The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Main:
Tolkien Estate HATES these movies?



DemoElite
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 3:34pm


Views: 11326
Tolkien Estate HATES these movies?

I was blown away by the comic con comments by pj regarding the simarillion. He said he probobaly wont live long enough to make them and Tolkien hates these films anyway so they most likely wont be made. Was that a ploy to get a charge out of the Tolkien estate? Might have been. I want to hear their response. I am an aspiring writer and I will state now that I would LOVE for anyone to adapt my story. The only reason to say no is if I am spoiled with success and that is what Tolkien estate is, spoiled. This is for fans. Yes. It makes money too. Yes it takes liberties of change. But overall it works out for the good of both parties. I am sad to hear pj say that comment. Do we reallg think they will hate the hobbit? And they hated lotr? I hope they didnt profit from any of it. Hating them and taking money for it is even worse. Any thoughts?

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 3:39pm


Views: 8727
well

Personally, i would like to know Christopher Tolkiens opinion on the teaser....that is, if he would even consider go through such an experience...


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 3:40pm


Views: 9109
Christopher Tolkien has every right to hate the films

And he has sufficient reason to as well.

They are, IMO, largely bad films that cheapen the source material through some truly amateur and sloppy treatment. There are a few moments of brilliance, and some very good design choices by Lee and Howe, but overall...meh. Compared to the books, they are toweringly stupid, IMO.

I don't blame the Tolkien Estate at all.


Bombadil
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 3:44pm


Views: 8854
Wasn't something written that Christopher Refused to see Any of it.

Or has that changed.


macfalk
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 3:45pm


Views: 8741
As far as I know

As far as I know, they have not made a single statement about hating the films. Actually, they havent said much at all, they sort of clammed up like a hedgehog when it comes to the movies. In fact they are pretty much silent about everything, apart from the money they wanted in the lawsuit with New Line.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 3:49pm


Views: 8335
I half agree with you!

I don't see why at all the Tolkien Estate should watch and enjoy the films. If I was C.Tolkien (or another family member) I too would be really protective over Tolkien's works.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 3:49pm


Views: 8798
In a recent interview

Christopher Tolkien did pointedly criticize the films, though he of course did not use the word "hate."


macfalk
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 3:51pm


Views: 8502
Source?

Which interview?



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 3:54pm


Views: 8289
Bizarro ShelobAppetite

Christopher Tolkien has every right to appreciate the films and he has sufficient reason to as well.

They are,, largely great films that embrace the source material through some truly serious and carefull treatment. There are many moments of brilliance, and some very good design choices by Lee and Howe, so overall a good, even if flawed adaptation.

Compared to the books, they are not as good obviously, but shine on their own.

Tongue


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 3:54pm


Views: 8526
See this thread

Link


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 3:55pm


Views: 8224
From C.Tolkien's perspective

If one of your parents had written this book, in which you had grown up on, would you easily open up to a film adaptation?


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 3:57pm


Views: 8366
Le Monde

Et si'l vous plait, peut-être?

LR


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 3:59pm


Views: 8517
From July of this year in Le Monde

Here's the English translation.

And the relevant quote below:

Quote

They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully.


A very reasonable assessment, particularly as Peter Jackson himself stated that he was aiming for a "good solid action adventure with intelligence and depth.”


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:01pm


Views: 8230
What's so Bizarro about it?

I believe I was merely expressing my opinion on a matter of taste.

I was not denying the reality of climate change or natural selection.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:01pm


Views: 8174
well

CTolkien comments on the commercialisation..and the destruction of the value of his fathers work, leads me to disregard his opinion ...he underestimates and doesnt understand many things.

I look forward to a new, more collaborative, open attitude by his sucessor ...especially if it helps bring some of the Silmarilion's stories to the big screen or tv.. I read somewhere that Tolkiens grandsons ? have different views on this subject...
One of his grandsons was at the TORN Tuesdays with Quickbeam recently and i found him much more open than CTolkien..


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 4:02pm


Views: 8466
Well, not *all* of JRR Tolkien's family are "protective" of his works to the point of disliking the films

For one, Royd Tolkien is a super cool guy who was also an extra in ROTK. I'm sure he loves these films. In fact, he visited the Hobbiton set just a couple of weeks ago. But that's not to say he respects JRR Tolkien's works any less than you or me, or, the Tolkien Estate.

I also don't believe the entire Tolkien Estate dislikes these films. I mean, come on, they're after all people like you and me. I'm sure some of them like the films, even love them, though their job requires them to work towards "protecting" the literary property the films derive from.

If I worked for the Estate, yes, I'd have to follow the rules (so to speak), and "protect" Tolkien's works. But I'd be entitled to my opinion.

You'll also notice I keep putting the word "protect" in quotes... that's because I don't understand the concept of it Crazy



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:02pm


Views: 8191
well

Bizarro World ...Seinfeld!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:03pm


Views: 8298
He doesn't "understand many things"

Because his opinion on a work of art differs from yours?

That's unbelievably condescending. He doesn't like the films, and you do. Your opinion is in no way superior, and you have little claim to "understanding" anything better than Christopher Tolkien on the subject.

This is a matter of taste. Deal with that. Not everyone needs to love PJ's films.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:03pm


Views: 8150
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion though

Why do you disregard C.Tolkien if he thinks he degrades the value of his father's work? That is a very valid point. He had a very important role in Tolkien's writing of the book.

And I'm not fussed whether Tolkien's grandsons are more open minded or not. The Silmarillion film, at this moment in time, would not do the book justice.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:03pm


Views: 8271
Does this imply

That members of the Tolkien family can only be deemed "super cool" if they like the films?


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 4:04pm


Views: 8533
LOL... I respect CT, I do, but I find his opinion rather myopic!

For starters, he should see the average age of TORn's regular board members Laugh



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:06pm


Views: 8196
well

Maybe not easily...but i would certainly to warm up to it and be as collaborative and helpfull and supportive as i could...George rr martin's attitude or alan moores is very different...i know its different situations, but i prefer their attitudes towards adaptations of their works than CTolkiens..


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:06pm


Views: 8185
Ah, yes, I agree Earl.

The closest I'm going to get to a Tolkien family member is if I imagine being one Wink. And when I imagine that, I too probably wouldn't like the films. I would watch them, and then make a judgment. But if Tolkien was my father, I would share C.Tolkien's opinions.


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 4:07pm


Views: 8242
In the context I used "supercool", yes B-)

Because by "supercool", I meant "open and broad-minded", as opposed to "conservative and protective".

Also, I said Royd is supercool because I conversed with him once, and believe me, he's cool. I felt I was speaking with just another guy, or an old friend.



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.

(This post was edited by Earl on Aug 18 2012, 4:09pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:09pm


Views: 8218
You've met Royd!

I didn't know Earl. Was it before or after the trilogy films? Smile


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 4:10pm


Views: 5530
This seems a little obnoxious as an assertion

Yes, he has the right to appreciate them. . . but he certainly does not HAVE to, and if he finds more fault than favour, that is his right too.

I think the movies get more right than they get wrong, but the DEFINITELY do take certain liberties, and some of them are not for the better. It is easy enough to see how any one of the many changes could really put off a purist, and it would be surprising if Christopher were not something of a purist.

In Reply To
Christopher Tolkien has every right to appreciate the films and he has sufficient reason to as well.

They are,, largely great films that embrace the source material through some truly serious and carefull treatment. There are many moments of brilliance, and some very good design choices by Lee and Howe, so overall a good, even if flawed adaptation.

Compared to the books, they are not as good obviously, but shine on their own.

Tongue


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:12pm


Views: 5612
But that's unfair

You are simply assuming that since Christopher Tolkien does not like the films, he is not open and broad-minded.

How do you know that he wouldn't have reacted positively to a different version of the films, created by a different director that better captured the spirit and tone of the books, from his perspective?

There is a tendency to assume that since someone does not share your opinion on something, they are closed-minded.

No, they just have a different opinion than you do on the matter.

The closed-minded person is the one who insists that a different opinion is evidence of closed-mindedness! Smile

Personally, I am very open and broad-minded when it comes to social issues, art, etc. And I just think PJ's films aren't very good!


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Aug 18 2012, 4:17pm)


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 4:15pm


Views: 5541
No, I haven't met him in person

I corresponded with him. This was after the films. I didn't think he'd have the time for me, but as I said, he was just really down to earth and, well, cool :)

I mean, he kept up the correspondence over a few rounds, which surprised and delighted me. Great guy!



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 4:22pm


Views: 5602
Well, Peter Jackson did approach the TE back in the day

I recall hearing (I think it on the Appendices) that PJ approached the TE for some sort of collaboration on the films, but he was simply ignored.

That, and the fact that CT has openly said he's averse to adaptations of his father's works, leads me to believe that he is, in fact, close-minded. He wants the books to be the beginning and the end of the matter.


Quote
How do you know that he wouldn't have reacted positively to a different version of the films, created by a different director that better captured the spirit and tone of the films, from his perspective?


I don't know, but can deduce, that CT wouldn't have reacted positively to a different version of the films because of what I said above. He had the chance of collaborating with the production on LOTR, possibly even The Hobbit. There are lots of film adaptations nowadays where authors collaborate for a richer, truer adaptation of their works. If CT was supportive of one such, he would have done it.

My hope is that the TE will someday collaborate with a studio on an adaptation of The Silmarillion.



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:24pm


Views: 5600
Shelob

Thats not what i said.

I didnt say my opinion is superior nor more valuable than his. You said that.
But on this subject which i explain down here i have a good claim at understanding things since i enjoy and support what he doenst seem to appreciate...so i disagree with him. You deal with it.

And please, keep those flaming daggers away. I can sense your " oh no how dared he attack Ctolkien" attitude ...miles away.

He underestimates the power and reach and benefits that any adaptation can add to the greater expansion of the original work ...be it video games, miniatures, posters , movies....slot machines with lotr names and references..i can certainly understand a disgust with it...but not those other things...

Just because a great literary work is adapted into many different visual and material mediums and is expanded to many different audiences with different appreciations, takes and preferences on it, doesnt mean the value and themes of the original work become diluted and warped into some cheap couldron of mediocrity that is against the original work.

On the contrary...because of the expansion of tolkiens work into other mediums, an enourmous amount of people have come discover and love tolkiens books...he underestimates this...

Also, as RArmitage said recently, middle earth has the scope and quality of a mythology..and mythologies are translated, and retold, re appreciated in many, many different ways throughout the ages...that is what is going to happen to middle earth ...and that is a testament to its value, not a chepening of it...

So yes i disagree with him and look forward to a different attitude by his sucessor...


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:28pm


Views: 5641
C.Tolkien is very set in his ways and opinions

I was never surprised by his lack of interest in the films. It does look hopeful for future generations though. Would they really want to go against his will (and JRRT's)?

Like I said above though, I don't like the sound of a Silmarillion film. I have more attachement to it, than LOTR or TH.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 4:28pm


Views: 5559
It would have been nice if The Tolkiens had been allowed at least some

adaptation input. I am certain that the relative faithfulness of Harry Potter can be attributed to the fact that she was not shut out of the adaptations.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:30pm


Views: 5455
hmm

Of course he doenst have to...who says he has to?

But i dont follow your comment Ainur...obnoxious? It was a joke, the bizarro text...


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:31pm


Views: 5489
I wouldn't say the HP films are any more faithful than the LOTR films


In Reply To
adaptation input. I am certain that the relative faithfulness of Harry Potter can be attributed to the fact that she was not shut out of the adaptations.



Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:32pm


Views: 5480
well

Yes he does...but you have to wonder...it would have been much better if he had collaborated with the production..it was the adaptation of his fathers work...it deserved his attention...


Beutlin
Rivendell

Aug 18 2012, 4:33pm


Views: 5589
I find that quote highly amusing.

As a matter of fact, most people who have read the "Lord of the Rings" for the first time have done so in their teens - the book itself is regarded as a work for adolescents (regardless of whether Tolkien intended to write it for the same group of people).

Ceterum censeo montem artis magicae atrae esse delendum.


