The Hobbit and LOTR changes over mediums (books/movies/comics)

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Interesting points Chris, one question.

 

While clearly the publishing dates of the LOTR novels are post WWII, so much of the world was thought up and in different notes of Tolkien's, and the Ring itself appeared in The Hobbit which was published in 1937.

 

How could the Ring represent the A-Bomb?

 

I'd honestly never thought of it as an A Bomb until I did some research in the middle of writing my post. From what I gathered, it was an early interpretation of the ring in the 50s and 60s. It makes sense that people in the Cold War era would associate it with the A Bomb. It also helps to further my point about how our fears change.

 

On the point about The Hobbit, I think the way the ring is presented in The Hobbit is a lot different then TLOTR.

[Chip Cataldo]

Should Sue take on the role of the damsel in distress or housewife that the Lee and Kirby run portrayed her to be in some instances? Those days are long gone and it does not translate well to today's societal norms. There are many instances where the comics, their origin stories and some of the personality traits of the characters are dated and no longer work. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree that it is possible to be faithful to the source material.

I have two words that destroy your position, at least in regards to the Fantastic Four.

 

The first one is John, and the second one is Byrne.

 

He took all the origin stories and personality traits and updated them 20+ years. He took Lee & Kirby's foundation and improved it while keeping all the spirit and personality of the original.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Literature is very much a reflection of the times. Many of the themes in TLOTR were reflective of fears and apprehensions during the time he wrote the books. Tolkien lived in a post WWI and WWII world. A lot of the book seems to present fears of that time like the fear of other races, apprehensions about power, and people argue the ring is representative of the atomic bomb.

 

And those people would be wrong.

 

Quote: ""An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience," Tolkien acknowledged, but he strongly denied that his story was an allegory for World War I or II. Although The Lord of the Rings was written during World War II and follows the rise of a great evil threatening to envelop the world, the ring was not meant to symbolize the atomic bomb. Likewise, the characters Sauron and Saruman, although both tyrants, are imaginary characters and are not meant to represent Hitler or Stalin. "

 

(emphasis added.)

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngbeyond/rings/influences.html

 

Those are Tolkien's own words.

 

Personally, to make a good film, a director/screenwriter/producer needs to be able to interpret and present the work in a way that appeals to the audience. Jackson did a pretty good job of remaining true to the major themes, but he still updated and changed things to make it work in today's world. Your point about Faramir and Boromir is a good example. While he changed the intricacies of the events, I still felt that Faramir was able to resist the temptation of the ring. Jackson changed it slightly so in many ways Faramir made a mistake trying to hold Frodo, and then he realized and let him go. It showed that humans can make mistakes and correct those mistakes when given the opportunity.

 

"Making mistakes and correcting those mistakes" was not Tolkien's point with these characters.

 

You may wish to make this excuse, but it is only an ex-post-facto justification. Whether it "makes sense" or "works" is irrelevant to the point.

 

Tolkien's theme, as demonstrated by the characters Faramir and Boromir, was completely and utterly obliterated, and Faramir "changing his mind" does nothing to undo that obliteration. It doesn't "restore" the theme, the point that Tolkien was making, which was that appearances are deceiving, and inner strength is of far greater value, and power, than outer strength.

 

Faramir taking possession of Frodo, and dragging him off, having him behave precisely like Boromir, completely destroys Tolkien's point, and having Faramir "change his mind" later doesn't fix that. The whole point of Faramir's character...the entire reason for his existence...was to provide a counterpoint to Boromir, and demonstrate the theme that outward strength doesn't always mean inward strength. Was Faramir tempted by the ring? Of course he was, and he even admits it to Frodo. But temptation is where it ended for Faramir, because Faramir had not only the strength of character, but the WISDOM to recognize that the ring was far, far beyond the ability of him, or anyone he knew, to master in any meaningful way.

