at the theater. I was hoping the filmmakers would try something new, but (in my eyes) they didn't. In the 2009 film they altered the timeline (while this is not a new convention for Star Trek, it seemed like a bold one for the reboot to take), which showed that they might take the series in a new direction. But no, here was just a rehash of all the pop culture moments of Star Trek II. And then they even shoe-horned in Leonard Nimoy (what an awkward cameo).   I feel like the script writers really dropped the ball. I still like Star Trek, but if they make another film in this reboot (which is very likely) I don't plan on seeing it in theaters.

When I saw Mike, Jay and Rich review the film on Half in the Bag all I could think was: "They took the words right out of my mouth!"

Yeah, I've become disenchanted with franchise films. I think I'll see Middle-earth through to the end, but after that I'm done.

Also, fuck Jurassic Park IV.

[Eldorion]

Big-budget blockbusters very rarely push the boundaries of cinema as an art form, I don't think anyone would dispute that, but they can still be a lot of fun. The problem with the new Star Trek movies is that they're written by a bunch of hacks: Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (Transformers, Cowboys & Aliens) and Damon Lindelof (Lost, Prometheus).

[Norc]

why isn't HP on that graf? also.. three looks better than two-

[chris63]

The Evolution of Smaug

by ArchedCory

I am sure many of you are familiar with the explanation Tolkien wrote in a letter to the ‘Observer’ in January 1938:

“The dragon bears a name – a pseudonym – the past tense of the primitive Germanic verb Smugan, to squeeze through a hole: a low philological jest.”

So that’s it, not a very exciting story.

However, what most people might not know: Smaug has not always been called Smaug! In the very first manuscript (of which merely six hand-written pages exist), back in a time when the wizard was called Bladorthin, the chief dwarf Gandalf, and his grandfather Fimbulfambi, Smaug also had a different name, and it was Pryftan.

Apparently “pryf” is the Welsh word for “vermin” and “tan” means “fire”, so that name – as most of his others – was possibly also very well considered. However Pryftan didn’t survive very long. Already in the second manuscript, written down only shortly after the first, Tolkien struck out Pryftan and wrote Smaug instead. Why he changed the name, we will never know.

Age

From the very beginning up until the published book, the text read that dragons live “practically for ever, unless they are killed.” When Tolkien in 1960 attempted to re-write The Hobbit in a more mature way to better fit the tone of the Lord of the Rings (he never made it past Rivendell), this line was changed to “five thousand years maybe”, and soon to “a thousand years maybe”.

I suppose Tolkien was always aware they are mortal, just within a much longer time range than men, or even dwarves. Since he was writing a children’s book at first it was convenient to write “practically forever,” as 1000 years are already hard to grasp for a human, especially a child. It is interesting he lowered the number from 5000 years, which probably sounded too exaggerated, even for a dragon.

[Ringdrotten]

Was the "mature" hobbit ever published? I'm asking because all the copies I own seem to be the original text.

[chris63]

I wouldn't mind reading both versions, how do you no which one you have ?



Mine has this on the cover, close to 40yrs old.

[Pettytyrant101]

There is no mature version I dont think? Tolkien abandoned it, interestingly because it was no longer TH, it ruined the tone and style and pacing trying to make it like LotR's- a lesson sadly not learned by PJ.
In my opinion if the creative genius who came up with ME and its tales gave the idea up as a bad decision that was ruining, not improving the original then PJ and co should not have been so arrogant as to assume they could do it- the results so far favour Tolkien being right all along and PJ and co being full of shit.

[Norc]

"å smyge" in norwegian means "to slither(spelling?)" or something similar. if you don't want to be seen u can also "smyge"  also, the translation of Slytherin is smygard.

so smaug has always in my mind resembled a long, low grounded wormy dragon.

[Pettytyrant101]

I suspect Tolkien would have been aware of that Norc- as Smaug is a wyrm in the old english sense (like the dragon St George killed, the english patron saint) and they were long and sinuous.
Plus Tolkiens own illustrations of Smaug depict him this way- he is not a huge chunky beast. So I think he probably had these meanings in mind.

[Elthir]

There is no mature version I dont think? Tolkien abandoned it, interestingly because it was no longer TH, it ruined the tone and style and pacing trying to make it like LotR's- a lesson sadly not learned by PJ.

Yes Tolkien had someone [still unknown] read the new version, which had not gone very far, and he decided to agree with this person that it was no longer The Hobbit.

One needs The History of The Hobbit to read what Tolkien wrote here [part II, the '1960 Hobbit'].

That said, I for one wish that Tolkien would have revised a lot more, as I find it interesting to see him attempt to fix stuff that he didn't feel fit well enough with The Lord of the Rings -- like the blood on the blades obscuring the runes -- like it or not as a 'fix' it tells us that Tolkien was not indulging in any 'Gondolinic rune theory' to explain Gandalf's waiting for Elrond to read them.

I wanted to see what JRRT would do with the two 'arguably problematic' orc references [as compared to 'goblin'], one of which he had added for the 1951 edition. But anyway, yes he abandoned this version quite early.

[Norc]

Was the "mature" hobbit ever published? I'm asking because all the copies I own seem to be the original text.

mature? do u mean like.. probably not.

----------

Continued here: http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t743-the-desolation-of-smaug-pre-release-thread-2-spoilers