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 4:34pm


Views: 5507
As I said above

PJ did reach out to them, so his intentions were, indeed, as he said, to make the best adaptation he could.

As one who likes PJ's films a lot and yet believes they could have been so much better, I can only shake my head in sadness.



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:37pm


Views: 5537
I don't mind criticism of C. Tolkien at all

And have, on occasion, criticized both his and his father's assessments of why their fanbase was so large and diverse (something that seemed to perplex them).

So, your accusations are unfounded and ridiculous.

What I am doing is simply highlighting the simple fact that you think Christopher Tolkien does not "understand" certain things that you do, which may somehow be the reason for him not liking the films. Unless evidence suggests otherwise, I will simply assume that he doesn't like the films because he doesn't like them!


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 4:38pm


Views: 5482
Success Stories

Stories abound of original material being done from the heart by artists for reasons of altruism or intellectual pursuit which is then raped for financial gain, stripped and played on its popular appeal of the masses. Also keep in mind this was material inspired for the same children of the creator and who now control their father's assets. It is probably to them like selling the family home to a bordello.

Personally, I don't think it's become a bordello; more like a well-run family carnival where children and their families can play all day in safety. That's nto so bad. The Tolkien Estate (I differentiate the Estate from the family because there's more involved, especially lawyers whose advocacy usually makes anyone appear evil) is unreasonably stiff and unfriendly to what we would enjoy - namely the rights to fully develop the history of Middle Earth.

I find the comment that if the Tolkiens don't enjoy the movies, they should not share in the profits distasteful. The movies are based upon their father's original work. He would certainly deserve compensation were he still alive whether he enjoyed the movies or not, and indications are that he would not. Their father would want any proceeds to benefit his children. That's why there are wills and estates. Further, if the children of JRR Tolkien are not enjoying the process, they have even more due them and what is reprehensible is when studios attempt to avoid such accountability and responsibility.


macfalk
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 4:38pm


Views: 5486
I agree, very sad.

PJ reached out to them, a nice gesture, yet CT gave him the cold hand. Not even a "good luck". One can only hope that whoever takes over things after CT will be more open minded and helpful, and not so isolated.


JRR Tolkien made his choice back then - he sold the rights to TH and LOTR willingly. Willingly. For a profit. This decision should have been honored and not ignored.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Aug 18 2012, 4:41pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:43pm


Views: 5552
amusing comment

Eviscerated...i disagree with such a word to describe the adaptations...its too strong and implies a destruction of the original material...

haha this make sme laugh with sadness...i remember back in the lotr days...many many young teens and young people DIDNT appreciate fellowship and two towers because , and i quote : they were boring as hell, NO ACTION ...but the third was fun! Lots of ACTION! "

So yes, the only reason why many of the people CTolkien claims the movies were created for, didnt like the first two movies was because they were dull, boring, with people walking and talking , and conversations about history, and nature etc...and enjoyed rotk solely because they was " action" ...


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:44pm


Views: 5533
If

The Director of Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles and the Frighteners approached me and offered to turn my father's memoirs into a film, I would not only NOT tell him good luck, I would actively try to make sure he didn't do it.


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Aug 18 2012, 4:45pm)


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:44pm


Views: 5513
Doesn't really matter

I enjoyed the books. I enjoyed the films. It doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks of them, since it can't change my experience.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:45pm


Views: 5456
Ifs and buts

It could've been worse!


macfalk
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 4:47pm


Views: 5538
And Heavenly Creatures...

And still, it doesn't matter. JRRT sold the rights and PJ had them and was going to make the best possible adaption as he possibly could. To not even wish a good luck at that point on the start of the journey is, IMHO, bad manners.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Aug 18 2012, 4:49pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:50pm


Views: 5717
sh

Well, that was the feeling i got from your response, that you were in Attack mode...especially when you add more things to my own words...

But i didnt say he didnt like the films, because he doenst understand what i explained on my larger post...two different things...
I was refering to his comments on the commercialisation and the loss of value of the original works ...

I too think he doenst like the films because he doenst like them, although there are other reasons too i think...


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 4:52pm


Views: 5522
JRR Tolkien was not your father

So, I think it is a little unfair to accuse Christopher of bad manners. Again, if my father's work was being adapted by someone who I thought was woefully wrong for the job, I would not wish that person good luck. I would do everything in my legal power to try to stop it from happening. And, as we know, Christopher certainly did not go that far!


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Aug 18 2012, 4:53pm)


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:53pm


Views: 5436
danielb

Yes it could have....i often say, that we could have gotten some hollywood guy like Stefen Fangmeier...MadPirate


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 4:56pm


Views: 5404
well

Did christopher said anything about the choice of director at the time?


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 4:58pm


Views: 5431
Yes, I have to agree

There's two different perspectives here: a) one's personal perspective, and b) C.Tolkien's perspective.

Personally, it's bad manners not to wish someone good luck. But C.Tolkien didn't want a film. He doesn't have to be polite Wink


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 4:59pm


Views: 5633
I think the article did a fine job of explaining, in brief, what protect means (And thank you DanielB for the link)

Protect means to preserve the legacy of the works.

People say, "you can always read the book," but that misses the point of the many people who have loved a work, as it was written, and desire to see that work faithfully visualized for larger masses. If the work is in any way misrepresented, the second hand telling can stick in the mind with a host of inaccuracies. And, ironically, the more sucessful an adaptation is, the more likelihood there is for the original work to all but become lost in it.

Consider L.Baum and fans of his original book. What if Baum was insistent about there having been four witches in Oz? What of all the people who loved Quadling Country, and The Witch of The North, and the other details changed or omitted from the 1939 classic? Baum's ideal, and that of the fans of his writing, might have been for there to one day be a film in which those aspects were presented (well . . . The Wiz does have the four witches), so that a larger audience could see and come to know them. . . but for millions of people Oz only ever had Three Witches, and there were no Quadlings in Oz. The movie overtook the books. Certainly you can still buy a copy of the book. . . but for most people, the films have become the cannon.

My girlfriend recently recounted a conversation to me, in which a friend of hers who was a fan of the movies, but not steeped in the book lore, attempted to argue with her about Gandalf's nature. She was explaining to the friend that Gandalf was actually a Holy Spirit sent in a human guise to aid the free people and creatures of the world. The friend refuted this. "No he wasn't. Not originally. He became a Holy Spirit after he fought The Balrog, but he wasn't one originally," was the friend's assertion.CrazyCrazyCrazyCrazyCrazy

Things like that happen all the time, and that is doubtless what Christopher wants to protect against, though I fear it is a loosing battle. They say that a lie is half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. So to, the most popular version of a story is usually the one that the general populace refferences for the facts concerning a story. Alterations in a triumphant film truly can alter and degrade the facts of a tale. Because of popularized film versions, there are (and will continue to be for years to come) people who will fervently argue that Oz only had one good witch, and that was Glinda from The North (she is actually The Witch of The South), and that Elrond's daughter helped rescue Frodo from The Nazgul. Unsure

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Aug 18 2012, 5:00pm)


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:05pm


Views: 5563
Of course Martin and Rowling etc. have a different attitude.

They are living authors who actually have a MAJOR say in the way their works are being translated. HBO may make some changes to Martin's work so that the audience doesn't become so furious as to tar and feather both them and Martin (scaling back on some of his less requsite killings of fan favourites perhaps), but they are not going to play fast and loose with huge sections of his work on his watch.

Peter et al, by contrast, made clear early on that they were not interested in having an overseer.

In Reply To
Maybe not easily...but i would certainly to warm up to it and be as collaborative and helpfull and supportive as i could...George rr martin's attitude or alan moores is very different...i know its different situations, but i prefer their attitudes towards adaptations of their works than CTolkiens..


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 5:07pm


Views: 5581
Eh, they wouldn't of even had the conversation if it weren't for the movie

In the glass half full camp, we could say they wouldn't be having the opportunity to argue about Gandalf's nature if it weren't for the exposure of the material by the adaptation. So now, that person has a chance (if they're so inclined) to learn more about the Maia. It could even be said that a casual reader (like myself) wouldn't know anything about the Maia, since they wouldn't wade through the Silmarillion. Now, that person knows about both, because of the movie adaptation. Smile

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:08pm


Views: 5513
Also it's my view that

the stance of certain people on the production who frequently assert they are improving Tolkien or heavily imply that they know better will not have done anything to encourage a positive reaction from CT. Phillipa Boyens in particular rather gives the impression that they improved Tolkien's work and, to defend that, uses a knowledge of the books which is simply innaccurate. For instance, she said that Faramir needed to be changed because he robbed the ring of all credibility and that the version in the films was an improvement. What she doesn;t understand that, Faramir in the books, would have worked wondefully in the film for what they wanted to do with the Ring because he doesn't actually know what it is.

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 5:11pm


Views: 5574
Source

Now that you have been shown the source, I'd be interested in how that changes your thinking. It should, because your belief was based upon the absence of such enmity. For if it does not, it would contradict any need to request the source.


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 5:17pm


Views: 5533
ainur

Well, i think the amount of omissions and changes done already, are enough to infuriate many fans of a song of ice and fire...although i agree with most of them.

I am not familiar with rowlings situation...from what i understood, she didnt have any veto power or an overseer quality at all after she sold the rights...i may be wrong...and frankly, if i were rowling and had veto power i wd never have allowed that final scene in book 5 to never appear on screen...so i always got the feeling that she just sold the rights ...

As to martin, he doesnt have any veto power, any say in the matter..the creators are the deciders, he has more of a consultant quality, they confide in him, check with him, show him the scripts and ask for comments, but if they decide to bring the aliens down to Westeros they can! and hes powerless to stop them...I think, ultimately, he trusts them to do a good job...

So, at least with martin i believe i know a little of his position and unless iam mistaken, he doenst have a Major say in the way their works are being translated...

Did peter make that clear? I dont remember that...i wish CTolkien simply had sat down with them for lunch so he could get to know them and what they wnated to do ....he didnt did he?


(This post was edited by Lusitano on Aug 18 2012, 5:19pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 5:19pm


Views: 5539
I suppose I'm in the fortunate position on this of not giving two hoots.

I don't think it's in any way the job of a film adaptations to ensure there are no misconceptions about the original text. A documentary possibly but not a film of this nature.

That said I don't know how many people are out there who don't accept the statement that something might be different in the book, without having read it!

LR


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:30pm


Views: 5510
Ah, bizzaro.

A mockery of Superman then. lol. I understand, forgive my criticism if your comments were merely jest.

In Reply To
Of course he doenst have to...who says he has to?

But i dont follow your comment Ainur...obnoxious? It was a joke, the bizarro text...


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:31pm


Views: 5560
I may be wrong here but...

I'm sure I read that CT hasn't even seen the films. So to completely dismiss them as "action films for 15 year old's" is somewhat presumptuous considering they're far from it and especially given the fact that LOTR is and TH are books for adolescents.

And it has been quite rude of the TE to just completely dismiss PJ without even hearing what he had to say. Especially considering he was the director of the superb Braindead.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 5:33pm


Views: 5478
yes

Bizarro Jerry...why not bizarro Shelob haha? Yes they were jest...Its all good
Smile


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:35pm


Views: 5499
Fortunate indeed.

Others have found it harder to be flippant.

I take your meaning, and agree to an extent.

There are differences, however, with leaving things out, or even adding things in, versus entirely changing an event. People generally accept that certain scenes from the book might have been left out of the film,. Indeed, the expect it. Additions can often be palated as well. But when the book says one thing happened in a certain way, and the movie dares say the exact opposite, or to show the same events but with entirely different results and scene actors, that is where the real conflicts arise.

In Reply To
I don't think it's in any way the job of a film adaptations to ensure there are no misconceptions about the original text. A documentary possibly but not a film of this nature.

That said I don't know how many people are out there who don't accept the statement that something might be different in the book, without having read it!

LR


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:37pm


Views: 5509
I can understand why Christopher wouldn't agree to a meeting.

