Re: The Desolation of Smaug pre-release thread [3] [SPOILERS]

[Eldorion]

TORn tackles the hottest issue in Tolkien fandom today: what's a purist and why does Richard Armitage think he is one?  As someone who's been repping purism for the past five years, I felt obliged to weigh in.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/11/19/82648-torn-gets-the-low-down-on-how-richard-armitages-inner-tolkien-purist-ticks/

greendragon: There’s a strong positive side of fandom; but there’s been quite a lot of talk recently about some of the more negative reactions from fans.  There seems to have been a lot of very vehement reaction – some fans have really been split into the book purists versus the movie lovers. Of all the cast, you seem to be someone who’s a book devotee; I wondered how you feel about the deviations from the book which the movies are taking?

RA: Yeah, you know what, I am a bit of a purist! So I love it when Pete finds his way back to something which is absolutely, completely in the book, and the dialogue is from the book, the moment is from the book… I love it.  But you know, I suppose the way I see it – it’s like a folktale, where you put it into the hands of another reader, and they’ll tell it in a different way.  They’ll use different voices; they may go off on a tangent, talking about a particular character… I know that Tolkien wrote this down, but I think at one point he probably told it to his children verbally, and he may have… you know, it’s like riffing on a theme.  I don’t know how he told that story to his kids; but this is just Peter picking up the book and telling the story, and then at times he puts the book down, and he expands an idea.  That’s really all it is.  You know, he loves Tolkien as much as anybody else; the writers, Philippa and Fran, they are just… Tolkien obsesses them! They will hunt down anything they can find, in the material that they are permitted to look at; any kind of jewels, little nuggets that they can use, because they want this story to be as big and epic as it can be.  And working with Lord of the Rings, they had so much material; but with The Hobbit it’s such a simple, small tale; and I think that the chance to go back to Middle-earth, and explore all of these avenues with all of the great characters that come in, each of whom have their own Middle-earth history, that Tolkien went back and sort of retrofitted … I think that Pete’s looking at all of those ideas.  And he is inventing some story as well, and some characters, but I think at the centre of it, the book is still very much there.  It’s like a spine.

Yeah, this is pretty much proof that either (a) Armitage only said he was “a bit of a purist” to ingratiate himself with fans, (b) he has been told to backpedal since his initial declaration of purism during the fan event, or (c) he has no idea what the word “purist” entails in Tolkien fan circles.

GD: Well, to a certain degree Tolkien did that himself,  as you’ve pointed out –  having written The Hobbit, he revisited the tale when he was writing Lord of the Rings…

RA: Yeah I suppose it’s a bit like … I mean, Pete has a kind of childlike, crazy mind! And it’s a bit like that cathedral in Spain, that never really gets finished. [Gaudi’s La sagrada familia, Barcelona.] I think at some point an architect designed it, but it just keeps growing, and new ideas keep adding to it; and it doesn’t make it any less fascinating… Maybe if Tolkien was making the movie himself – I don’t know how he felt about them being expanded into movies – but I’m sure that he would want a development of an idea.  I’m sure he would.

At least the TORn interviewer doesn't break out any of the blatant falsehoods about Tolkien's revisions of The Hobbit here, but I'd love to know what reasons Armitage has for thinking Tolkien would “want a development of an idea” in a film adaptation of his work.

GD: Tolkien did say at one point, in a letter [to Milton Waldman, 1951], that in his desire to create a whole mythology, he wanted it to be something that would inspire others to create painting and music, inspired by the myth…

RA: And hasn’t it absolutely done that? I mean not just Peter Jackson making a movie, but everybody, from hobbyists that make costumes, to jewelry designers… There are just a million ideas that are springing out of this!

I could probably live to 90 and still be rolling my eyes at PJ apologists who use this quote out of context.

GD: One area of negativity is the backlash that there has already been from some areas about Tauriel. [RA interjects, emphatically, ‘Yeah.’] I saw in EW that you said your nephew had named his hamster Tauriel! Is that true?

RA: He did! [laughs] So already she’s a success!  Yeah – he’s really into her!

