06-09-2006, 02:45 PM | #21 | ||
Salt Miner
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: gone to Far Harad
Posts: 987
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-09-2006, 04:35 PM | #22 | |
Lady of the Ulairi
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minas Morgul
Posts: 2,783
|
Quote:
I would have been surprised if Christopher liked the movies. I think his reaction mirrors the one his father would have shown, had he lived long enough to see all his world sacrificed to make it appealing to an average pop-corn eater. Last edited by Gordis : 06-09-2006 at 04:37 PM. |
|
07-14-2006, 10:04 AM | #23 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fangorn's Treeherd
Posts: 393
|
I can speak from experience since I write fantasy stories as a hobby. Very few if any writers like to have their creations altered. They tend to be very fussy about how the personalities and appearance of their characters are recreated on film.
Lets look at how Treebeard was portrayed in the film versus how he was discribed in the book for example. In the book he is discribed as a manlike somewhat troll like figure with a barklike hide or covering over the torso and legs. He had grey-green hair and beard. There is no mention of branches or leaves on him anywhere in the text. He stands about 14-15 feet tall. The Hobbits are carried on his hands. In the film he looks to be 30 feet tall and looks like a walking senile tree. If I were Tolkien I would be offended by the drastic departure from the text. This is only one example of how the film departs from the text. I think he would be offended by how Gimli is turned from a serious noble Dwarf into a funny comic. The filmaker has completely changed the personality of this character, making him seem dirty and given to drink. I admit the films are highly enjoyable. But as a writer of stories, I am aware that they would probably be offensive to Tolkien if he were alive today.
__________________
Silver Valley Oak As for me and my house we will serve the LORD Just call me Oakie |
10-05-2006, 06:44 PM | #24 | |
Salt Miner
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: gone to Far Harad
Posts: 987
|
Quote:
Steven Maier, Intellectual Property Partner at the law firm Manches LLP, has written a letter to a blogger named Craig Finn, clarifying among other matters that “There was no dispute between Christopher Tolkien and his son, Simon Tolkien, as a result of Simon Tolkien going to see the first Lord of the Rings film. … Nor has Christopher Tolkien “disowned” Simon Tolkien.” A scanned portion of the letter appears on Craig Finn’s website here. While Finn is correct in saying that these unfortunate mischaracterizations were widely reported, he does seem to be unusually acerbic in his positions concerning Christopher Tolkien. Some of the items in the scanned portion of the letter are quite unique, and rather new to me. The most interesting is that “The rights to The Hobbit are not controlled by Christopher Tolkien.” I am uncertain if it means that these are controlled by the Tolkien Estate or not. (I have an old 1970 edition of The Hobbit close at hand and cannot find any of my newer editions at the moment: J.R.R. Tolkien was still alive in 1970 and held the copyright himself.) |
|
10-05-2006, 07:50 PM | #25 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Alcuin, you hit the nail on the head.
Jon S., see BB. There is really just no reason whatsoever that anyone can give for believing Tolkien would like the movies, other than "I like the movies, and I like Tolkien, therefore, Tolkien would like the movies". It just don't work that way, folks. Never mind the general "niggling" referenced by the Bearded Sage (though she chose to use different words ), the letter to Zimmerman should be more than sufficient to give a damn near demonstration that he would not approve of PJ's rendition. Earniel has given really the only thing one could even hope for; that is, that he would appreciate the spectacle of some scenes. That said, he would despise the spectacle of others. Gordis, I disagree that PJ made the same mistakes as Zimmerman, but much worse. I think he made the same mistakes, but somewhat moderated.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
10-06-2006, 08:06 PM | #26 | |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 455
|
Quote:
For the money the film rights would bring today, I can certainly imagine an alive Tolkien selling (not giving away) his film rights to a mass medium filmaker, though he might be more selective as to who to sell to and the terms of the contract/potential reservations of creative control over this or that. I'm sorry if this view conflicts with others' views of Tolkien as "above all this stuff." It's just that the amount of $$ involved in these types of deals today is orders of magnitude beyond what he would have had to consider in his day. That being the case, past performance may not, in this case, be the best indicator of future yield. |
|
10-07-2006, 06:09 AM | #27 | |||||||
Lady of the Ulairi
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minas Morgul
Posts: 2,783
|
Quote:
Quote:
etc – you name it!) are all indications that PJ utterly failed to understand the core of the original. Quote:
There were some Zimmerman’s mistakes that PJ hadn’t repeated: the early intrusion of the Eagles, time-contraction of the story, and so on. But PJ made lots of his own: For instance Zimmerman made Aragorn run from Bree at night. And PJ did worse: remember this silly scene where mounted nazgul were hunting hobbits AT NIGHT in the woods near Buckleberry ferry? Yes-yes where Frodo outruns the mounted nazgul . But some mistakes that Tolkien pointed out in Zimmerman’s script PJ DID repeat all right: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
10-07-2006, 04:24 PM | #28 | |||||||
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
I don't have my Letters with me, but I remember Tolkien referring to Zimmerman making Lothlorien some sort of fairy-castle, using the Eagles freely as a device, having the Balrog "laugh or sneer", and various other errors into which even PJ does not fall.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|||||||
10-07-2006, 06:15 PM | #29 |
Lady of the Ulairi
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Minas Morgul
Posts: 2,783
|
Oh, Gwaimir, Tolkien complained even about Zimmerman's choice of fireworks - because it deviated from the book.