Its the political optics. Just as Jackson's reasons for wanting to "involve" Christopher et al had very little to do with wanting any oversight from them, just the legitimacy that conferring with them could bestow. Doubtless, Christopher desired to deny any possibility of seeming to bestow that legitimacy/approval.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:38pm


Views: 5540
well

And it has been quite rude of the TE to just completely dismiss PJ without even hearing what he had to say. Especially considering he was the director of the superb Braindead.


Why is it rude? The TE owe PJ nothing. As Tolkien himself sold the film rights a long time ago then there is no reason for them to be involved if they don't wish to be. Your post sort of suggests that the TE ought to have been involved simply because PJ directed brain dead which isn't the case. We are not just talking about a book/books that have been turned into a series of films. We are talking about the life's work of his Father and CT, as head of the TE, has every right to refuse to be involved with the films if, in his view, they did not have the necessary respect for the source material. That's his choice.

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


DemoElite
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:41pm


Views: 5543
Great conversation...

The point of the post was to discuss what "HATE" meant. Does he hate the movies because they weren't good? Does he hate them because he doesn't want films made period? My point is as a writer, an unsuccessful writer at this point, I would DIE for an adaption. As a spoiled success, TE is acting as if they don't need it. The fans demand it.

The pure book fans that do not want the films can continue to cherish the books solely. I just had wished that TE would have supported the cause, especially since they would have profited from it. Whether the films are good or not is not the case.

Was it supported by them? Tolkien himself, sold the rights when he was alive. Tolkien himself changed his own book, The Hobbit, to improve it and relate it to the LOTR. We saw Lucas do this with Star Wars, for better or for worse. Can you imagine if JRR did not change the Hobbit to better match LOTR and another writer changed it for him after his death? The purists would have went crazy.

Artists are always trying to perfect. As an artist ( I consider myself one, whether good or not) I will also try to improve my own work. And if I am lucky enough to create a world worth revisiting over and over, or expanding for that matter, good for me and my fans. And if I decide to offer that world to others to a different media, I would expect change. I also would expect other ideas on improvement and what ifs. If the other media destroys the spirit of the work, so be it, I sold the rights. I live or die with it.

There is a point in time where Middle Earth becomes the fan's world more than the creator's world. The creator will always own it but the fan's will let it live on. No fans, no work. Sometimes you need to give the people what they want. Once these films are done, I would agree that TE can rest for many years to come without giving anyone rights. That is fair. CT should appreciate his father's work he created and the world he has opened in the sense that it has become far greater a world than he could have imagined, and that is a blessing. Maybe he is being far more protective than even JRR would have been. But we do not know that and I appreciate CT and what he has provided to us as fans at this point, at least, whatever JRR hasn't already provided to us.

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:49pm


Views: 5466
hmmm

Was it supported by them? Tolkien himself, sold the rights when he was alive. Tolkien himself changed his own book, The Hobbit, to improve it and relate it to the LOTR. We saw Lucas do this with Star Wars, for better or for worse. Can you imagine if JRR did not change the Hobbit to better match LOTR and another writer changed it for him after his death? The purists would have went crazy.

Except that's not really the same thing is it. Tolkien himself revised the Hobbit to make it more consistent with LOTR, chiefly the Riddles in the Dark chapter. But, and I shall have to stick to LOTR till I have seen the Hobbit, PJ didn't do that. He changed things to make the books work on screen but, went too far in some cases. Tolkien altered the original material to make it compatible with the LOTR. PJ, in certain cases, ignored the source material.

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 5:49pm


Views: 5465
Well conflicts arise for all sorts of reasons.

I'm not sure I am being entirely flippant either. Stories are robust things and don't, in my view, need protecting or preserving or anything of the sort. I would argue that Tolkien wrote in a similar vein about other people's stories (though I do doubt he viewed his own work in quite the same way).

I love the idea of lots of people discussing the stories, full of different views, misconceptions and different readings. And the more different views, and ideas and takes we get to see and hear the better.

LR


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:52pm


Views: 5575
Tolkien sold the rights years ago...

...and all the TE have done ever since is complain about it (although presumably they haven't complained about the millions of $$$ the films have brought in to fill the TE's coffers right?). It just seems a tad hypocritical to so publicly berate an excellent series of films that have increased Tolkien's works popularity 100x fold and guaranteed the TE's financial security for generations to come. If CT hates the films so much then why doesn't he stick to his convictions and just give away all the money he's made of the back of them? Or go even further and publicly criticise his father for selling the rights in the first place?

You can't blame fans of Tolkien's work (like PJ and co) for attempting to adapt his work if they can, and as far as I know there wasn't nearly as much criticism towards the 70's animated versions.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:55pm


Views: 5432
LOTR is not a book for Adolescents. Neither is The Hobbit, per se, but from a different angle

The Hobbit is a children's tale. The Lord of The Rings is VERY mature in its themes. But the sort of mature that many adults will never fully appreciate, and that some teens already do. Much of LOTR deals with change and loss, really. Just because it is High School reading doesn't mean it was written with those students in mind. Catcher In The Rye, Hamlet, The House of The Spirits and As I Lay Dying are all high school reading as well, but they were not written specifically for a teen audience.

In Reply To
I'm sure I read that CT hasn't even seen the films. So to completely dismiss them as "action films for 15 year old's" is somewhat presumptuous considering they're far from it and especially given the fact that LOTR is and TH are books for adolescents.

And it has been quite rude of the TE to just completely dismiss PJ without even hearing what he had to say. Especially considering he was the director of the superb Braindead.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 5:58pm


Views: 5545
That person continued to argue even without facts.

I understand your meaning, and there is some truth in it. But for everyone who has the benefit of being enlightened by one better informed in the faithAngelic Wink there are a score of others who will plod on mired in the darkness of heresy!Evil lolol UnsureFrown

In Reply To
In the glass half full camp, we could say they wouldn't be having the opportunity to argue about Gandalf's nature if it weren't for the exposure of the material by the adaptation. So now, that person has a chance (if they're so inclined) to learn more about the Maia. It could even be said that a casual reader (like myself) wouldn't know anything about the Maia, since they wouldn't wade through the Silmarillion. Now, that person knows about both, because of the movie adaptation. Smile


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Aug 18 2012, 5:58pm)


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 5:58pm


Views: 5480
without wishing to start an argument

A couple of points re. your last post Spaldron:

1. All the Tolkien Estate have done is give their views when asked for them. It isn't like they've come out and publicly tried to stir up a boycott or anything. Compared to other authors, they have been very restrained and simply given their views on the movies. Some members of the TE like the movies and have said so. Others don't and have also said so. They haven't "done nothing but complain" at all.

2. Although the movies have increased the popularity of the books, I highly doubt the Estate is in anyway dependent on the films for financial security. Believe it or not, Tolkien's books particularly LOTR and TH were extremely popular before the films.


3. If CT hates the films so much then why doesn't he stick to his convictions and just give away all the money he's made of the back of them? Umm, maybe because it's not his to give away but the TE's?

4. Actually, the 70s version of the films did get some quite heavy flack, it's just that there wasn't the internet and other such things so it meant it wasn't as wide spread as quickly. Now people can post on the net in a matter of minutes.

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:05pm


Views: 5432
Well there is different. . . and then there is plain wrong.

One can have different views on Elrond's attitude towards Aragorn that are equally justifiable. One cannot have equally valid views on whether or not The Witch King broke Gandalf's staff. He did not, no matter what is proposed in EE Rotk. That is not a different understaning of events. It is a patently false one. Tongue

In Reply To
I'm not sure I am being entirely flippant either. Stories are robust things and don't, in my view, need protecting or preserving or anything of the sort. I would argue that Tolkien wrote in a similar vein about other people's stories (though I do doubt he viewed his own work in quite the same way).

I love the idea of lots of people discussing the stories, full of different views, misconceptions and different readings. And the more different views, and ideas and takes we get to see and hear the better.

LR


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 6:06pm


Views: 5491
"Don't Confuse Me With The Facts!"


Spaldron: Tolkien sold the rights years ago and all the TE have done ever since is complain about it (although presumably they haven't complained about the millions of $$$ the films have brought in to fill the TE's coffers right?).


Laughable. What they complained about was *not* receiving those funds. This statement appears ignorant of more recent news. Would it change your thinking to know that the Tolkien Estate is reported to have received nothing from The Lord of the Rings films until the studio was forced by legal action to pay the 7.5% (I think) share only recently after how many years? Your post relies entirely that this is false.

Now, the other huge assumption is about what the Tolkien Estate does, or will do, with the money. What is your source for that? How do you know they *didn't* (or *will*) do something benevolent with those funds the studios tried to rob from them?

I'm not one to defend (or not) the Tolkien Estate. I have my gripes. But anything that misrepresents the truth with huge assumptions without supporting facts undermines any point of view we would attempt to pursue.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 18 2012, 6:10pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 6:09pm


Views: 5441
We're looking at this the wrong way

C.Tolkien doesn't hate the films, the films hate him! Shocked


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 6:13pm


Views: 5419
It's a different telling of the tale.

One isn't "true" and the other "false". One is original, to be sure, but both are fiction.

But that's rather beside the point. A film is there to tell a story in as engaging, entertaining and successful way as possible. It won't all be successful or universally liked but that's its job. Not to act as a reference book.

It bothers me no more than the thought someone is still reading a 1st edition hobbit.

LR


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 18 2012, 6:17pm


Views: 5447
I agree with both your latest posts

- and, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask the forum what it actually was that pJ said about their approach to the Tolkien Estate? I mean, exactly.

I vaguely recall pJ's comments on the dvd and I don't get the impression that there was any case of the Estate snubbing the film-makers, or of not wishing them luck. Saying 'no' to a request is not a snub, nor bad-mannered.

Anyone can approach the estate with a request. Sometimes the answer is yes; sometimes no. That seems fair and reasonable to me. I have the advantage of having seen a typical example of the request process. Michael Drout approached the Estate asking permission to include unpublished material from the Tolkien holdings at the Bodleian Library in his doctoral dissertation. Drout included the correspondence in his dissertation itself, as an appendix. (I have a copy). The letters between Drout and the estate's solicitors are professional and business-like, and the one from the solicitors which tells Drout that their clients have granted his requests also passes on the family's best wishes in his studies.

I'd like to make a few general remarks if I may, based on other comments in this thread. Christopher seems quite open to requests, in my opinion. He gave a great deal of help to the makers of the BBC radio serial back in 1981. He made tapes for them, to help with pronounciation. The BBC made typescripts of the tapes available to members of the Tolkien Society; I still have mine.

On the subject of young Royd - yes, he is a nice bloke. But then, all the members of the Tolkien family I've met are nice.

Smile


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 6:17pm


Views: 5270
Most old guys I know of are that way...//

 

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 6:17pm


Views: 5286
well i just think its a pity

That is logical but when you put it like that, it just makes me sad...so youre saying pj wasnt interested at all in having him in some form of consulting role?and was just solely interested in his stamp?

Even if christopher didnt think pj was the best man for the job, in my opinion, he should have tried to get more involved, to consult, to comment, to advise in any capacity for the betterment of the adaptation of his fathers work into the big screen...what else would merit an amiable and productive relation between the filmmakers and christopher...

I know some people will say, he is very opinionated, he wasnt interested in the movies, or he doesnt think they should be made , its his right etc...well, fin...but if there ever was a work of art that merited a sound and amiable working relationship between the two parts was lotr...

Wandering Ranger: yes indeed they have that right..no one is disputing that...its not a matte rof oweing something...is a matter of doing what is best for the film adaptations..and i think the best wd have been a diferent attitude and collaboration...

But how did Ctolkien understood that they didnt have enough respect for his fathers work, and as such should not get involved, if he didnt meet the filmmakers and heard what they had to say and show? Am i missing something? He , form the very beginning , refused involvement right?


(This post was edited by Lusitano on Aug 18 2012, 6:19pm)


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 6:21pm


Views: 5252
That is pretty much my belief too

Which is why don't really get what's there to "protect" Crazy



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 6:24pm


Views: 5210
I've always viewed him as largely ungrateful.

Peter Jackson has done more for Tolkien's work than anyone has. Kids that wouldn't have ever even considered reading Tolkien pick the books up because they liked the movies.