This is kind of cute.

GD: Is it possible this dislike, before we’ve even seen how the character plays out, could come from a slightly misogynistic base?  You know, if this particular negativity against Tauriel is from a rather sexist attitude you sometimes find in geek culture; do you think there’s any of that going on?

RA: I don’t really know … I think people probably will change their minds once they’ve seen the film, because they’ll just engage with the character and enjoy that character for what she is; which is a kickass female elf; which has been long awaited, I guess!  You know, my little nephew is a perfect example: he doesn’t care whether it’s in the book or not, he’s just going to sit there and enjoy the movie; and in a way, Pete’s making those choices for that younger audience. The older audience can grunt and snarl about it, but at the end of the day, she’s a great character and she’s female!  There are so few female characters – aspirational female characters – in this, you know?  I’m saddened that he hasn’t created a demonic female orc!  I think that would be kind of interesting…

There are legitimate points to make about misogyny in geek culture, but this is not one of them.  Good on Armitage for not playing ball here.  His observation that PJ is making changes for the sake of the younger audience is an interesting one, too.  I'm not sure I agree, since AUJ was a relatively hard PG-13, but given how bipolar the movie's approach to tone was that may well be part of PJ's thought process.

GD: Maybe there are female orcs – we just don’t know!  Maybe it’s like the dwarves…

RA: You can’t tell! [laughs] That’s the other thing, as well – you see, in the flashbacks, a lot of those female dwarves, that Tolkien mentions in his appendices as being very few, and having beards… They [the designers] really went there!  They designed them and they created visual imagery for it, and I think you see a little bit more of it in this movie.

We do know that there were female orcs.  Come on, son.

Demosthenes’ addendum: I can’t resist adding a few thoughts. Purism has certainly become one of the dirty words of Tolkien fandom in the last decade or so. And sometimes (often?) its deployment seems little more than an ad hominem attack intended to suggest that nay-sayers are a bunch of old fossils and generally shut down debate. Here, Armitage suggests that purism can be big enough to embrace adaptation, change and, perhaps even outright invention. It’s an interesting thought. It’s no big deal to acknowledge that any adaptation must involve change as it necessarily involves interpretation. It must do, regardless of whether it’s going from print to film, from print to visual art, or even a “simple” translation from one language to another. Even the act of reading is an interpretation, else why the hell do we argue so much and so often over whether Balrogs have wings? Perhaps, somewhere out there, exists the perfect Form of the Balrog, of which all our individual conceptualisations (yes, even John Howe’s) are mere echoes. And perhaps this is what Armitage means: that by being able to perceive Middle-earth through the (necessarily) imperfect lens of someone else’s interpretation, we might glimpse just a little more of what the “real” Balrog might look like. What’s not to like about that?

Purism has certainly been used as a slur plenty of times, but it's much less of a dirty word outside of TORn.  And to be honest, it feels much less relevant to fandom post-AUJ than it did in the LOTR era, since so many people who were fans of LOTR have turned on AUJ and dislike it for reasons that have little to do with purism.  Or at the very least, they think that AUJ deviated too much from the book, but they have a different standard of what is “too much” than is typically associated with purism.  Either way, though, it's not accurate to say that Armitage suggests a more tolerant or all-encompassing view of purism.  He doesn't suggest anything about the term, except that he thinks it will endear him to fans.