What would he say if he saw Denethor and the nazgul turned into flaming torches? And so on and so on... Arwen instead of Glorfy, Elrond the maniac, Denethor... I can't even remain civil when I think what PJ made with Denerthor's character! |
10-07-2006, 07:27 PM | #30 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
PJ did do awful things, it's true; but I think from my reading of 210 that Zimmerman deviated even more from the book, and more pointlessly.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
10-12-2006, 01:48 AM | #31 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Mmm.
I observe in the author's critiques of the Zimmerman proposal that he frequently asks why. I think that's what he would ask, of the various questionable scenese. Why is this changed? Why is this ignored? Why the additions? What purpose does this serve? I do not believe he would have been satisfied with the answers.
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
10-23-2006, 03:24 AM | #32 | ||
Hobbit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 32
|
Quote:
While I think that Tolkien might have enjoyed the movies for there touching rendition of some elements of the story, and the films great effectiveness cinematicly, I'm pretty sure that he might well have gone mad if he had seen what was done to Faramir's character. I don't think anything would have bugged him as much as that(though some of the other changes surly would). He related more with Faramir then any other character in the book, and even though I think there are changes made by PJ in the film that he could have accepted(maybe )I think that the changes made to Faramir would have pushed him over the edge. Of course, the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire is right up there with PJ's Faramir when it comes to things that Tolkien would hate. I would add though that we need not agree with what we think Tolkien might have thought, and though he as the author would have every right to be angry, we don't have to let it let it ruin what are some truly good films. Just let go...we all still have the books, and they're still awesome! Quote:
Last edited by Lord of the Mark : 10-23-2006 at 03:27 AM. |
||
10-23-2006, 09:38 PM | #33 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
(and there's no might about it)
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
12-03-2006, 10:27 PM | #34 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
|
|
12-19-2006, 09:52 AM | #35 |
Salt Miner
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: gone to Far Harad
Posts: 987
|
At one point, Tolkien said that any movie would have to be about Art or Money, I think in a discussion he had with Rayner Unwin. (For once I will leave the citation to someone else; it is in Letters for anyone who cares to look.) The Jackson films certainly made a lot of Money; but as Art, they are on a distinctly lower plane of existence than Tolkien’s original works: turkeys rather than eagles. By which I mean no offence: Benjamin Franklin preferred the turkey rather than eagle as the symbol of the young United States, since the eagle is a raptor (Art), while the turkey is a source of sustenance (Mammon).
Tolkien sold the movie rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings around 1969 to pay the taxes assessed by Britain’s Inland Revenue. I have seen citations that he sold them for £10,000 and for £120,000: which if either is correct I cannot tell. He sold the rights to United Artists, which was the studio for Stanley Kubrick, who completed a technical tour de force to great acclaim in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Kubrick did not direct movies based upon Tolkien’s work, and they were sold by United Artists to Saul Zaentz Company in 1976, which keeps them in a division of that company called Tolkien Enterprises. Tolkien Enterprises does not apparently own the rights to the stories in The Silmarillion, which I must suppose means that if a movie is made of The Children of Húrin, for instance, the Tolkien family will retain all the rights to that work through the Tolkien Estate or one or more of its family trusts. The Tolkien family made no direct profit from Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movie trilogy: all the movie profits went to Saul Zaentz Company and were divvied out from there: a large portion went to Peter Jackson, as per his contract; indirectly, however, sales on the books shot through the roof (not to mention participation in discussion boards such as Entmoot), and the book sales were to the profit of Tolkien’s descendents. Neither Tolkien nor his family made any additional money directly from Peter Jackson’s movies, though I think they profited handsomely indirectly, so that might satisfy the Money part of the equation. Which is a good thing, because I think Tolkien would have gagged on the Art part of the equation in the same vein that he reacted against the Zimmerman proposal. By the way, the Zimmerman family has donated Mr. Zimmerman’s script to the J.R.R. Tolkien Collection at Marquette University – a rather decent thing for them to do in light of Tolkien’s savaging it. (I strongly suspect that, just as Tolkien sold his movie rights, they did it for tax purposes; but it will be to the gain of Tolkien scholars in the years to come.) |
12-19-2006, 02:14 PM | #36 | |||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: LI-woods, NY
Posts: 653
|
Agree with Jon S and Alcuin about a monetary importance to Tolkien. I think, that undoubtfully, he would complain about an unsatisfactory interpretation of his book into the movie, as any author might do, but in the light of the prognosed income he would turn a blind eye on any attempt to generate more profit from his creation.