C. Tolkien should be so lucky that they actually hired a director with talent and appreciation of Tolkien's work to adapt the books, instead of the 98% of Hollywood directors who would've done far, far worse.

I would think one would usually be at least thankful for the huge sums of money that someone puts in one's pocket.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:26pm


Views: 5181
Bah and humbug. The Author's account is the true one,

Angelicdivinely dictated to him by a responsible god or Muse. All contrary indicators are fiddlesticks. Heretical, blasphemous fiddlesticks! end of discussion!Tongue

In Reply To
One isn't "true" and the other "false". One is original, to be sure, but both are fiction.

But that's rather beside the point. A film is there to tell a story in as engaging, entertaining and successful way as possible. It won't all be successful or universally liked but that's its job. Not to act as a reference book.

It bothers me no more than the thought someone is still reading a 1st edition hobbit.

LR


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 6:29pm


Views: 5216
Haha have you ever considered starting a religion? Old L.Ron did ok out it. NT

 


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:38pm


Views: 5180
I can still understand Christopher not wanting to meet.

I think he should probably watch the films, which he may have done, so that his criticisms are sound. . . but as to meeting. . .

From all I have read, it was made pretty clear that Christopher et al would not have any authority or influence. Being consulted for information and insight is valuable in its way, but remains far different from actually having a say.

I can understand why Peter would want to involve the Tolkiens, but I can certainly understand why they would not agree to such involvment.

It isn't just a matter of being opinionated. Involvement doesn't mean things will go your way. Christopher Lee himself discovered that. Now, if Christopher had invovled himself, and then had still hated the end results, it would have been too late for him to change the optics without going out of his way to make a great deal of noise. The general assumption would be that he sacntioned Peter's vision. . . even if in the end he severly dissaproved.

In Reply To
That is logical but when you put it like that, it just makes me sad...so youre saying pj wasnt interested at all in having him in some form of consulting role?and was just solely interested in his stamp?

Even if christopher didnt think pj was the best man for the job, in my opinion, he should have tried to get more involved, to consult, to comment, to advise in any capacity for the betterment of the adaptation of his fathers work into the big screen...what else would merit an amiable and productive relation between the filmmakers and christopher...

I know some people will say, he is very opinionated, he wasnt interested in the movies, or he doesnt think they should be made , its his right etc...well, fin...but if there ever was a work of art that merited a sound and amiable working relationship between the two parts was lotr...

Wandering Ranger: yes indeed they have that right..no one is disputing that...its not a matte rof oweing something...is a matter of doing what is best for the film adaptations..and i think the best wd have been a diferent attitude and collaboration...

But how did Ctolkien understood that they didnt have enough respect for his fathers work, and as such should not get involved, if he didnt meet the filmmakers and heard what they had to say and show? Am i missing something? He , form the very beginning , refused involvement right?


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:39pm


Views: 5138
lol

Wink

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 6:39pm


Views: 5228
Maybe he thinks respect for his father's life-work is more important than money. //

 

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Phibbus
Rohan


Aug 18 2012, 6:39pm


Views: 5497
Indeed


In Reply To
Now, the other huge assumption is about what the Tolkien Estate does, or will do, with the money. What is your source for that? How do you know they *didn't* (or *will*) do something benevolent with those funds the studios tried to rob from them?

Indeed, the charitable Tolkien Trust was established precisely to distribute such surplus posthumous revenues.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:40pm


Views: 5246
You know, it is a funny thing, but some people would rather

you not engage a work at all, than that you should engage it and come away seriously misinformed about it.

In Reply To
Peter Jackson has done more for Tolkien's work than anyone has. Kids that wouldn't have ever even considered reading Tolkien pick the books up because they liked the movies.

C. Tolkien should be so lucky that they actually hired a director with talent and appreciation of Tolkien's work to adapt the books, instead of the 98% of Hollywood directors who would've done far, far worse.

I would think one would usually be at least thankful for the huge sums of money that someone puts in one's pocket.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 6:47pm


Views: 5247
Well, that explains alot

How casually you view the work would of course impact your feelings about adaptations. The more seriously one takes a source work, the less comfortable one will be with people taking liberties with it. That is self evident.

Fandoms of legendaria and varied mythos can be quasi religious (see comic book guy, and all the con fanboys, including those in the movie fanboy, where Wars fanboys (and girls) actually desecrate Trek fanboy's statuary, resulting in an altercation) in their approach. And that, of course, comes in varying degrees. As a casually religious person will often not be bothered by the details of their religion, so long as people follow the spirit of it, whilst an orthodox person may become wroth you someone for transgressing on this or that holy edict, so to, the more casual approach to various legendaria is not all that concerned with faithful adherrence to the details of the mythos, while the more ardent approach can be sent into a cardiac episode by news of people quoting some altered detail from an adaptation as though it were legitimate cannon.

In Reply To
Which is why don't really get what's there to "protect" Crazy


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 18 2012, 6:49pm


Views: 5197
That's right -

- I, for one.
.


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 6:53pm


Views: 5227
No quite what I meant


Quote
Would it change your thinking to know that the Tolkien Estate is reported to have received nothing from The Lord of the Rings films until the studio was forced by legal action to pay the 7.5% (I think) share only recently after how many years? Your post relies entirely that this is false.


Actually I was referring to the royalties from the massive increases in book sales (millions apparently) as a result of the films popularity, not the royalties from the films themselves. In fact I wasn't even aware the TE even received a cut from the films so technically my point is sound.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 6:56pm


Views: 5137
Here here.


In Reply To
Peter Jackson has done more for Tolkien's work than anyone has. Kids that wouldn't have ever even considered reading Tolkien pick the books up because they liked the movies.

C. Tolkien should be so lucky that they actually hired a director with talent and appreciation of Tolkien's work to adapt the books, instead of the 98% of Hollywood directors who would've done far, far worse.

I would think one would usually be at least thankful for the huge sums of money that someone puts in one's pocket.


This ^

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


Lindele
Gondor


Aug 18 2012, 6:59pm


Views: 5171
Well in that case

I will remember to thank the Lord everyday that someone other than you greenlit the LOTR films...someone able to see the talent and passion in between the lines.

Christopher Tolkien has every right to hate these films. But, yes, it does not matter who adapts them in what way, he would hate it.
I can assure you, as educated and intelligent as he is, he has NO IDEA what adapting a book into a film for the masses is like...and in no way understand what it takes.


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 7:10pm


Views: 5187
but

he does have the hugest understanding of what it took his father to create the world that others get so much pleasure out of. It's one thing to not agree with his stance on the films, but, forgive the bluntness, it is frankly out of order to openly attack him for it. When a man spends his life creating a world like Tolkien did and then entrusts that world to his son, his son is going to be extremely protective of it.

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 7:12pm


Views: 5198
Hence, my first mention being about all that Jackson has done to further Tolkien's influence...

...and my last mention, being about money.

Nice try.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 7:13pm


Views: 5218
was that to me?

if so nice try at what?

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 7:15pm


Views: 5276
No, no, now I'll have to put the tin hat on that one.

This has nothing to do with being "casual" or not taking the source "seriously". It has to with how people believe narratives operate. Not believing in "protectionism" is not an indication of not being serious about the source.

If a parent does not believe that their child needs to be protected from the influences of the Harry Potter books, that does not make them more casual about their children than someone who does.

Besides, if our primary goal is to ensure no one misinterprets the works and we do not mind if people dont engage with them where there is a risk of misinterpretation, wouldn't the logical thing to wish for be that all versions of Tolkien's works be rounded up and removed. We have no danger of misinterpretation then!

LR


Maiarmike
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 7:15pm


Views: 5183
No, my response was to RosieLass.

She attempted to twist my post upside down to make it look like I alleged C. Tolkien only cares about money, which is probably the least of his concerns.

"I warn you, if you bore me, I shall take my revenge"
--J.R.R. Tolkien


Gorbag
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 7:33pm


Views: 5101
Perfectly put.//

 

“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring


Finrod
Rohan


Aug 18 2012, 7:37pm


Views: 5206
The Voice of Saruman and the Call of Mammon


In Reply To
. . . and all the [Tolkien Estate] have done ever since is complain about it (although presumably they haven't complained about the millions of $$$ the films have brought in to fill the [Tolkien Estate]'s coffers right?). It just seems a tad hypocritical to so publicly berate an excellent series of films that have increased Tolkien's works [sic] popularity 100x fold [sic] and guaranteed the [Tolkien Estate]'s financial security for generations to come. If [Christopher Tolkien] hates the films so much then why doesn't he stick to his convictions and just give away all the money he's made of [sic] the back of them [sic]? Or go even further and publicly criticise his father for selling the rights in the first place?


There’s so much wrong with all that I don’t even know where to start. Perhaps it’s best to have an old friend speak for me, for he states openly and plainly what is in my own secret heart:
There was a heavy silence. It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. ‘The words of this wizard stand on their heads,’ he growled, gripping the handle of his axe.
That should suffice, but lest there be any doubt, I shall perforce expand upon it, even if only a tiny bit; I’ll keep this shorter than it demands and longer than it deserves.

Perhaps most importantly is that it would have been summarily hypocritical of him if Christopher had so worshipped at Mammon’s altar that his opinion, appreciation, and perception of a piece of art could be so cheaply bought — and no less a piece of art than that great one with which he has been deeply, intimately, and passionately involved for his entire remarkably long life.

Christopher is clearly a gentleman of surpassing integrity, yet you would have him cast that away forever, all for a mere forty pieces of silver. Thank God he is a better man than that!

Secondly, but hardly lastly, Christopher has done very nearly the exact opposite of “complaining about the sale of the rights since the day they were sold.” He has done nothing of the sort, and it denigrates his honor to suggest otherwise. History is against you here, and so too should be all fair-minded folk.

There’s more to be said, but others will have to say it, because I’ve not the stomach for it, not in a warped world where perspective, restraint, respect, honor, character, dignity, and integrity have all but died.

…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.
The Silmarillion, pp 150-151
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311




AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 7:51pm


Views: 5077
If the film is the child

then it is not a matter of influence but of direct alteration. You would not want your child to be given an actual third eye, and represented as an anamoly in a circus, and remembered thus for the rest of his days by the majority of the population, with only your kith and kin recalling that he or she was once a two eyed child living a typical life.


Also there are changes, and then there are *cue Bowie music* CH CH CH CH CHANGEEES!

The former is managable, can work well, and is to be expected. . . the later Frown

There are omissions and additions that really don't greatly alter the work, especially those additions that could easily have occured, for example, there being a female Elf guard named Tauriel present in Thranduil's halls, or Gandalf briefly visiting The Olde Forest to ask if Old Bombadil has noted any dark and unusual happenings in his part of the North of Eriador. . .

Then there are CHANGES that upset the entire order of the story and challange the relative facts of the source. . . i.e. The Black Arrow fails to take down Smaug, and Tauriel shows up and puts fifty more arrows into the same vulnerable spot in the space of thirty seconds, or Tom Bombadil puts Gandalf under a pleasant and enchanted slumber, and tells him to rest from his labours whilst Old Tom sees to his errands, reminds Saruman of whom he was truly sent in service of, and helps to flush out that schemeing Sauron.

In essence, its all the difference between, "well that could have happened, but its not in the story etc." and "oh HELL naaaw! That did not, could not and WOULD not have happened! Where the devil are you getting these crazy notions?!" lol

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 8:00pm


Views: 5136
No no

The film is not the child. The attitude is one of protectionism or not. I don't believe a story is damaged by different tellings or different elements but thrives on it.

And one's attitude to different elements depends entirely on what one is looking for and how it plays out. I have no issue with conflicting details in different tellings.

LR


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 8:01pm


Views: 5398
Having just come from math class...