greendragon adds: The issue of female characters is an interesting one. Tolkien’s works contain plenty of strong, female characters  – the Valar are both male and female, Galadriel bears one of the three Elvish rings of power, and Goldberry is an astonishing equal partner to the one being who is able to resist the power of the Ring, Tom Bombadil; and that’s before we even mention Éowyn. Bilbo himself derives much of his strength of character from his mother’s side of the family. For all that Tolkien does not have women make part of the actual questing group (in either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings),  it would be untrue to say that he, as a writer, is dismissive of the ‘fair sex’.  Nonetheless, it is true that The Hobbit lacks any female character who plays a role of any real kind (stealing silver spoons doesn’t count); the movie makers have sought to address this by creating Tauriel. Why should this be an issue? There are many ‘unseen’ beings in Tolkien’s writings; we know that dwarf women exist, but they do not appear as part of the plot. Their presence is understood but not explicit – just as we can reasonably assume that Legolas would be in his father’s realm, even if he is not named in The Hobbit. Likewise, it stands to reason that there must be many female elves besides Galadriel, Arwen and the few others whose names we learn. As Tolkien has created a fully rounded world, we should surely accept that it is populated with beings, some of whom we do not meet in the limited lines of his texts. Isn’t adding a character a compliment to the comprehensiveness of Middle-earth, rather than an outrage against its original creator?  And is it possible that some fans wouldn’t feel quite such outrage if the new character were male?

The stealing of silver spoons occurred in LOTR, but greendragon does not ask an interesting question here (continued attempts at creating a controversy over sexism where none exists aside).  The more charitable interpretation of Tauriel's genesis is that the writers simply feel that it is better to have greater gender balance in a film than to not.  Since more characters were needed to flesh out their expanded vision for the story, regardless of their gender, perhaps they simply decided to take advantage of the opportunity thus presented.  The more cynical view would be that the writers may have felt that a female character was necessary for female audiences to connect to the film, and that Tauriel was therefore introduced as a marketing ploy.  I can't personally say which is the case, although I would lean towards the former interpretation.

Demosthenes’ final word: I’ve been thinking about this issue a bit — there is a vast difference between the repellent viciousness perpetuated upon Anita Sarkeesian and the anti-Tauriel rhetoric (some of it well-considered, and some less so) that I’ve noted on TORn, and other Tolkien forums. One needs to acknowledge that. Still some of the commentary is discomfiting and disturbingly personal (examples: one individual describing EL as “ugly” (pretty reductive), and another that “Tauriel is going to ruin The Hobbit” (single-handedly? really?)). I’ve simply not seen that directed at Alfrid, the Master of Lake-town’s shifty “yes-man” and surely the Marty-stu to Tauriel’s Mary-sue.

There are undoubtedly misogynists who are also Tolkien fans, and the size of this fandom alone all but guarantees that some purists (and some PJ defenders) are liberals.  I have no doubt that one can find sexist comments about Tauriel without too much effort.  However, I firmly believe that the vast majority of problems with Tauriel are because of her being an invented character as well as the number of fanficcy tropes she embodies.  There have been complaints about Legolas' return as well, though I suspect these have been tempered by the fact that he is at least an actual Tolkien character.  The comparison to Alfrid is bizarre, as Alfrid has not been highlighted in marketing materials, does not appear to have a very significant role in the plot (making the Marty Stu comment particularly baffling), and his actor has not been trotted out to sell the movie, unlike Evangeline Lilly and Lee Pace, who have been featured alongside the main stars of AUJ at stuff like the fan event.

[RA]

I don't like how often the criticisms toward Tauriel are deflected as simply being founded in misogyny; I mean in her defense the movie isn't out yet, but it sounds to me like a bad fan-fic. The other character Tauriel seems to have roots in, Itaril, sounded like a very ham-fisted way to force a romance sub-plot into the story and the dark rumors about her and Kili aren't allaying that to be honest.
The "Do you like killing, do you like death?" line was cringe worthy for me and since Tauriel is an invented character, I know she has no original dialogue from Tolkien to even potentially draw from (not that the writers would use it anyways but that's another story). The only place she can find dialogue is from another character she'd be stealing from or from PJ and co. who aren't very skilled at copying Tolkien's style at all; this would be true of all invented characters whether they're male or female in these movies. The fact that Tauriel is going to play a heavy role in the story (somehow) only makes matters worse. So yeah the comparison to Alfrid is shallow I think. Unless it turns out that Alfrid ends up slaying Smaug in which case I'd have some criticisms for him as well.

I will say that I don't think Tauriel will ruin the trilogy, on her own or otherwise, like the interviewer suggested. It would have to be good to start with in order to be ruined and so far the forecast is bad.

