Corey Olsen and the Hobbit movies

Hey! So I only just discovered this place, and I was so pleased. It's nice to be able to have a venue at which to air my disappointment with the Hobbit movies. In this post though, I'd like to ask you guys if you've listened to the Riddles in the Dark podcasts by Corey Olsen. In his review of the Desolation of Smaug, for example, he argues that the films should be seen as essentially separate from the books - almost as completely different stories. In his view it follows that the films cannot (or should not) be criticized on the basis of their fidelity as adaptations. He has relentlessly pushed this agenda in many of his podcasts and as far as I can tell, he's never really been challenged on this.

For this of you who have listened to the RItD podcasts, what do you guys think of Olsen's arguments with regards to the films?

Not listened to those, but welcome to the forum!

Welcome to Forumshire Trans! (or would you prefer THA? -I'm way to lazy to type the whole thing I'm afraid)

I used to quite enjoy listening to the Prof's podcasts, but I had to stop listening to his Hobbit ones and they seemed to be becoming less and less scholarly opinion and more and more just excusing any changes made. And there is only so much crawling bumliking I can put up with before I explode!

Olsen is one of the main pushers of the "it's all in the Appendices" argument, though he seems to have backed off somewhat since the first film was released.  But he's been plenty disingenuous and misleading in his justifications of the expansion of the story, although not nearly to the same degree as Peter Jackson has.

As for whether the films can be criticized for their changes, I don't really consider this argument to be worth a full rebuttal. Only the most extreme revisionists would have signed off on John Boorman's version of LOTR, so the question is not whether the films should bear some resemblance to the book, but how much.

But.. it's not all in the appendices..

I suppose the Appendices argument was more popular back before any of the films came out, when defenders of the film could fall back on the uncertainty of what exactly was going to be added to blunt criticism. But in the summer of 2012, when rumors about the third film were swirling, PJ made his infamous comment that the Appendices were Tolkien's "expanded Hobbit notes", and Olsen was claiming that PJ was approaching the films from the same perspective that Tolkien had post-LOTR, when he did a lot of work to "contextualize" The Hobbit vis-a-vis LOTR. (Olsen neglected to mention that the only substantial revision was the role of the Ring in the chapter "Riddles in the Dark".)

Example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/12/14/corey-olsen-explains-the-hobbit.html

You do wonder at that. Because the easiest defense and justification for Jackson's treatment of the Hobbit would be to simply say "It's an adaptation, of course he's going to change things.", no?

Claiming the changes made actually have their foundations in Tolkien's work comes across, yes, disingenuous, and frankly makes you question the motives of the person making the argument.

The best part is how Olsen goes back and forth between his "they're different stories, it doesn't matter!" and "PJ is totally doing what Tolkien would have!" arguments without seeming to realize that they undercut each other.

Just as an example of how up-his-own-ass his arguments are: in his DOS podcast review (about 4.5 minutes in), Olsen says that "you can no more expect the same thing" from an adaptation than you can expect the same thing from a translation into another language.  Right off the bat, he's not only dragging out the tired old strawman argument that purists want literally no changes, but he's using one of the dumbest possible comparisons he could to make his point.  Translations are supposed to keep to the original as much as possible given the inherent differences between languages.  Likewise, purists argue that the filmmakers should have kept to the original as much as possible given the inherent differences in various forms of media.  A translator who just changes things willy-nilly or who doesn't really seem to understand the original has failed as a translator, and angry fans can and will rake them over the coals for their failures.

Edit: oh god, in the next segment of that podcast, he claims that by doing away with the children's story aspect of The Hobbit, PJ and Co. are "explicitly following in Tolkien's tracks. They are themselves doing what Tolkien wished he had done, wanted to do, and started to do himself."  He goes on to say that fans can't object by saying "this isn't The Hobbit, you can't do this", because "Tolkien did" try to change it and make it more adult.  Except one of his panelists had just pointed out mere minutes before that Tolkien gave up on his revision of The Hobbit because it ... wasn't really The Hobbit anymore.  Something Olsen agreed with.  So, is it still The Hobbit if it doesn't have the whimsy, or is it not?