In Reply To
I understand your meaning, and there is some truth in it. But for everyone who has the benefit of being enlightened by one better informed in the faithAngelic Wink there are a score of others who will plod on mired in the darkness of heresy!Evil lolol UnsureFrown

In Reply To
In the glass half full camp, we could say they wouldn't be having the opportunity to argue about Gandalf's nature if it weren't for the exposure of the material by the adaptation. So now, that person has a chance (if they're so inclined) to learn more about the Maia. It could even be said that a casual reader (like myself) wouldn't know anything about the Maia, since they wouldn't wade through the Silmarillion. Now, that person knows about both, because of the movie adaptation. Smile



What is this ratio of heretical to enlightened? Laugh

Having come from English class just finishing up a position paper, I'm in the mood to offer a point in contention with yours.

The release of PJ's adapted LOTR clearly boosted book sales. The release of the Twilight movies clearly boosted book sales The release of the Narnia movies clearly boosted book sales. Wouldn't you say there's actually much more evidence that these popular movie adaptations actually increase exposure to the source materials rather than have the opposite effect?

Therefore I conclude that there is strong evidence that the movie adaptations actually encourage more readership of the source materials adding to the roster of the enlightened and adding more weight to my previous argument thus doing harm to your ratio, my friend. Wink

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 8:08pm


Views: 5314
I agree. Wouldn't a good example of this be the tale of King Arthur and Merlin?


In Reply To
The film is not the child. The attitude is one of protectionism or not. I don't believe a story is damaged by different tellings or different elements but thrives on it.

And one's attitude to different elements depends entirely on what one is looking for and how it plays out. I have no issue with conflicting details in different tellings.

LR


Rather than die, these tales have endured and historians have been continuing to dig for the source material they were derived from.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 8:09pm


Views: 5364
Well, the work is the child, and the film is the child altered

the protectionism is still tied to what is being protected. In this case, it is the memory of the child.

A story can definitely be damaged by different tellings. A legend may be expanded by different tellings and deepened in popular conciousness. . . but a story with one definitive original telling is more like a cannonical tome than a loosely translated legend. You might not damage the spreading of the tale, but you can definitely damage or even obliterate the original story, and if you alter it enough you can even loose the spirit and intent of the tale.

There comes a point at which an adaptation team really does have a moral and artistic obligation to change the label of "based upon," to "loosely based upon" and sometimes simply to "inspired by" lol. Because, like it or not, many movie audiences, while understanding that there will likely be some omissions, expect a work to be a mostly faithful and honest representation if it bears the same name as the source and is intended as a direct adaptation rather than a liberally altered derivative work. I am not saying The Hobbit has reached that point by any means, but caution should be applied.

In Reply To
The film is not the child. The attitude is one of protectionism or not. I don't believe a story is damaged by different tellings or different elements but thrives on it.

And one's attitude to different elements depends entirely on what one is looking for and how it plays out. I have no issue with conflicting details in different tellings.

LR


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Wandering Ranger
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 8:10pm


Views: 5314
if I may say so

your post came across as really patronising and condescending. Neither are qualities which will persuade a reader of your point of view. Especially, when the point you make aren't strictly true. The movies may have increased awareness of the books but they actually did a lot of damage in the sense of they increased awareness of "false lore", that is to say people who haven't read the books begin to mix the two up and so get a distorted picture of Tolkien's world. I'd say the damage done by this false impression far outweighs the good done by making people aware of them.

So Frodo Baggins boarded the great ship and passed on into the west till the sweet fragrance on the air filled his sense and the sound of singing came over the water. Then it seemed to him that, as in a dream, he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country. The third age of Middle Earth was over, the days of the Rings had passed and the story and song of those times was at an end.


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 8:18pm


Views: 5380
My experience is exactly the opposite


In Reply To
your post came across as really patronising and condescending. Neither are qualities which will persuade a reader of your point of view. Especially, when the point you make aren't strictly true. The movies may have increased awareness of the books but they actually did a lot of damage in the sense of they increased awareness of "false lore", that is to say people who haven't read the books begin to mix the two up and so get a distorted picture of Tolkien's world. I'd say the damage done by this false impression far outweighs the good done by making people aware of them.


Whenever I watch a good movie and I see it's based on a book, if I can I get my hands on that book. It's interesting to see the differences and my mind is not muddied by "false lore".

I'm sure that I'm not the only one capable of this experience.

I don't think my point is any more condescending than one that assumes people are too dumb or lazy to have the same experience that I have.

As for tone, I do what I can to control that and get across my point. I try to come across a little tongue-in-cheek, and to aid in that tone behold my silly avatar and siggy.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


sycorax82
Rohan

Aug 18 2012, 8:39pm


Views: 5362
Christopher Tolkien is simply too close to the source material

He has worked much of his life on compiling and commenting on his father's work and it's perfectly understandable that he would not enjoy that world being truncated and 'moviefied'. I know that if I were in his situation I would feel exactly the same.

Though...I'm sure he and his family have appreciated the money that's come their way in the last ten years or so as the books' popularity saw a huge surge (they also got paid a decent, and eventually correct...sum of money in royalties from the LOTR films).

Peter's films have led many more people to pick up the books, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales etc. included. So everyone should be happy about that, including the Tolkien family. The great JRR Tolkien's work is hugely respected and revered by all!!


Seaber
Rivendell

Aug 18 2012, 8:41pm


Views: 5426
He plays the ranger handing out spears before the attack on Osgiliath if I remember rightly?

Pretty sure he fell out with some of his family after that?

I might be mis-remembering, I read the interview about eight years ago :)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 8:44pm


Views: 5306
How is a story like a child?

I don't think I follow.

How do we obliterate the original tale? I am watching a new version of Murder on The Orient Express right now. It doesn't feature all of the same characters as previous versions or indeed the text. I don't see how anything is obliterated in multiple tellings where elements are different. It is instead interesting and offers new things with which to engage.

Movie audiences have demonstrated in their millions upon millions that they are comfortable with Jackson's approach to adapting Tolkien. I'm not sure we need to fear a change of mind just yet.

LR


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 8:45pm


Views: 5308
Great points

In fact, the Tolkien Estate does contribute to a number of charities, including the World Wildlife Fund.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 8:51pm


Views: 5317
You think PJ created an intelligent and respectful version of the story

He doesn't.

So, you are essentially saying that Christopher Tolkien is ungrateful for not having your opinion of the films, and your opinion of their positive influence on society.

Funny, that...Crazy


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 8:56pm


Views: 5335
The funny thing about this stat

Is that there is no evidence that "picking up the books" has led to a significant number of people actually reading them.

Though this is anecdotal, I have heard from numerous people who saw the films that they tried to read the books, disliked them, and didn't bother finishing.

Now, of course this has not happened with everyone, but before we declare that we have a lot more lovers of Tolkien now than we did before the films, we may want to wait for someone to finish up their PhD on the subject! Smile


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 18 2012, 9:04pm


Views: 5249
Royd played a ranger

- IIRC, he was wearing Vigo's wig. But I don't know where you got the idea he fell out with members of his family over it.
.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 9:04pm


Views: 5299
Couldn't agree more! /

 


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 9:06pm


Views: 5324
I'll pitch it to my superviser in my next meeting with him


In Reply To
Now, of course this has not happened with everyone, but before we declare that we have a lot more lovers of Tolkien now than we did before the films, we may want to wait for someone to finish up their PhD on the subject! Smile



How about: how does the weather effect the number of Tolkien book readers, before and after the films. Laugh


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 9:07pm


Views: 5296
Oh, I bet you could!

 


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 18 2012, 9:07pm


Views: 5251
Couldn't agree more.//

 


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 9:07pm


Views: 5292
I said it strengthens my argument...


In Reply To
Is that there is no evidence that "picking up the books" has led to a significant number of people actually reading them.

Though this is anecdotal, I have heard from numerous people who saw the films that they tried to read the books, disliked them, and didn't bother finishing.

Now, of course this has not happened with everyone, but before we declare that we have a lot more lovers of Tolkien now than we did before the films, we may want to wait for someone to finish up their PhD on the subject! Smile


Actually more people picking up the books is direct evidence that there are more people interested in the subject.

However, I have yet to see anyone provide anything as compelling to prove that less people have been exposed to the books because of the movie adaptations.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 9:09pm


Views: 5285
I could? /

 


rings7
Rohan


Aug 18 2012, 9:10pm


Views: 5320
I'm sorry

but the movies are brilliant on their own. If we start comparing them with the books then that's when the flaws start.


(This post was edited by rings7 on Aug 18 2012, 9:16pm)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 9:11pm


Views: 5239
I think the films

Are not very good on their own, never mind as compared to the source material.


rings7
Rohan


Aug 18 2012, 9:15pm


Views: 5230
Ok

so you don't like the lotr movies, so, for you sure you won't like the Hobbit.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 9:21pm


Views: 5185
Not necessarily

 


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 9:23pm


Views: 5193
Yet how many more people will see the movies without picking up the books?

The answer is measurable by hundreds of thousands. And that is a problem for the integrity of the story and legendarium.

In Reply To

In Reply To
Is that there is no evidence that "picking up the books" has led to a significant number of people actually reading them.

Though this is anecdotal, I have heard from numerous people who saw the films that they tried to read the books, disliked them, and didn't bother finishing.

Now, of course this has not happened with everyone, but before we declare that we have a lot more lovers of Tolkien now than we did before the films, we may want to wait for someone to finish up their PhD on the subject! Smile


Actually more people picking up the books is direct evidence that there are more people interested in the subject.

However, I have yet to see anyone provide anything as compelling to prove that less people have been exposed to the books because of the movie adaptations.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Morthoron
Gondor


Aug 18 2012, 9:26pm


Views: 5261
From past experience...

The books have been discussed on many Internet forums long previous to the movies, and many of these same forums continued discussing the books during and after the first three movies had their run. I have every reason to believe the same groups will go back to discussing the books after the present three movies (or four...five...however long PJ wants to drag out his fan-fictional commerical excursion) have faded from the spotlight.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 18 2012, 9:26pm


Views: 5248
Right, and people often ignore the question...

...how many people went to see the films because of recommendations by people who had read the books?

That would be an interesting question to answer, IMO.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 9:30pm


Views: 5223
You made the original child analogy.

I did not think it the best analogy, but I was able to follow it. However there were errors in the comparison. The influence of being reinterpreted, altered and publicized anew is very different from merely being potentially influenced by outside viewing or reading material.

And yes, millions are comfortable with his approach. I myself loved most of it, only despising a small fraction of the whole. That isn't the issue in question.

There will be millions of people, literally, who will see these movies, and take them as cannon. They will never read the books. All they will ever know of this legendarium will be what they see in those films, and however much those films misrepresent or defy the source, so too will those viewers understanding be marred. Omissions and additions that do not challenge the essential structures of the work are one thing, but boldly contradictory deviations are another.

If a highly popularaized version of the film came out in which Gandalf temporarily fell to Sauron's influence and assisinated Galadriel and Elrond, and this rubbish deviation were represented as a straight representation of the tale, I rather think you would tire of having to tell ignorant friends and/or acquaintances, "NO! That NEVER happened!!!"Shocked

In Reply To
I don't think I follow.

How do we obliterate the original tale? I am watching a new version of Murder on The Orient Express right now. It doesn't feature all of the same characters as previous versions or indeed the text. I don't see how anything is obliterated in multiple tellings where elements are different. It is instead interesting and offers new things with which to engage.

Movie audiences have demonstrated in their millions upon millions that they are comfortable with Jackson's approach to adapting Tolkien. I'm not sure we need to fear a change of mind just yet.

LR


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Aug 18 2012, 9:32pm


Views: 5234
Kreacher was in the movies solely because JK said he had to be there.

The director wasn't going to include Kreacher in Order of the Phoenix, but JK said Kreacher had a key role in the story later on (which hadn't been published yet) so he had to appear.

So yes, she did have some influence on the HP films.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 9:38pm


Views: 5438
I did not twist anything.

Maybe I didn't address all of your points, but basically they all say the same thing.

Christopher Tolkien should just shut up and be happy about the films.

