Christopher Tolkien speaks about the movies

[Michael Martinez]

"My own position is that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form," he said.

http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movi..._0000/468.html

Now, if that don't tickle your fancy, NOTHIN' will!

[mirrille]

That is a very interesting thing to say at this stage, isn't it?

Given that Christopher Tolkien is "literary protector of his father's works", does anyone know if he's had any involvement in any part of the movie? Legal issues and copyrights, consulting, anything? In any case I find it hard to imagine that he hasn't seen at least parts of the movie, so is he speaking from the point of view of evaluating it based on what he knows about his father's vision and how it conflicts with it? Or is he speaking from the point of view that Tolkien just didn't like movies in general? 'cuz that seems to be part of the message too.

[Darth Tater]

Anyone know if he's actually seen the movie? Cause quite frankly even he doesnt' have a right to pass judgement without seeing it.

[IronParrot]

I think he's passing judgment on the very concept of filming LOTR at all, not the specific film in its finished form itself.

[Michael Martinez]

Christopher Tolkien was never involved in the production of the movies at any stage. The film rights belong to Saul Zaentz, who acquired them from United Artists in the 1970s.

And I wouldn't say Christopher is "passing judgement" on anything, if by that you mean he is condemning anything. His choice of words doesn't imply any condemnation at all. I think he is tacitly conceding that, in order for any film adaptation to be successful, it will have to depart from the book.

This is probably his way of saying to people, "Please don't come to me and ask me to explain it all, because the movies will be quite different from the book."

In that respect, he is most certainly correct. The movies are different from the book, and there are many documented departures from the original storyline.

The Tolkien family have sort of dreaded the approach of these films because they already feel pressed and hounded by many fans -- particularly Americans -- who have sought them out for a variety of reasons. Nor do they appreciate the fact that their father's estate will only marginally benefit from the success of the movies. The movies will -- indeed, have already done so -- increase sales of the Tolkien books. But the family won't be getting a dime from New Line Cinema for what they may perceive as their trouble, or for the use of their father's name and legacy.

[potyondi]

Originally posted by Michael Martinez
And I wouldn't say Christopher is "passing judgement" on anything, if by that you mean he is condemning anything. His choice of words doesn't imply any condemnation at all. I think he is tacitly conceding that, in order for any film adaptation to be successful, it will have to depart from the book.

I disagree. When he says, "My own position is that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form," and "[Tolkein] had a hatred of all things Hollywood and did not believe in the idea of imitation being the best form of flattery. As a writer I find that staggering.'', he implies very directly that the movies cannot possibly do justice to the books. As for why he said this, we don't know.

This is probably his way of saying to people, "Please don't come to me and ask me to explain it all, because the movies will be quite different from the book."

Where did you get this impression? He didn't allude to it once as far as I can tell, and I did re-read to catch subtleties but the article was quite succinct.

The Tolkien family have sort of dreaded the approach of these films because they already feel pressed and hounded by many fans -- particularly Americans -- who have sought them out for a variety of reasons. Nor do they appreciate the fact that their father's estate will only marginally benefit from the success of the movies. The movies will -- indeed, have already done so -- increase sales of the Tolkien books. But the family won't be getting a dime from New Line Cinema for what they may perceive as their trouble, or for the use of their father's name and legacy.

Again, I didn't get this impression at all from this article or anything he's ever publicly stated.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally posted by potyondi


I disagree. When he says, "My own position is that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form," and "[Tolkein] had a hatred of all things Hollywood and did not believe in the idea of imitation being the best form of flattery. As a writer I find that staggering.'', he implies very directly that the movies cannot possibly do justice to the books. As for why he said this, we don't know.

Slow down here. You are confusing the comments by a Tolkien biographer whose work is unlikely to win any awards with the one statement by Christopher Tolkien. Michael White's opinion is on the point of Tolkien's so-called "hatred of all things Hollywood" is certainly not based on the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien. You won't find much comment from JRRT about cinemas/films/movies at all, much less anything resembling hatred.

[Michael Martinez]

And I should add that my impressions of Christopher Tolkien and his family's views on the film projects are based on many sources, not this one article.

[Michael Martinez]

http://www.xenite.org/faqs/lotr_movi..._0000/470.html


Thanks to Wayne Hammond for pointing out this article in the Times, which contains more detail than the Reuters report we mentioned earlier.


Tolkien fellowship splits over Rings film


BY ADAM SHERWIN


CHRISTOPHER TOLKIEN, son of the Lord of the Rings author and protector of his father’s heritage, yesterday distanced himself from the much-awaited film on the eve of its London premiere.


Ever since J. R. R. Tolkien sold the film rights to his mythic epic for £10,000 in 1969, Christopher Tolkien, his son and literary executor, has privately feared a cinematic disaster, although until now he has kept silent on the subject.


Yesterday, Mr Tolkien, 77, went public with his concerns. "My own position is that The Lord of the Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form," he said. He insisted that he did not disapprove of the films — there are to be three — "whatever their cinematic quality", nor think ill of those who have given them their support.
However, his stance has caused unhappiness within the Tolkien family, with his son Simon claiming that he has been frozen out because he supports the £70 million cinematic venture.


Christopher Tolkien’s opinion will weigh heavily with the author’s more obsessive fans who fear that the New Zealand director, Peter Jackson, will betray the text in his take on the trilogy.


Tolkien sent packing the first set of Hollywood businessmen who asked to acquire the film rights to The Lord of the Rings in 1957. But by 1969, aged 81, a looming tax bill forced him to sell. He died five years later.


It fell to the Oxford professor’s sons, Christopher, John and Michael, and his daughter Priscilla, to protect their father’s heritage in the face of myriad money-spinning offers.


Read the full article here


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,...565591,00.html

[Darth Tater]

The idea that Tolkien didn't like film is rediculous. In regards to a film version he wanted "cash or cudos", either a good film or a film that made him rich, hopefully both. I doubt he would have problems with the story being changed slightly, considering the number of times he changed his own work!

MM, do you know what Christopher's reaction to the awefull Rankin/Bass and Bakshi films was?

[Michael Martinez]

I don't know anything about Christopher's reaction to the old animated films.

[Comic Book Guy]

I read that Tolkiens Daughter once sent a letter to Bakshi saying that she actually liked the movie he made.