 

So what if the movie "Faramir" changed his mind? That's not how the ring ever worked. It is a contradiction of what Tolkien had already carefully laid out in the entire history of the ring prior to Faramir, up to and including Boromir. Those who set their minds on possessing the ring, regardless of how long, and took it by force, became slaves to the ring.

 

Bilbo gave it up willingly, but that's also because Bilbo was A. old, and B. didn't obtain it by force or by guile. Sam gave it up willingly, but his mind was not set on possessing it, nor did he obtain it by force or guile.

 

Not even Frodo, in the end, could give it up willingly.

 

Not even Gandalf...the greatest power in Middle Earth aside from Sauron (save Tom Bombadil, of course, who was perhaps a Maia, if not Oromë himself)...would dare to even consider possessing the ring, though he did touch it.

 

No, the ring proved such a temptation to Boromir, that he didn't even need to SEE it to fall under its power, and lose his mind. Had Faramir given in to the temptation and dragged Frodo off, Tolkien heavily implies he would have been snared, and soon enough, would have destroyed Frodo to have the ring.

 

What saved him...and the point that Tolkien was making...was that Faramir was in reality far stronger of character than Boromir, and did not even venture onto that path for anything other than a short consideration.

 

To "change his mind later"...even if the outcome was the same...just destroyed that point, contradicted what Tolkien was doing, and made Faramir a completely and utterly useless character in the films.

 

I'm also not sure I agree with your assertion that so few people have read the source material. The Lord of the Rings trilogy consistently remains on lists as one of the top selling books in history. Most numbers place sales of the book around 150 million copies. On top of that, The Hobbit is in a good number of middle school curriculums. I've also seen TLOTR on a lot of curriculums as well. I think a lot more people have read it than you give credit.

 

Here's my quote:

 

...which only 1 in 100,000 viewers have even seen...

 

Obviously, that number is a "pulled out of thin air" estimation, but it may not be so far from accurate.

 

Let's use your numbers. 150 million copies in print. That's since 1954, when Fellowship was published.

 

How many people saw Return of the King?

 

The film made $1.119 billion. Avg. US ticket prices in 2003 were $6.03. Worldwide, they were substantially less. But let's go with the higher number. That means about 200 million people (and that number is really substantially higher, because of lower ticket prices worldwide, where the film made the vast majority of its money) saw Return, give or take.

 

Ok, so 150 million copies sold, vs. 200 million people who saw Return. Pretty even, right?

 

No, of course not. Those 150 million copies sold are from 1955 to 2015, a period of 60 years, or roughly 2.5 million a year. Since many people who were alive in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and so on, who red the book are now dead, that means the number of people who red the book isn't anywhere near 150 million people.

 

But there's more...

 

Nearly 1/3 of those 150 million copies sold did so because of the films. So, that's 50 million copies that we can rule out as copies to which people had access to have seen prior to seeing the movies.

 

Quote: "Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series."

 

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2007/04/16/tolkien_proves_hes_still_the_king.html

 

So we're down to 100 million copies, published over nearly 50 years. And, of those years, the vast majority of those copies were sold when the books were NEW, in the mid 50's, and on into the early 60's. It certainly wasn't a powerhouse seller in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

 

So, how many people who saw the movie had red the books beforehand...?

 

Certainly not anywhere near 200 million of them. Perhaps not even a million of them. Perhaps not even 100,000 of them.

 

After all...we KNOW how many people read comics on a regular basis: the number is, perhaps, 100-200 thousand people, in a nation of 300+ million.

 

Those who read books aren't *necessarily* those who see films. And, as Jackson was unfaithful to the source material, it's not just possible, but likely, that those who red and enjoyed the books may not have wanted to see the films at all. Certainly not a great number of people, but not insubstantial, either.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Should Sue take on the role of the damsel in distress or housewife that the Lee and Kirby run portrayed her to be in some instances? Those days are long gone and it does not translate well to today's societal norms. There are many instances where the comics, their origin stories and some of the personality traits of the characters are dated and no longer work. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree that it is possible to be faithful to the source material.

I have two words that destroy your position, at least in regards to the Fantastic Four.