And I say maybe he cares more about protecting the integrity of his father's vision than about being "grateful" to someone else for giving them wider (but flawed) exposure.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


Phibbus
Rohan


Aug 18 2012, 9:40pm


Views: 5258
Sort of moot

The books had their peak sales between 1969 and 1974, the "Tolkien-mania" years, before there were ever any adaptations of any kind.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

(This post was edited by Phibbus on Aug 18 2012, 9:42pm)


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 9:44pm


Views: 5253
I read the book on recommendation from my Mum and sister

If that helps Wink


Tim
Tol Eressea


Aug 18 2012, 9:44pm


Views: 5216
Why? Do the people who don't read the books live in a social vacuum?

Are all the people who have read the books going to suddenly disappear and/or clam up?

The clear answer is no. Nothing is going to happen to the legendarium. More people will read the books because of the movies. Tolkien's writings are carried faithfully into the next generations. This is a good thing.

I'm curious as to where you're getting this hundreds of thousands figure from.

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 9:52pm


Views: 5198
I agree with almost all the steps of this

But it is not a problem for me in the slightest. Some will read a wiki, some will come and post on boards like this, some will read the text, some will read around the text, some will do none of the above. If they are interested then there is nothing stopping them. If they aren't then so what?

I don't understand the problem or understand the urge to try and make sure nobody in the world has any misconceptions about Tolkien. I wouldn't have any urge to do that on a personal level beyond what interests me.

A good example is the Dark is Rising film. Not a good film in my view, and also one with lots of differences from the text. I have never felt any urge to sit someone down and correct them so that they can understand the true legendarium, be absolved from the the false lore or any of the rest of it.

Should we then move on to those people who have only started a book but not finished it for they will have misconceptions, and those who have read the plot on a wiki? What about the folks who've read them but don't understand them properly. I think this could be quite a big project!

LR

PS The analogy was about a protectionist view compared to being casual in two situations. But the child was not an analogy for the film. The analogy just demonstrates that one can be non-protectionist without being casual.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 18 2012, 9:55pm


Views: 5271
Worse

So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books - the original works upon which all else is based - if they don't like the movies? That's absurd. I'd like to see your source that defines a "massive increase" in sales.

Also, it's "Hear, hear."


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 18 2012, 10:01pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 18 2012, 10:01pm


Views: 5213
That's interesting.

I've been looking for book sales by year for a while without much joy. Would you point me in the right direction?

Thanks

LR


DemoElite
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 10:10pm


Views: 5266
ROTK won an Academy Award for Best picture...

...just reminding all who think that it was a terrible movie. Many, many people will disagree with you. It matters not whether it was based on, loosely based on, inspired by, etc. It was a great film period. Not everyone has the taste for action adventure, I understand. But the argument on whether it was a quality picture or not should be quieted. Was it a great LOTR film? Not much to compare it to really. It was better then the animated films IMO. Yes, IMO.

The films kept the spirit of the book. Changes were made. We had extended editions made because the director tried not to cut anything out. He did his best I believe. He also had to answer to Hollywood. That is a tough crowd. I am sure there were many people hanging over his shoulder with threats "it better be successful" "it better be entertaining" "it can't be too long" "it can't be complicated" "its action adventure, make it fun". With those demands, he did his best to walk the line of entertaining, artistic, true to the spirit of the book with interesting characters, great storyline, and a great pace.


Quote
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!



Elizabeth
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 10:14pm


Views: 5215
Quite a few of us have.

Royd attended one of the ORC (One Ring Con) events in Pasadena in 2005. He mingled with the other attendees, spoke about his experiences in NZ, autographed things, and was generally open, personable, and (yes) cool. I got him to autograph my 50th Anniv. Ed. of LotR.

I don't think it's fair to categorize the entire family in any particular fashion. They're all individuals with their own tastes and preferences. The Estate, in contrast, is a non-profit organization with its directors and policies. Right now it has taken the position that it does not support film/TV versions of the books beyond those rights that were sold back in the day. That's a far cry from saying the family (or even Christopher) "hates" the films.






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 18 2012, 10:15pm


Views: 5221
To many people, the Oscars mean nothing


In Reply To
...just reminding all who think that it was a terrible movie. Many, many people will disagree with you. It matters not whether it was based on, loosely based on, inspired by, etc. It was a great film period. Not everyone has the taste for action adventure, I understand. But the argument on whether it was a quality picture or not should be quieted. Was it a great LOTR film? Not much to compare it to really. It was better then the animated films IMO. Yes, IMO.

The films kept the spirit of the book. Changes were made. We had extended editions made because the director tried not to cut anything out. He did his best I believe. He also had to answer to Hollywood. That is a tough crowd. I am sure there were many people hanging over his shoulder with threats "it better be successful" "it better be entertaining" "it can't be too long" "it can't be complicated" "its action adventure, make it fun". With those demands, he did his best to walk the line of entertaining, artistic, true to the spirit of the book with interesting characters, great storyline, and a great pace.



Many rubbish films have won awards in the past, while excellent films haven't won any. Smile


imin
Valinor


Aug 18 2012, 10:19pm


Views: 5366
I am shocked by some people's views on here

Unbelievably rude about Christopher Tolkien, its disgraceful - after all he has done! People demanding he or someone in the Tolkien family sells the rights to The Silmarillion - something which would have never been published without his doing!

People are saying PJ has done so much for Tolkien, what about Christopher? For me he has done far far more than what PJ has done.

PJ has changed the books from what they were into something which has more general appeal to the most number of people. In most cases this is a good thing - people who have not read the books dont care what changes he has made, people who have read the books but dont really care how its adapted, dont care what changes are made (obviously), for some the book is something so good they dont want to see any of it changed for no other reason than they love the original and want it to be just like that, as that is what they like and makes them happy.

As for Christopher he can do or say whatever he wants, he has helped shape the middle earth we know giving us glimpses we would never have seen if it werent for him. He arguably understands ME more than any of us, and certainly understands Tolkien and his wishes better than we do. It is just sad that people seem to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge everything he has done and dont like him simply because he doesnt like the films (or what the films have done to people's understanding of ME). For him ME is far more diverse and has much more depth to it than PJ's trilogy and he thinks people dont understand the true beauty of his fathers works - he feels like people are only getting to see a shoddy imitation or only one side of ME - this is my opinion of course. I can see where he is coming from with that.


Dlanor da Great
Rivendell

Aug 18 2012, 10:21pm


Views: 5218
Probably not. Only because...

...after having it being such a intimate part of my childhood, i would probably be to rigid in my thinking on how it should be portrayed.
Its like if you grow up on Transformers and have a certain image and feeling for who they are.
Then someone later makes a movie based on them that changes things up to the point that it goes against the feelings the original product conjured up in you. As well as conflicts with what image you have had in your head for the past 20 years.
Superman's costume has nothing to do with his powers ,but if movie makers tweak it even a little,, people will have strong feelings on the matter.
In this case , movies have lesser room for creative freedom than books do.
Im sure PJ could have made perfect adaptions if most people were willing to sit in a theater for a entire day listening to alot of poetic dialoge and exposition.
So you may not get the same fuzzy feelings that the book gave you. which could cause you to judge more harshly than the average person.
But no matter anyones negative opinions, PJ's film are not considered terrible films.
Flawed?.... Well how many movies are perfect?


DemoElite
Rivendell


Aug 18 2012, 10:23pm


Views: 5147
Agreed about the oscars...

My point was, was it a good film as far as quality, storytelling, etc and yes it was. Overall, the film industry, critics and the general population based on response and money said it was. Whether it was a great depiction of a Tolkien Middle Earth film, that is what we debate day after day to keep things fun. Getting back to the original post, does the Tolkien Estate "HATE" the films in general since that is what Peter Jackson said at Comic Con, and would they support "The Silmarilian" made into a movie in the future? According to Jackson, NO! THEY HATE THEM!...is that true or is it Jackson perception or is it a ploy to get Tolkien Estates to respond or be swayed in the public eye to release rights?


Quote
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!



(This post was edited by DemoElite on Aug 18 2012, 10:27pm)


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Aug 18 2012, 10:33pm


Views: 5174
The Tolkien Trust

You may view their record here. Last year they donated to:
AAH, MSF, Oxfam, UNICEF (Pakistan), King Edward's School Birmingham, and Future Hope.






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


Dlanor da Great
Rivendell

Aug 18 2012, 10:38pm


Views: 5148
Im more shocked that....

... Tolkien himself said that LOTR was unfilmable, and most seem to agree.
Yet, many judge PJ's films on the bases of it not being enough like the books?
THE BOOKS ARE NOT FILMABLE. You can ONLY adapt them.
Different genre, different rules.


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 19 2012, 12:38am


Views: 5036
I'd be happy to respond...

...but your post was so full of pseudo-intellectual, pedantic tosh that I fell asleep halfway through and obviously completely missed the point. Or did I?

Oh and deliberately quoting me with a Comic Sans font (I see what you did there) and adding your own words with an oversized Times New Roman (because we all know writing with bigger fonts makes the words look more important) is just juvenile.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 19 2012, 1:08am


Views: 5115
Sorry but...


Quote
So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books -


No I didn't say that. What I was trying to say was that if they're prepared to enjoy the fruits of Peter Jackson's labours then maybe they should lay off the criticism a tad.


Quote
the original works upon which all else is based


Didn't know that (sarcasm).


Quote
- if they don't like the movies?



They have been very vocal (their head CT, and various spokespeople) about their dislike/disdain of PJ's films. I know not all of them are against the works (thankfully) but the ones who hold the keys to the castle certainly do. Compare their involvement to that of J.K Rowling's more hands on approach to the HP adaptations. The real irony of course being that the HP films don't hold a candle to the LOTR films and yet the former are largely embraced by their creator and the latter are dismissed as "action movies for 15 year olds".


Quote
That's absurd.



Noted


Quote
I'd like to see your source that defines a "massive increase" in sales.


I don't have those detailed sales figures to hand right now I'm afraid as I'm not God (or the head of book publishing), I must have left them in my other coat pocket. But as you seem to be seriously doubting that the biggest film trilogy in history had any effect whatsoever on the subsequent sales figures of the source books it was based on then I honestly don't know what to say. Its not like book sales shoot through the roof for any tie in with a major film franchise right? You don't recall the rows and rows of bookshelves full of Tolkien in every book retailer between 2001-2004 because I certainly do (I worked for a major book shop at the time and remember how many LOTR we went through).

Or are you seriously suggesting that sales of LOTR remained unchanged throughout the whole time the films were conquering the world and not a single new reader was introduced to the world of Tolkien? Because I sure as hell know I was, I'm what they call a "film firster" and proud of it. Blush


Quote
Also, it's "Hear, hear."


Pedant. Crazy

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

(This post was edited by Spaldron on Aug 19 2012, 1:13am)


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Aug 19 2012, 1:50am


Views: 5263
We are all 20 at heart.//

 

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



GoodGuyA
Lorien

Aug 19 2012, 1:59am


Views: 5078
I feel like Harry Potter analogies aren't going to get you anywhere.

Now get me wrong, I read both Harry Potter (1-4) and Hobbit/LotR literally right after another. I love both series to a great extent, but for different reasons. Many people looking retroactively on Rowling's work claim that it lacks depth. On a Tolkien forum, you're not likely to get people who think J. K. Rowling is anywhere near at odds with J. R. R. Tolkien, and to an extent they are right. It all depends on the different perspectives that you're looking at it from.

People need to remember that CTolkien was literally one of the first people to see these stories form. He has a literal emotional connection with them, and then he made it his entire professional life to see these stories morph and grow. It's completely understandable that if he saw something that didn't match to his interpretation of Middle-earth that he would naturally be aggressive towards it. He's also taught his family and those around him the closest possible intention that his father had for the work, and thus they take it upon themselves to being very astute in Tolkien knowledge. What he misses though is that his father did state publicly that the interpretations are meant to open for others to project on their own experiences. If people take LotR as the way PJ portrays it, then that should be fine. He certainly didn't bastardize the text beyond recognition. The key emotional moments are still there.

CTolkien has all rights to protect his father's work. Legal rights, moral rights, etc. We shouldn't look down on him for it. It's just the way he sees this world we all know and love.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 19 2012, 5:29am


Views: 5065
I never said it was a terrible movie. I am personally rather fond of it. So much so

that I strutted about for a week after it won all those Academy Awards. I was very happy for the films, the actors, the entire cast and crew, et al. And I felt at least a small, if naughty, measure of vindication against those who had not been on board with my claims of how wonderful the works were.