Eldorion wrote:

Edit: oh god, in the next segment of that podcast, he claims that by doing away with the children's story aspect of The Hobbit, PJ and Co. are "explicitly following in Tolkien's tracks. They are themselves doing what Tolkien wished he had done, wanted to do, and started to do himself."  He goes on to say that fans can't object by saying "this isn't The Hobbit, you can't do this", because "Tolkien did" try to change it and make it more adult.  Except one of his panelists had just pointed out mere minutes before that Tolkien gave up on his revision of The Hobbit because it ... wasn't really The Hobbit anymore.  Something Olsen agreed with.  So, is it still The Hobbit if it doesn't have the whimsy, or is it not?

So essentially, he is basing his opinions on thirty pages of a privately written, quickly abandoned draft briefly contemplated by Tolkien in old age, that was never deemed interesting enough to be published until 2007, and was abandoned after One unamed person gave their own view (Tolkien proved repeatedly he didn't really care for others opinions, and with the benefit of hindsight it is really quite unfair to place to much emphasis on this, Tolkien was already old by this point, flip flopped his opinions and ideas on his mythology repeatedly, and was in the midst of trying to finish numerous academic and literary duties-Even if he wanted to finish this rewrite, alot of the fans and his publishers would really be more concerned with The Silmarillion's progress) and a few brief comments published in Letters often out of context, and only a small idea of how his feelings developed over the years.

I somewhat doubt Tolkien would have considered turning the Dwarves into badly groomed boucing ninjas, Radagast into a deluded drug addled loon and sidelining Bilbo in his own story, even if he thought a Talking Purse, singing Dwarves and Cockney rhyming trolls were suitable things to keep in an 'adult' recasting of The Hobbit

For an expert on Tolkien he seems to relying a little too much on guesswork if you ask me.

Sure Tolkien may have considered doing something different, but he is dead forty years, and given his own opinions on adaptations, and the complex genisis of Middle Earth, personally I don't think he would have been happy with the way things have turned out, but trying to score points in this debate by warping facts to fit personal viewpoints does know one any favours.

In the interest of fairness, Olsen did point to the Letters as evidence of Tolkien's dissatisfaction with The Hobbit in 1955, but the crux of the argument has always lied in Tolkien himself having tried to revise the story in 1960.  Naturally, the people who push this argument always try to downplay the fact that Tolkien changed his mind and gave up on the revision.

Eldorion wrote:aturally, the people who push this argument always try to downplay the fact that Tolkien changed his mind and gave up on the revision.

I wonder if they are the same people who try to downplay the legal issues, ongoing Lawsuit and dubious claim to canonity when it comes to a Silmarillion film...

On a side note 'Lord of Forumshire' vs 'Stinging Fly'? who comes up with these names

In his review of the Desolation of Smaug, for example, he argues that the films should be seen as essentially separate from the books - almost as completely different stories. In his view it follows that the films cannot (or should not) be criticized on the basis of their fidelity as adaptations. He has relentlessly pushed this agenda in many of his podcasts and as far as I can tell, he's never really been challenged on this.

In theory I can understand this approach, but my reaction is:

A) there is certainly nothing wrong with desiring fidelity to the source material. It's rather natural I would think.

B) faithfulness to a source book seems to be a natural part of film reviews as well.

C) the door is open so very wide if the filmmakers take this stance -- see below about Frazetta's Eowyn (C1).

D) importantly do Jackson and company claim they were not trying to be faithful to Tolkien and thus they should not be subjected to this type of criticism? Rather the opposite that I'm aware of, at least with respect to The Lord of the Rings. His fans too, seem to claim 'faithful enough' if not perfect (perfect being also subjective of course).

If not, then the filmmakers are, and should be in my opinion, open to criticism with respect to faithfulness.


E) among Jackson fans, who actually takes this stance?

