- Those are not the names that they got wrong at least jmo it was feely and keeley they sounded more like filly and killey. in fact those names were missMessage 1 of 2 , Dec 15, 2012View SourceThose are not the names that they got wrong at least jmo it was feely and keeley they sounded more like filly and killey. in fact those names were miss pronounced through out the movie witch annoyed me to no end and Mr.. Baggins name was also miss pronounced at the start as well by one of the dwarves. from Mich.----- Original Message -----From: not_thouSent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:42 AMSubject: [mythsoc] Can one spoil a film that is so rotten?
There is just one real spoiler below, and it's linguistic.
I've just returned from THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY. As an adaptation, it's a disaster. (It's hard for me to rate it without regard to the source, but in that sense I see it as a poor but flashy action film, on the level of, say, TRANSFORMERS.) I was particularly surprised by the film's treatment of material from THE LORD OF THE RINGS appendices. That the HOBBIT films would incorporate this stuff has been long known. There was a hint that the filmmakers might not really understand the appendices in an interview with Fran Walsh published early this month:
- - - - - - - - -
"How do you make one full cinematic meal out of that, let alone three? .... Ms. Walsh and Ms. Boyens, a former teacher and hard-core Tolkien fan, said part of the solution came from Tolkien's appendices to "The Lord of the Rings." Those materials helped the writers create a bigger part for Gollum, a fan favorite ..."
- - - - - - - - -
As I noted elsewhere* at the time, there is very little on Gollum in the LOTR appendices that the filmmakers hadn't already used. But perhaps the NEW YORK TIMES reporter misunderstood. (As it turns out, Gollum across fairly well, relative to the rest of the film.)
However, while I never liked the idea of weaving stories from the LOTR appendices into THE HOBBIT, I did not anticipate how much they would change that material! Their interpretations are so unlike the original that I wonder why they bothered using it at all.
This is the first modern film I've seen in 3-D. If this is how such films look, I don't want to see any more. Far inferior to the LOTR films, which visually weren't that special, anyway.
I wrote earlier that in the few trailers I've seen for this film, only about 10% of the dialogue came from Tolkien. In the actual film, it felt like that figure might rise to 20%.
Finally, and it's not that important, but I wonder why the filmmakers chose to have "Dain" and "Thrain" pronounced incorrectly. In the film, they rhyme with English "pain", but the Authorities once told me** that Tolkien would have pronounced them to rhyme approximately with English "pine" (but disyllabically rather than as a diphthong: "Dah-een"). Most puzzling.