On the note of Richard Armitage being a purist, didn't Evangeline Lily do the exact same thing a while back? It seems a common practice to win fan support. I personally don't care if they are "super fans" or not; in fact claiming to be one can almost seem a bit dishonest. I mean Jackson is also supposedly a lore master, purist who thinks Tolkien tried to rewrite and publish the Hobbit in 1960 and that the his notes for it are right in the back of every copy of ROTK.
The guys who made War in the North were also lore masters for the record.  

[bungobaggins]

Ugh, that's a big wall of text. Do I want to read it all and unleash my crabbit? I skimmed and already saw misogynistic accusations.  

You can't defend yourself, so you go and try to paint broad strokes over the "haters." Calling them misogynists. Well, I'm not going to sit still and be labeled as such.

Couldn't we also say that it is misogynistic of the film makers to make Tauriel so attractive, and dare I say "sexy"?

Also, I'm fairly certain this movie won't be passing the Bechdel test...so, they really shouldn't be talking.

On the lighter side of things, I saw my first DOS TV spot tonight. Immediately hit the mute button on the TV remote.  

[bungobaggins]

On the note of Richard Armitage being a purist, didn't Evangeline Lily do the exact same thing a while back? It seems a common practice to win fan support. I personally don't care if they are "super fans" or not; in fact claiming to be one can almost seem a bit dishonest. I mean Jackson is also supposedly a lore master, purist who thinks Tolkien tried to rewrite and publish the Hobbit in 1960 and that the his notes for it are right in the back of every copy of ROTK.
The guys who made War in the North were also lore masters for the record.  

Yes, she did. She said that she tried to avoid watching the LOTR movies because she was a "purist" or something to that effect.

I'd rather have the honesty and bluntness of Stephen Fry saying that he hadn't read the books, and only read the parts that had his character in it, than the incredulous claims of "purism" from cast members.

[Pettytyrant101]

a kickass female elf; which has been long awaited, I guess! - Armitage

Maybe try another guess there!  

I am getting very sick and tired of being told how PJ and the Coven are scouring Tolkien for any valid titbits they can find to use- what so they can then completely ignore them or rewrite them into something else entirely?
There are no appendix stuff in AUJ- its ALL MADE UP!  Its no good just repeating over and over its all Tolkien when the bloody film is laid out before us, minus anything resembling either Tolkien or the book. We have eyes and ears- we can see they have just made a whole load of shit up- so stop lying about it right to our bloody faces.  
Repeating it is not going to make it true or make us think its true.  

[Bluebottle]

I am getting very sick and tired of being told how PJ and the Coven are scouring Tolkien for any valid titbits they can find to use- what so they can then completely ignore them or rewrite them into something else entirely?
There are no appendix stuff in AUJ- its ALL MADE UP!  Its no good just repeating over and over its all Tolkien when the bloody film is laid out before us, minus anything resembling either Tolkien or the book. We have eyes and ears- we can see they have just made a whole load of shit up- so stop lying about it right to our bloody faces.  
Repeating it is not going to make it true or make us think its true.  

This is an important point I think. Because looking at the appendices what relevant information is it that they have used?

There's Smaugs attack on Erebor. Which they rewrote and changed.
There's the war between the dwarfs and the orcs and the Battle of Nanduhirion. Which they rewrote and changed.
There's the White Council storyline. Which they have rewritten and changed.

Anything I forget here?

The only thing that might sound like they have taken from the appendices is Thorin meeting Gandalf in Bree. And we're still to see how that turned out.

[Pettytyrant101]

Yeah noting there was a big battle before Moria between dwarves and orcs and only using the location and name is not the same as telling the story of that battle- which on all counts they fail miserably to do- its a different battle, for completely different reasons, with different participants, fighting for different motivations and with a different outcome.

And to make it worse the original is a brilliant story with some fantastic lines of dialogue, and their's is a rubbish cliché ridden set up for a bad guy out for revenge at any cost.  