Relatively few? I'm not sure I have yet encountered a single Jackson fan who doesn't want the films to be faithful to the source material, it's just that that is such a very (very) subjective thing, and includes such a variety of measures!

My experience so far has been that it is the Jackson fans who look for faithfulness to source whenever they can, not just the Unfan who points out how unfaithful Jackson has been. But among Jackson fans there is also the matter of artistic individuality: that is, the argument that Jackson is not Tolkien, and Jackson wants to put his own stamp on things. For clarity, I am not suggesting that any one given fan of the films is arguing both sides of the coin, but rather that in the collective sense, I have seen both (for example): 'well Jackson's Frodo may be different but he is still essentially faithful to Tolkien's character because...' and 'Well Jackson's Frodo is different because Peter Jackson is the artist and he wants to...'

C1 Anyway, if you take the stance that the films are the product of the filmmakers and should only be judged as themselves, divorced from the source material, then to my mind the door is so truly wide in potential that you could indeed have, for example: a half naked, curvy, sexualized Eowyn slaying a Ringwraith. In other words, we cannot say that Frank Frazetta's version of Eowyn is 'bad' because it is so off the mark compared to the books (and not just in detail that Eowyn should technically be fully clothed, but as far as fidelity to the essence of the tale considering the aruable sexualization of such a scene by Frazetta). Boorman's alterations could also be raised here.

If fidelity to source is not in play... what change/s is/are off the table, really?

But again who is truly taking this approach? The Filmmakers? Jackson fans? Even over at TORN, for a recently posted example, there's a 'history' of Thranduil drawn from Unfinished Tales that seems -- in my opinion -- to be at least in part 'trying to' justify certain elements in the film. If so, why? Or why did I have a discussion with someone on the web who claimed that 'Film-thorin's' beard can be exaplained by Tolkien's statement that the Dwarves tore their beards in grief? Fidelity to Tolkien appears desired.

So then it becomes about subjective measure.

And one Man's measure can end up with Jackson getting a gold star even though he changed certain things, and even if some of those things rub a Jackson fan the wrong way. Another Man's measure can result in the opinion that Jackson has so utterly failed in the arena of faithfulness, and so constantly made changes based on his own desires or opinions instead of the true 'needs' of film (a very subjective matter in itself)... that according to this measure he only produced a film with a very superficial resemblance to the source material.  


But the point is: if it's about measure, subjective as that is, then to my mind it isn't really about viewing the films as separate works of art -- to be judged only as films, as if there were no source -- or at least, that source is merely the springboard for the new work. In other words, if it's about measure then it is about faithfulness, even if we have such widely varied conclusions.


Or maybe I'm off base about some of this, but so far, doze are me opinions.

is this an unfair line to draw

This all said, am I drawing an unfair line here? What do you think?

I don't know, but if I allow both arguments that seems unfair too: that is, say a given Jackson fans argues: hey Jackson can alter both plot, characterization, tone, in major ways, and still produce something arguably faithful to the source material: we could even have the tale set in a modern day city for example, as long as major themes are faithful to the source. As an artist in his own right Jackson arguably 'should' alter things even...

... but even there, with Fred Baggerly and Sam Gamidge living in New York and so on (any major changes you can imagine), 'faithfulness' to the source is still in play. And it seems to me that the original source is still in play, in some measure, and so again it's really about meaure, even in extreme cases.

And this still seems to be at odds with...

In his view it follows that the films cannot (or should not) be criticized on the basis of their fidelity as adaptations.

... as then Fred Baggerly from New York should not even need to destroy his 'ring of power' (whatever that is in this theoretical film), by his own virtue, or otherwise. The Lord of the Rings is just the inspiration for a wholly new thing, to be judged on its own.

Or no  

That's what I was trying to get at with the Boorman example, but you've issued a most impressive dismantling of the argument, Elthir.

I think you're very right that the vast majority of PJ defenders want to see faithfulness to the films.  In my experience, film defenders are often just as touchy about perceived unfaithfulness to the story as purists are, they just have very different definitions of faithful.  You don't see it quite as much anymore, but there are some people who are very protective of PJ's reputation as a fan and/or scholar of Tolkien and seem to consider accusations of unfaithfulness as personal attacks against PJ's character.