I did not even say they were bad adaptations. I think they were fairly good adaptations. That said, I absolutely believe they could have been better adaptations, and the result would, in some regards, have made for better films, though as films seperate from being adaptations they were great indeed.

And none of that changes the fact that, much as I love Arwen, and the majority of the added screen time she got, and the beautiful, sexy Liv Tyler's portrayl of her, still it pisses me off beyond words that millions of people think she aided Frodo against The Nine Nazgul while not knowing who the hell Glorfindel is. . . or that I continue to think it an sloppy oversight and flaw that, after making so much fuss about The Elves departing Middle-Earth, Peter didn't bother with the deep, rather thorough, and very lucid explanation that both Tolkien and Bakshi managed elegantly, eloquently, and almost heart rendingly in less than three paragraphs/two minutes of time.

Again, I am not a hater of Jackson's efforts. I actually deeply appreciate them, and think he did an admirable if sometimes flawed job. This does not stop me from finding it ridiculous and obnoxious when some behave as though the man defecates roses, or as though his every alteration was either a brilliant idea, or at least one that we should not dare to raise serious issue with.

In Reply To
...just reminding all who think that it was a terrible movie. Many, many people will disagree with you. It matters not whether it was based on, loosely based on, inspired by, etc. It was a great film period. Not everyone has the taste for action adventure, I understand. But the argument on whether it was a quality picture or not should be quieted. Was it a great LOTR film? Not much to compare it to really. It was better then the animated films IMO. Yes, IMO.

The films kept the spirit of the book. Changes were made. We had extended editions made because the director tried not to cut anything out. He did his best I believe. He also had to answer to Hollywood. That is a tough crowd. I am sure there were many people hanging over his shoulder with threats "it better be successful" "it better be entertaining" "it can't be too long" "it can't be complicated" "its action adventure, make it fun". With those demands, he did his best to walk the line of entertaining, artistic, true to the spirit of the book with interesting characters, great storyline, and a great pace.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."

(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Aug 19 2012, 5:35am)


Tigero
Rivendell

Aug 19 2012, 7:30am


Views: 5032
LOTR was not good film especially in terms of quality...

Swords falling out of scabbards, crew among orcs, stupid-looking Gimli double at black gate... And trilogy just ain't enough, especially when TTT is jammed with bland Frodo-Sam-Gollum stuff.

My point is, the books were polished to perfection, you can't make it better. The films just were rushed, while the books took a lifetime to make.

But of course you shouldn't be too demanding but go and tell that to Tolkien estate.

Pessimists have no disappointments.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 7:42am


Views: 5018
I don't think it makes them bad films


In Reply To
Swords falling out of scabbards, crew among orcs, stupid-looking Gimli double at black gate... And trilogy just ain't enough, especially when TTT is jammed with bland Frodo-Sam-Gollum stuff.


I haven't noticed any of these ... but don't tell me. I don't want to know Tongue

And all films have continuity problems. Just ignore them, you shouldn't let it ruin your enjoyment of the films. Smile


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Aug 19 2012, 7:45am)


Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 19 2012, 8:01am


Views: 5123
Here's BBC's interview with Royd from 2003

Link



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


macfalk
Valinor


Aug 19 2012, 9:05am


Views: 4972
This


In Reply To

Quote
So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books -


No I didn't say that. What I was trying to say was that if they're prepared to enjoy the fruits of Peter Jackson's labours then maybe they should lay off the criticism a tad.


Quote





The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Tigero
Rivendell

Aug 19 2012, 9:42am


Views: 5011
Yes it still has parts that would deserve an oscar on their own

But overall the films aren't worthy of the books.

Pessimists have no disappointments.


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 19 2012, 10:19am


Views: 5049
But...

it's the other way round, really...PJ and Co are profiting off Tolkien's labors. This is the whole point of copyright , after all. They didn't choose PJ to direct (they had no say since the rights were held by Zaentz), they don't have to like what PJ does, they are under no obligation at all to be grateful to him - and they are entitled to their profits no matter what they think of the movies.

This demand that they appreciate the same things the fans do strikes me as a strange form of the common celebrity actor dilemma: fans like what actors do and come to think that they own them in some way, that they are obligated to please them and become very demanding and critical when in fact the actor is not the property of the public, even though the business they are in provides a popular service to the public. They are still entitled to some privacy and autonomy - or ought to be, in my opinion. The combination of adulation and criticism can be very toxic.

In the same way that we ought to allow other members of these boards to hold opinions different from our own, we surely ought to allow the Tolkien family their opinions as well.

Silverlode

"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you."
-On Fairy Stories


grammaboodawg
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 12:41pm


Views: 5017
*sighs smiling* He even went beyond cameos and after parties.

He came to the 2004 Oscars Party TORn hosted and fully participated in ORC conventions. He came on stage, signed autographs, walked the convention floor... he signed my 50th anniversary gold HC of The Hobbit. You could tell he was thoroughly enjoying himself!


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



grammaboodawg
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 1:24pm


Views: 5156
*nods knowingly* This is something

that I've shook my head at ever since these films first came out. The misdirected assumption that it had a specific target group. Teen-age/College-age young men. Mercy. I thought the breakthrough of realizing the demographics of the audience/fans spread across the entire social/age/gender spectrum.

I also have the utmost respect for Christopher Tolkien's protective nature to his father's (and his own) work; but for me... if I take it personally... which I do ;) ... it's very frustrating to be minimized and ignored as a fan of the films in interviews like this. What's strange is that it's recognized by Tolkien that fans of the book(s) cover a large market... so why not the films?

*shakes head* I understand Tolkien's attitude, but regret that he's missing out on the pride and pleasure he could have knowing how much joy the works of both Tolkiens have given to so many. And it continues. But... that's his prerogative.


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 19 2012, 2:41pm


Views: 4958
Thanks gramma for confirming that Royd's really a supercool person B-) //

 



The Plan 9 Interview... in celebration of the 10th anniversary of the release of The Fellowship of the Ring.


DesiringDragons
Lorien


Aug 19 2012, 2:56pm


Views: 4955
Well said.

If it wasn't for the Tolkien family, the books wouldn't even exist. Christopher may have an old-fashioned worldview, but his life's work has been being his father's literary executor. I for one am profoundly grateful to him for his hard work.

Peter Jackson could not have come up with the source material on his own.


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Aug 19 2012, 3:06pm


Views: 4960
*mods up*//

 

**********************************


NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 3:22pm


Views: 5009
Mods up, too.//

 


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 3:29pm


Views: 4930
Hush Money


In Reply To

In Reply To
So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books -


No I didn't say that. What I was trying to say was that if they're prepared to enjoy the fruits of Peter Jackson's labours then maybe they should lay off the criticism a tad.


Wow. I understand. I remain appalled by the attitude that money should shut up people (whether the object of their criticism was under their control or not) - even "a tad."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 19 2012, 4:16pm


Views: 5207
You're not being minimized and ignored

Christopher Tolkien is simply expressing his opinion.

That should not be threatening or upsetting to anyone. You like the films, he doesn't.

Why is this difficult to accept?


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 19 2012, 4:19pm


Views: 4995
Amen

Given the incredibly poor quality of the screenplay by PJ, Fran and Philippa, in terms of both dialogue and structure, I doubt they collectively have more creative ability than Tolkien had in his left eyebrow.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 19 2012, 4:24pm


Views: 4917
The Oscar and BAFTA winning screenplay which

Is incredibly poor quality in the context of your personal taste?

LR


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 4:27pm


Views: 5026
Validation

It's about validation and evaluating our lives through others, real or fictional, instead of our own accomplishments. Severe cases result in confusing fiction and reality. It's the same effect as when an audience perceives an actor of a character we admire as having disliked the role and being unappreciative of the audience. See reaction to Nimoy's "I Am Not Spock" book or Shatner's "Get A Life" skit on Saturday Night Live years ago. Their intent was much different than fan interpretation.


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 19 2012, 4:38pm


Views: 4942
What I find quite amusing here...

... is that the people who will cry outrage at the moment anyone criticises CT or his estate are the same ones who will either happily say nothing or take part in the regular PJ bashing that goes on here. Its as if one can do no wrong and the other can only do wrong. For my money both are more similar than many Tolkien fans are prepared to stomach. Both CT and PJ have dedicated years of their lives to preserve, continue and expand the work of J.R.R and bring his books to a new audience (the latter of which Jackson has unarguably had a much greater impact).

No on here is personally attacking CT but the man or his opinions shouldn't be above criticism just because of who he is. Its easy (and common) for Tolkien die-hards to slate Jackson for various reasons (he left out/changed their favourite part of the book, he "doesn't understand the message" , or they resent the huge increase in popularity as a result, preferred it when it was only them and their five mates at Games Workshop, etc, etc) and it seems to go down well in some quarters. Lets bash the guy who "ruined the trilogy". Indeed there are some who genuinely believe they could've made the films better, filming the books word for word, ending up with a 29 hour FOTR. Puleeeeease.....

From my perspective the TE (or some elements of it) just come across as hugely out of touch when it comes to recognising or acknowledging the enormous impact the films have had on the legacy of Tolkien and shouldn't be above questioning (as neither should Jackson).

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 19 2012, 4:38pm


Views: 5082
Yes

Again, Oscar and BAFTA awards are generally meaningless to me, in terms of quality.

Some of the films that are now described as some of the best of all time by many critics, and likewise re: screenplays, never won on Oscar or a BAFTA.

Some truly subpar films, such as Titanic, have won.

I'm not sure why appeals to the authority of BAFTA and Oscar keep coming up. I am saying the LOTR scripts were shoddy, in my view, and that's the long and short of it!

This is not a competition for whose opinion is more socially acceptable, as far as I am aware.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 19 2012, 4:41pm


Views: 4920
Who said CT is above criticism?

It seems you are putting words in people's mouths here.

I have criticized CT myself, on a few occasions. All I am saying is that taking his personal opinion personally, as some sort of slight against fans of the films, is generally unnecessary.


DanielLB
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 4:43pm


Views: 4963
I bet you're a Razzie man

Liking films that win a Razzie, rather than an Oscar. Wink Are there any films where this is true, SA?

But I agree with you regarding the meaningless of awards.


(This post was edited by DanielLB on Aug 19 2012, 4:43pm)


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 4:45pm


Views: 4985
Writers

In his uniquely extreme way, Shelob represents my more moderate view about screen writers who think they know better - audience be damned. They'll kill off beloved characters with impunity ostensibly in the name of character-driven story when in reality they get a thrill from snuffing someone else's work in the name of drama because they can't think of anything better to invest in the existing franchise. See Kirk in Generations or Newt, Bishop and Hicks in Alien 3. Or they'll not give the audience what they want because they think they're smarter than us and are not imaginative enough to actually answer questions with direct linkage and still make things fresh and surprising. See Prometheus. See anything Chris Carter does. Or they'll have stupid scientists and two women running in a straight line under a gazillion ton rolling space ship instead of running to the side. See Prometheus again. Or they will change Faramir, have Frodo say "Go home, Sam," change plot and motivation and feel superior about it. I know I'd feel at least a little better about writers who do these things if I ever once hear them say "That was a bad decision -mea culpa."


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 19 2012, 5:10pm


Views: 4858
People want different things.

No writer can make everyone happy. Some people are just really hard to please.
Some might advocate for mass appeal.
Some might seek out the approval of "those with taste" or "those who are more important".
Others might just go for a movie that they, themselves enjoy and hope for the best.
But I don't know if there are really all that many universally "bad decisions".

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


Escapist
Gondor

Aug 19 2012, 5:19pm


Views: 4978
The opinion of CT matters.

He is the executor of the state (no?).
He is an important professor at Oxford (still?)
He is a published author himself.
He is likely to be subject to biases of various kinds. (I said likely - not certainly - the heck if I know if in fact it is so and not just likely)
He is after all, just one man.