 

The first one is John, and the second one is Byrne.

 

He took all the origin stories and personality traits and updated them 20+ years. He took Lee & Kirby's foundation and improved it while keeping all the spirit and personality of the original.

 

There you go.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(I could talk about LOTR and Tolkien all day long.)

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

A few things:

 

We are headed towards an existential debate of sorts. Many scholarly critics say you should ignore the author's intent and simply look at the work. JRRT may not have intended for the book to have elements from WWII but it did. He could deny it until he was blue in the face, but if the elements are there they can't be ignored.

 

Personally, I've never been big on the WWII interpretation. I do think it is hard to ignore the similarities though. I've also always enjoyed historical criticism and it is hard to ignore the fact JRRT lived through WWI and WWII and say he wasn't influenced by those events.

 

I don't think we'll agree on the Faramir vs Boromir thing. I don't recall appearance being a big thing in the books, but it has also been years since I read them. I always felt like the bigger issue was that Boromir was tempted and Faramir wasn't. I still think the movie's portrayal of Faramir made him seem like the better, stronger person. Maybe Jackson took a slightly different path to get there but he still got there.

 

The numbers thing is a slippery slope, as you sort of implied. You are ignoring how many times the book may have been checked out at a library and how many times it may have been passed out in a class.

 

I'll also admit, I was in high school when Fellowship came out. It made me go read the books. It pulled me in and I read all three in like a week and was just blown away. It isn't a bad thing for the film to get people reading.

[Hado]

(I could talk about LOTR and Tolkien all day long.)

 

And I could listen, your knowledge of the books is impressive to say the least.

 

Your point about Faramir is spot on as well, the only way Jackson's version doesn't ruin the character is if he didn't want the ring at all, and simply captured Frodo and thought to return the ring to Gondor to please his father, then he realized Frodo's mission was far more important than winning Denathor's favour.

 

It's a weak argument but it could be made.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(I could talk about LOTR and Tolkien all day long.)

 

And I could listen, your knowledge of the books is impressive to say the least.

 

Your point about Faramir is spot on as well, the only way Jackson's version doesn't ruin the character is if he didn't want the ring at all, and simply captured Frodo and thought to return the ring to Gondor to please his father, then he realized Frodo's mission was far more important than winning Denathor's favour.

 

It's a weak argument but it could be made.

 

True, it could be made, but I would counter with the fact that Faramir...going back to that inner strength of character...was never overly concerned with Denethor's favor, and had his relationship with Boromir, who was certainly a surrogate father to him, to more than compensate. Boromir and Faramir were, as Tolkien wrote, very close, and the five years age difference provided the necessary distance for Boromir to serve in that older brother/surrogate father role, so that Faramir lacked little growing up.

 

It's a fair argument, but I don't think it holds up under a deeper look.

 

I'm a super Tolkien nerd. If I never had coins, if I never had comics, but only had Tolkien, I would be content.

 

[Hado]

(I could talk about LOTR and Tolkien all day long.)

 

And I could listen, your knowledge of the books is impressive to say the least.

 

Your point about Faramir is spot on as well, the only way Jackson's version doesn't ruin the character is if he didn't want the ring at all, and simply captured Frodo and thought to return the ring to Gondor to please his father, then he realized Frodo's mission was far more important than winning Denathor's favour.

 

It's a weak argument but it could be made.

 

True, it could be made, but I would counter with the fact that Faramir...going back to that inner strength of character...was never overly concerned with Denethor's favor, and had his relationship with Boromir, who was certainly a surrogate father to him, to more than compensate. Boromir and Faramir were, as Tolkien wrote, very close, and the five years age difference provided the necessary distance for Boromir to serve in that older brother/surrogate father role, so that Faramir lacked little growing up.

 

It's a fair argument, but I don't think it holds up under a deeper look.

 

I'm a super Tolkien nerd. If I never had coins, if I never had comics, but only had Tolkien, I would be content.

 

Did you read Unfinished Tales?