Its not using the appendix to flesh things out, its randomly nicking places and events from the appendix then just making all the details and the story around it up to suit their own changes to the main story. To claim the extra stuff is taken from any Tolkien source is to stretch the truth far beyond breaking point.
And they bloody well know that  

[Bluebottle]

Yeah, disappointingly they do seem to have proved the point though that if you repeat a lie over and over enough times, som people, particularily those with press realeses to write and bars to get to, will believe it.

Those who doesn't bother finding out about it for themselves have swallowed the appendices line hook line and sinker.

Armatige seem to be doing some real backpeddaling in that interview. It almost sounds like he has been asked to get back in line. What I did like in the fan event was that when Armatige said he was a bit of a purist Orlando Bloom came out with: "He didn't want me in the movie." Which should speak for something, I guess, when it comes to him being a purist.

[Pettytyrant101]

What worries me more Blue, or at least if not worries me shocks me, are the amount of people who do know better on other sites and yet continue to support somehow this idea these changes and additions all stem from Tolkien.

Its not even like there is a grey area here- they dont, and its obvious they don't.
And yet people still defend the changes on these grounds. Its baffling.

[Bluebottle]

Yeah, that is troubling.

It almost feels like they think it's a propoganda war, with them thinking:

"If we can only convinnce the public at large that Jackson and co's changes are merited everything will be okay."

[Forest Shepherd]

This is an important point I think. Because looking at the appendices what relevant information is it that they have used?

There's Smaugs attack on Erebor. Which they rewrote and changed.
There's the war between the dwarfs and the orcs and the Battle of Nanduhirion. Which they rewrote and changed.
There's the White Council storyline. Which they have rewritten and changed.

Anything I forget here?

The only thing that might sound like they have taken from the appendices is Thorin meeting Gandalf in Bree. And we're still to see how that turned out.

Well, to be fair, Peter Jackson and Co. did take those events from the Appendices to LotR. So when anyone involved says, "These events are events written by Tolkien in the Appendices," they are correct. The stipulation that should be forced upon anyone saying such a thing is that these events have been greatly transformed and edited--to the point that they only just resemble their book counterparts.

[Forest Shepherd]

Yeah, that is troubling.

It almost feels like they think it's a propoganda war, with them thinking:

"If we can only convinnce the public at large that Jackson and co's changes are merited everything will be okay."

Well yes, of course there is. PR for a major film is a propaganda war. Most of the time, everyone involved says "this is a great movie, I had such a great time making this film and you should really go see it." Marketing is done with the sole intent of making the movie look as good as possible. This is done through posters, trailers, interviews, fan events, and (sometimes) merchandising.

Faux Edit: I misread your statement about them "thinking," but as I was too tired to rewrite things, simply imagine that you had written, "It almost feels like there's a propaganda war going on for this trilogy."

[Forest Shepherd]

Oh geez I double posted. What shame is now upon me. I do apologize!

It could have been worse, I could have triple-posted.  

[Bluebottle]

Well, to be fair, Peter Jackson and Co. did take those events from the Appendices to LotR. So when anyone involved says, "These events are events written by Tolkien in the Appendices," they are correct. The stipulation that should be forced upon anyone saying such a thing is that these events have been greatly transformed and edited--to the point that they only just resemble their book counterparts.

But all those things do at least get a slight reference in the Hobbit. So they didn't need the appendices to take the concept and make their own version. They say they are taking the extra information from the appendices, when in reality it's almost all their own creation.

[Bluebottle]

Well yes, of course there is. PR for a major film is a propaganda war. Most of the time, everyone involved says "this is a great movie, I had such a great time making this film and you should really go see it." Marketing is done with the sole intent of making the movie look as good as possible. This is done through posters, trailers, interviews, fan events, and (sometimes) merchandising.

Faux Edit: I misread your statement about them "thinking," but as I was too tired to rewrite things, simply imagine that you had written, "It almost feels like there's a propaganda war going on for this trilogy."

Yeah, I was thinking more of the fans Petty described who seem to have a vested interest in the movies success and should know that some of the justifications they come out with are not true.