Somewhat ironically, most of the people I know who separate "faithful adaptation" from "good film" are of the purist persuasion.  But there are too many people on both sides of the argument who seem incapable of admitting that a film adaptation can be good (although not a "good adaptation", if you ascribe a normative value to faithfulness) even if it's radically different from the source material.

malickfan wrote:I wonder if they are the same people who try to downplay the legal issues, ongoing Lawsuit and dubious claim to canonity when it comes to a Silmarillion film...

I've never heard Olsen's opinions about the prospects for a Silmarillion movie, but I'm sure they would be interesting.

On a side note 'Lord of Forumshire' vs 'Stinging Fly'? who comes up with these names

The default user titles on the forum are drawn from Bilbo's nicknames that he gives to Smaug during their encounter in "Inside Information". "Stinging Fly" is one of those. However, a lot of people here have custom titles, either ones they requested themselves or ones I came up with.

Well my crabbit purist position has always been the same. You can have a good film thats not a good adaptation (V for Vendetta springs to mind for me) but LotR's and way more so TH are not, in my estimations, either good adaptations or good films.

LotR's is a okish film taken on its own and if you dont mind switching your brain of and trying not to think about a lot that happens in it, and dont mind sloppy scripting, poor pacing, badly timed reveals and inconsistent character portrayals.

And TH films, well its hard to think of anything good about them as films, they are just a mess of last minute rewrites, drastic changes that have not been thought out and a complete lack of narrative focus.

Wow, thanks for the responses guys. Once again, I'm baffled that I had no inkling (hah) of this site until now - though Eldorion we engaged a bit years back on the LOTR plaza when I posted there under another name, but I wasn't a frequent contributor.

As regards Olsen - I'm pleased that others find his commentaries disingenuous. It's his podcast of course, but I wish he'd allow himself to face criticism once in a while.

Welcome to the forum, THA!

I've enjoyed many of Olsen's Podcasts on the Hobbit with regards to the book, never heard the ones about the movie. Too bad, I thought he always had an interesting take on things.

Thanks for the welcome! Yes his original Hobbit lectures were rather interesting and actually insightful. However, his latest offerings have degenerated into a kind of Jackson Apologetic - and as Eldarion points out they aren't even well considered or thought out. Dave Kale, the other guy on the podcast, is occasionally more critical but both 'co-hosts' are pretty obsequious.

I wonder if Pj ToRn'ed him- you know, invitations to launch parties, premieres ect and suddenly everything is glowing and PJ is a genius who knows Tolkien better than Tolkien ever did. Seeing as apparently Pj knows what Tolkien meant to really do with TH.

Rest assured if PJ ever tries to bribe me in such a fashion I shall take the opportunity to go an drink all his buckie.

I'll add that I didn't actually listen to any podcast, but responded to this idea in general, as I have seen it raised on the web now and again.

TranshumanAngel wrote:Wow, thanks for the responses guys. Once again, I'm baffled that I had no inkling (hah) of this site until now - though Eldorion we engaged a bit years back on the LOTR plaza when I posted there under another name, but I wasn't a frequent contributor.

No problem, THA, and welcome to Forumshire!  Over the years this forum has leaned more to the critical side with the movies, but I like to think that we're open to discussion of them. We're a lot smaller than the Plaza used to be, though that's largely because the fandom as a whole is less active now (visiting the Plaza these days, which I do only occasionally, is a completely different experience than it used to be).  NB I hope that I didn't stand out in your memory for negative reasons, but I recognize that that might have been the case, since I was an angry teenager during my Plaza heyday and was something of an asshole a lot of the time (I still have my moments ).

As regards Olsen - I'm pleased that others find his commentaries disingenuous. It's his podcast of course, but I wish he'd allow himself to face criticism once in a while.