This is quotes from Forbes Top earning dead celebrity: J.R.R. Tolkien Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
12-21-2006, 12:34 PM | #37 |
Alasailon
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: college
Posts: 861
|
There are definately some spectacles that I think he would enjoy, however a lot of the spectacles and huge scenes didn't always fit the story either.
Regardless of how the Ents were aroused to war, I think he might have liked the assault on Isengard. In the books you only really see the aftermath. So the battle itself is open to interpretation as long as the necessary casualties are suffered. He would definately disagree with the events afterwards, where Gandlaf is supposed to ceremoniously remove Saruman from power and Grima is to drop the Palantir from the tower. Helm's Deep I think he would disagree on pretty much all points. The fact that Elves were there while Eomer was not would have really gotten to him. This is one of the many partnerships between Aragorn and Eomer that were cut throughout the films. I know this bothers me so I can only imagine what Tolkien would say. It's like Aragorn and Eomer hardly know each other. Another big issue would be how in the movie the ghosts basically swept across the plain of battle and laid waste to every orc in sight. I think this was a HUGE plot hole that just made PJ look stupid. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "Well why didn't Aragorn keep them and bring them to the gates of Mordor?" And the way the movies portrayed it, it seemed like it would have been possible. Even the most logical thing to do. Tolkien would have certainly disapproved. #1 On his list though I think would be there was no scouring of the Shire. One of the themes Tolkien used was that nothing went unchanged. Yet in the movies the Hobbits could just all go home as if nothing had happened. And how would Sam have been elected mayor if he just came home and people knew that he had a reputation of going off and having adventures. It doesn't make sense unless he were to rescue the Shire from some evil that should have happened. Come to think of it, I don't even see a point to me posting this. Since this is basically stuff that I disagree with (and not all of it by far). I'm a big purist when it comes to book-to-movie adaptations and I'd imagine the author would be a purist even more so. It just seems to be common sense that Tolkien would disagree. If fans of the books dislike it I'm sure you could multiply that feeling x20 before you even came close to what Tolkien would feel.
__________________
"and then this hobbit was walking, and then this elf jumped out of a bush and totally flipped out on him while wailing on his guitar." "Anglorfin was tall and straight; his hair was of shining gold, his face fair and young and fearless and full of anger; his eyes were bright and keen, and his voice like music; on his brow sat wisdom, and in his hand was great skill." |
12-21-2006, 04:29 PM | #38 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Not only is it common sense, Tolkien's quibbling with Zimmerman on even relatively small points bears out that he would be more of a purist.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
12-21-2006, 05:42 PM | #39 | ||
Cyber Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Left of Rock, Right of Hard Place
Posts: 986
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think that Tolkien would have liked much of the scenery and costumes used in the movies. The only area he would not approve (IMHO) is if the scenery or costumes were different than how he described them in his book. I think he would have been more critical () about any changes from his book that did not keep with the spirit of his work. I think he would have been more understanding about the need to leave certain elements of his novel out of the movie due to time/money constraints. (Tom & old forest to name one example) He may still have not liked it (especially if it changed the feel/mood/character of his work) but he could understand the need for some changes from his book to occur. I think that he would not want any characters to be changed from how he created them. (Faramir, Denethor, Aragorn are some characters that come to mind) I am not sure if he would have liked the expansion of the battle scenes in LOTR. I think he would have prefered to minimize the amount of time spent in battles and spend more time with the characters and their challenges. While that battles definitely had their place in LOTR, (IMO) they were not the primary force driving the story of LOTR.
__________________
Sincerely, Anthony 'Many are my names in many countries,' he said. 'Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Drarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.' Faramir What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation? Cicero (106BC-43BC) |
||
12-21-2006, 06:44 PM | #40 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 138
|
I think he would have gone apeshit.
Literally. ..and this is a mild mannered Oxford Don we are talking about! Imagine the mild mannered professor (from CS Lewis's 'The Lion the witch and the wardrobe') meeting Ozzie Osbourne. ... and you are halfway there. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tolkien's story of Middle-Earth is too much focused on LOTR... | Peter_20 | Middle Earth | 8 | 10-08-2007 12:33 AM |
Tolkien's Languages | Forkbeard | Middle Earth | 3 | 10-14-2004 01:08 PM |
Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation | Black Breathalizer | Lord of the Rings Movies | 924 | 11-03-2003 09:53 PM |
Changing Tolkien's world by role playing | afro-elf | RPG Forum | 12 | 04-04-2003 12:59 PM |
Aragorn's Fall...any changes of opinion out there? | Black Breathalizer | Lord of the Rings Movies | 186 | 02-05-2003 04:03 PM |