[Forest Shepherd]

Well, to be fair, Peter Jackson and Co. did take those events from the Appendices to LotR. So when anyone involved says, "These events are events written by Tolkien in the Appendices," they are correct. The stipulation that should be forced upon anyone saying such a thing is that these events have been greatly transformed and edited--to the point that they only just resemble their book counterparts.

But all those things do at least get a slight reference in the Hobbit. So they didn't need the appendices to take the concept and make their own version. They say they are taking the extra information from the appendices, when in reality it's almost all their own creation.

Weelll, you could say that. But then again, the brief mentions that exist in The Hobbit concerning, say, the Dol Guldur action, or the war between the dwarves and orcs, or other details of recent dwarven history are not enough to have supplied even the details that are correct in the film. The members of the White Council are not named in The Hobbit (not to mention the identity of the Necromancer), and I cannot recall hearing anything about the battle before the Gates of Moria (Anazkubulikanzanibubblykunzanaky, or something).
So already, before we come to the major changes to those events that occur in the movies, we see that the things they got right needed details from the Appendices.
Sort of.

[Forest Shepherd]

Well yes, of course there is. PR for a major film is a propaganda war. Most of the time, everyone involved says "this is a great movie, I had such a great time making this film and you should really go see it." Marketing is done with the sole intent of making the movie look as good as possible. This is done through posters, trailers, interviews, fan events, and (sometimes) merchandising.

Faux Edit: I misread your statement about them "thinking," but as I was too tired to rewrite things, simply imagine that you had written, "It almost feels like there's a propaganda war going on for this trilogy."

Yeah, I was thinking more of the fans Petty described who seem to have a vested interest in the movies success and should know that some of the justifications they come out with are not true.

Ah yes, denial. A certain grasping at the slight filaments of truth that twist and entangle at the heart of movie-making falsehoods.

[Forest Shepherd]

UGH, I need to stop double-posting. I apologize once again, and will make this my last double-post for a long time.
I have, at least, the consolation that I did not triple-post.

[Pettytyrant101]

I think what they took from the appendix as a basis and which is still Tolkien in the film is almost zero.
Names, places, but the intentions, the purpose behind Tolkien writing about these things, how they fit into the overall story and history are all replaced by inventions in the film.
The Tolkien that is left is quite literally only in names, none of the substance has survived at all.

The WC is a good example- what is Tolkien is the name of the Council, some of the members and the fact they occasionally (but very rarely) happened- the substance of the scene however bears no relationship to Tolkien- there is no Tolkien reader can imagine he would ever have written those lines about Radagast's yellowed teeth and mushroom addled brain coming from Saruman, or that rubbish about morgul Blades and Ring wraith tombs not to mention transporter Galadriel, the most powerful being in ME.
All the meat is now PJ and Coven flavoured (and poor quality offcuts at that) there is no Tolkien left save the theft of his character names.

And this is true of every element they have used from outwith TH book.

[RA]

transporter Galadriel, the most powerful being in ME.

  I'm almost forgot about that.
The stuff about all this being based in the appendices is garbage though. A lie spun to justify it all in a quick sound bite. The reality is that it's fan-fiction plain and simple. Names are used, but nothing else. Azog is used as he is in AUJ so that film 1 has a villain; incredibly contrived and not at all to tell more of the story Tolkien wrote as Jackson would say.

[Mrs Figg]

''because they want this story to be as big and epic as it can be''. Richard Armitage.

this stuck out to me, I think its at the root of the problem. The Hobbit is NOT big and epic, they have to force it and twist it into being so, thus destroying everything wonderful about the original.

[halfwise]

UGH, I need to stop double-posting. I apologize once again, and will make this my last double-post for a long time.
I have, at least, the consolation that I did not triple-post.

You just did, with that post.  

[bungobaggins]

The official website got a nice makeover.

http://www.thehobbit.com/index.php

Oh, dear. Under the videos section they have a "Sneak Peak" instead of a "Sneak Peek".  

Looks like they need a little help from Stealth Mountain.

[RA]

I didn't see a forum section anywhere, I guess Bree is actually gone now.

[bungobaggins]

It's the official WB movie site, why would there be a forum?