Well, I'm not a regular Olsen listener*, but I have to respect his knowledge of Tolkien his passion for getting people more engaged with the books.  I actually posted briefly on his Tolkien Professor forum, before it shut down.  But his arguments about The Hobbit movies do really rub me the wrong way.  Not because he likes the films, but because I feel that he is dismissive of criticism of the films for unsound reasons, and also because the tone in which he does so just gets under my skin. But I have nothing against him personally, since I don't know him, and have no reason to think poorly of him.

*Actually, I don't listen to podcasts very much at all; I prefer to have music on in the background and have a hard time focusing on listening to something for an hour or two on end with no visual stimulation to go with it; plus the length just seems crazy when I can read someone's articles so much faster than the spoken word. But that's a disconnect between me and the medium of podcasts in general, not a problem with Olsen.

Haha, no, that you acted as an asshole never really crossed my mind, I must say

Eldorion wrote: Well, I'm not a regular Olsen listener*, but I have to respect his knowledge of Tolkien his passion for getting people more engaged with the books.  I actually posted briefly on his Tolkien Professor forum, before it shut down.  But his arguments about The Hobbit movies do really rub me the wrong way.  Not because he likes the films, but because I feel that he is dismissive of criticism of the films for unsound reasons, and also because the tone in which he does so just gets under my skin. But I have nothing against him personally, since I don't know him, and have no reason to think poorly of him.

Oh yes, his knowledge is sound (most of the time) although I'm not a big fan of his theories regarding the place of academics either. His efforts to popularize an academic subject (i.e. Tolkien Studies) are laudable, but as other scholars have noted (for example, the review of his book in Tolkien Studies 2013) he does so at the expense of academic scrupulousness and rigor). So I'm not totally on board with his academic project either. That said, his Hobbit lectures were fun, and often insightful.

I think you're right about his dismissal of criticism. I think that's really what I was getting at before: I don't begrudge him his like for the films, rather I am intensely irritated by the (as you say) unsound reasons for ignoring or arguing away "Purist" ideas. It smacks to me of "apologetics", that intellectual gymnastics which seeks to rationalize and argue for unsound premises, and that is what frustrates me. His methodology, more than his opinions specifically, though they are often gumph as well as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks THA, glad to hear it.

I think there's a lot of value in books written for a lay audience.  Obviously you can run into issues with this in all sorts of fields (see: pop-science, pop-history, etc.).  But at the same time, if it isn't for books like this, you're going to see a lot fewer people -- especially young people -- taking the first steps into a field.  Without knowing the guy personally, Olsen does sometimes come across as gratingly self-important though (from the self-given "Tolkien Professor" title to his attempt at founding a university, which may or may not day be accredited), and it is a little annoying when people act like he's one of the leading Tolkien scholars in the world when he just plain isn't. But you can't really blame the guy for being a savvy marketer.

Eldorion wrote:I think there's a lot of value in books written for a lay audience.

I absolutely agree. Consider, for instance, The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker. Apart from its fascinating content and argument, the books is written with such lucidness, such classic style, that comprehending it is never difficult. So far so good, Olsen's book is similarly easy to read (though somewhat less deftly written). These are both books written for a popular audience on topics which admit of great complexity. Nevertheless, Pinker also manages to maintain scholarly scrupulousness by using data and citing the work of others. His work suffers not an iota for this. In contrast, Olsen's book fails to cite anyone (even though plenty has been written on the hobbit) and as Jason Fisher argues in his review on Tolkien Studies, this might even constitute a benevolent form of plagiarism.

I promise I don't have a vendetta against Olsen: I'm sure he is a really friendly and ultimately well meaning guy. Nevertheless, if I were to write a popular archaeology monograph and fail to cite any sources I would never be taken seriously. I don't see why literary studies of any kind should be exempt from these standards.

I actually didn't know that Olsen doesn't cite any sources in his book, having not read it myself (and being a very infrequent reader of Tolkien Studies even though my alma mater subscribes to them).  That does seem like a glaring omission in almost any non-fiction book.