I tend to focus on the last of these since it is the clearest which means that I don't think about it often or have well set opinions about his opinions, myself.

Show or do not show, there is no tell.


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 19 2012, 5:32pm


Views: 4889
Well not quite

You are saying the scripts are shoddy full stop.

It is the distinction between saying, for example, Beyonce is ugly or Beyonce is not my type.

LR


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 19 2012, 5:34pm


Views: 4888
I'm not sure the audience felt they were damned.

Or at least not in any significant volumes given the extraordinary success of the films.

LR


macfalk
Valinor


Aug 19 2012, 5:36pm


Views: 4910
CTs comments unwise

It would seem that for some people, CT is The Man Who Must Not Face Critique, while its alright to bash PJ 24 hours a day.

I was truly appalled when I read CTs comments about the films being aimed at 15-25 year olds only. Not only is this assumption completely false - has he even seen the movies? I doubt it, because if I am not mistaken he once said that he had no interest in ever seeing the films.

Frankly, it's rude, ignorant and disrespectful. To PJ and crew, but also towards plain mortal fans of it like myself and gramma.

Yes, has the right to express his own opinion. And yes, he is not obliged to worship PJ. Nobody has said anything different. But being the man of importance he is, the front figure of the TE, and the son of JRRT, it's more than a little unwise and unprofessional to say these things. It just strengthens the image of him being an isolated, old-fashioned man who still cannot accept that his father sold those film rights a long time ago, willingly.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Aug 19 2012, 5:43pm)


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 5:45pm


Views: 5021
*whispers...

...slightly off-topic here - ref, your sig.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

- that isn't by Tolkien, y'know.

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Aug 19 2012, 5:46pm)


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 5:59pm


Views: 4749
Single Dream

If there is a problem, you should elaborate with a solution.

In any case, the quote is attributed here...

http://www.goodreads.com/...656983.J_R_R_Tolkien

...as well as by a Weta Workshop video, as you noted in your January 1 post saying the same thing but again providing no corrected attribution.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 6:00pm


Views: 4808
Your reasoning is flawed...


In Reply To
So you are saying the Tolkien Estate should not be compensated for (the increased) sales of the books - the original works upon which all else is based - if they don't like the movies? That's absurd. I'd like to see your source that defines a "massive increase" in sales.



Why should the Estate be compensated for making more profits from book sales? That makes no sense whatsoever and is a completely separate issue, besides. It is the profits directly generated by the films that was the subject of disagreement between the Tolkien Estate and the studios. Hollywood accountants have a long tradition of creative bookkeeping. I'm not defending the practice, just pointing out the reality of it.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 19 2012, 6:03pm


Views: 4775
Oops.


In Reply To
...slightly off-topic here - ref, your sig.

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

- that isn't by Tolkien, y'know.

Smile


Damn, you would think that considering the amount of sites that claim it to be. Mad

(Must find new sig. )

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 6:10pm


Views: 4780
Profits

The Estate should be compensated for book sales if there is an agreement that they be paid x for each book sold regardless of anything else. Do you believe it is instead the case that they got a one-time fee from the publisher for the right to sell unlimited books and not per-book?

Also Spaldron clarified that he was "referring to the royalties from the massive increases in book sales (millions apparently) as a result of the films popularity, not the royalties from the films themselves." So that entered the discussion.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 19 2012, 6:10pm)


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 6:12pm


Views: 4701
Due Diligence

I wouldn't change it until it is proved to be from another source. geordie only claims it was not Tolkien, but provides no alternative.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 19 2012, 6:14pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 6:14pm


Views: 4686
You misunderstand me.

What I am stating is that the profits from book sales is a matter between the Estate and the publisher and is something that is likely already provided for in existing contracts. The Estate is doubtless automatically seeing increased royalties from book sales; however, if that is not the case then the issue is with the publisher, not the film studio. It has nothing to do with the films.

Yes, the Tolkien Estate should be receiving agreed upon percentages from the films' profits. Hollywood accounting is often suspect and there is a long-standing tendency to hide profits so as not to have to abide to written agreements.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Aug 19 2012, 6:20pm)


Morthoron
Gondor


Aug 19 2012, 6:16pm


Views: 4759
I concur, JW...

I've not once slighted PJ for his spectacular cinematography, the look and feel of Middle-earth with the assists of Lee, Howe and Weta, or even switching dialogue from one book character to another (which was done in most instances to marvelous effect).

However, it is the unnecessary script changes (yes, unnecessary and blithely inane in most instances) that prove most irksome and has left the movies unwatchable for me. One is often left scratching their head at some of the "creative license" taken with the original plot -- changes that did not in any way improve upon the original story:

Elrond whining about "Arwen is dying", the goofy warg attack with gangrel hyena-like creatures and Aragorn falling off a cliff (only to be resuscitated by a french kiss from his horse), the cartoonish disennoblement of Denethor, the debasement of Faramir (and the long sequence of Faramir dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath with Frodo offering the Ring to a Nazgul), the green scrubbing bubbles eradicating Sauron's army from Minas Tirith while Legolas surfs down a Mumakil's trunk (thus rendering Rohan's incredibly brave charge utterly useless), the WiKi breaking Gandalf's staff and knocking him to the ground like some dottering old fool -- the list is endless, and not some mere episodic annoyance.

The host of changes were senseless and detracted from the original story and account for countless minutes of screen time better served for character development (not character assassination) or sequences from the original plot that were thought unnecessary in comparison to the scriptwriters' self-aggrandizement (and couldn't we all have lived without the fifteen or so minutes of Aragorn falling off a cliff, or Faramir dragging the hobbits to Osgiliath? They served no important purpose in furthering the plot). Jackson, Boyens, et al, thought they could improvise better, but frankly it was a waste of time. The films most defintitely would be better, and sadly it did not require rocket science to leave well enough alone.

Honestly, wasn't it more stirring hearing phrases uttered from Tolkien's original story (no matter which character said the dialogue) rather than "Arwen is dying" or "Sam, go home", or Frodo, alone and wounded, bravely fending off the Nazgul at the Ford, rather than Xenarwen calling up the flood without the aid of a Ring of Power? Where'd she get that power, and why didn't she just go and defeat Sauron single-handedly?

And now PJ wants to stretch The Hobbit into three movies? Does anyone else get the sinking feeling that the comedic, linear quasi-epic of a hapless and fat Hobbit turned unlikely and lucky hero that has endeared itself to generations of loyal readers will be completely lost in a flood of unsupported and fan-fictional subplots where Tauriel and handsomely undwarf-like dwarves cavort about with Mary-Sue action-adventure poses, spouting ludicrous dialogue?

I fear the scripting more than I would Smaug in person.

Peter Jackson offers great promise with his films. The visual uniqueness, the virtual depth and breadth of his conception of Middle-earth are at times magnificent, leaving one viscerally tingling and emotionally awed. He may be a Michaelangelo from a visual presentation point, but out of the mouth of such Olympian figures comes the voice of Donald Duck.

That is what is most infuriating: to see such awesome sights and be disappointed by so much extraneous and inept material.

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 6:39pm


Views: 4742
Yes, it's misleading, isn't it?

 I was hoping you'd respond - sorry if any posters here thought I was being anything but sincere. I was asking about this 'quote' some time ago, and a very knowledgable ToRnsib solved the problem for me: it comes, not from JRR, but from the poster for Bakshi's movie. There's a picture here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LORD-RINGS-ORIGINAL-U-S-ONE-SHEET-MOVIE-POSTER-RALPH-BAKSHI-/110841106540?_trksid=m263&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252B
FICS%252BUFI%26otn%3D10%26pmod%3D7614783111%26ps%3D50

sorry - that link is way too long; hope it works ok. The relevant part of the hype reads:

"JRR Tolkien triumphed with the perception that a single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."

So there we are; advertising hype. Though I haven't has any success so far with another so-called quote from the page which JW linked to:

'"Little by little, one travels far." - J.R.R. Tolkien'

If JRR wrote that, I'm a Dutchman!

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Aug 19 2012, 6:45pm)


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 6:49pm


Views: 4729
Here's another one -

“The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.”
J.R.R. Tolkien

- That's on the same Tolkien quotes page. It's from one of the cartoon movies, isn't it? Schmaltzy! Not like Tolkien at all, at all.


Tongue


(This post was edited by geordie on Aug 19 2012, 6:51pm)


Elizabeth
Half-elven


Aug 19 2012, 6:50pm


Views: 4917
The issue isn't liking vs. not liking in this case.

Gramma feels "minimized and ignored" by the assumption that the movies are directed at young males. I entirely agree with her. When they were in theatres a number of critics expressed bafflement at how well the box office figures were doing, given that the movies "only appealed to young males", completely ignoring the huge numbers of females in every audience (and tending to dominate late in the run with repeat viewers).

CT's objection that the movies were just for young males isn't necessarily based on his viewing and not liking the movies, it was a widespread opinion at the time. I think it's entirely possible that his disapproval is based on that perceived focus, not an independently-derived opinion.






Join us NOW in the Reading Room for detailed discussions of The Hobbit, July 9-Nov. 18!

Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 19 2012, 6:52pm


Views: 4769
Single Dream...

That poster might still have used the Tolkien quote. The existence of the poster does not disprove the attribution, but may in fact support it.

I found a post on the Help.com website which claims, "It has been confirmed by Lord of the Rings Blu Ray Extended Edition Extra Features that this is indeed a J.R.R Tolkein quote." I don't think it depends on the Blu-ray edition, but on any edition that contains the "extra features." So the next step would be to confirm the attribution on the disks, then confirm where *they* got the attribution.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 6:54pm


Views: 4658
Loosely based on a passage or two by Tolkien...


In Reply To
“The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.”
J.R.R. Tolkien



No, not a direct quote by any means.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 7:09pm


Views: 4703
I think the makers of the EE probably got it from a quotes site

- esp. if they really did mis-spell Tolkien's name.

The thing is, I've been reading works by and about Tolkien for many years now, and I've never heard of that 'quote' before. It certainly doesn't read (to me) like anything he would have thought or said; fundamentally it has no meaning. It's far more likely that this 'perception' is on the part of the copywriter than JRR himself.

As in all these cases, it's up to the people claiming these things as 'quotes' to actually say where Tolkien actually said it. There's a lot of rubbish about Tolkien out there on the net; try googling Tolkien and Nepal and you get this -

The secluded town of Pokhara lies 200km (125 miles) west of Kathmandu in the centre of Nepal on Lake Phewa. No other place in the world commands such a view of the Himalayas. It is a starting point for mountaineers and trekkers, and was at one time the home of JRR Tolkien.

Some people seem to have taken this at face value - at one time, it was repeated around the net. It isn't true, though.





(This post was edited by geordie on Aug 19 2012, 7:12pm)


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 7:11pm


Views: 4675
Actually, I can't put my finger on what those passages might be -

- can you tell us which ones you're thinking of?
.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 7:25pm


Views: 4713
Specifically?

Without finding the exact quotes, I was thinking of Gandalf's comments on the Far Country (beyond death) and his famous comment about accomplishing what one is able to with the time remaining to oneself.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


Magpie
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 7:38pm


Views: 4750
The net is like a petri dish - everything grows well in it

A long time ago.. maybe 10 years ago... I tried finding the lyrics to a song I wanted to use in a classroom unit. I found some that made no sense at all. I found those same nonsensical lyrics one dozens and dozens of sites. I kept at it and finally found some that made sense and sounded plausible in terms of what I was hearing when I listened and that indicated those nonsensical ones could easily be mondegreens.

I don't think dozens and dozens of people came up with the same mistaken lyrics. I think one person posted mistaken lyrics and dozens and dozens of people copied them. The number of sites quoting those mistaken lyrics was a bit staggering when one thinks it was was *wrong* information - and it was a good lesson in that all those dozens and dozen sites didn't care at all about accuracy. In the end, for many sites, accuracy isn't the ultimate goal. Clicks are. It doesn't matter what's on that page as long as it gets them clicks.

When I started putting information on the web in regards the LOTR soundtracks, I did my upmost best to verify every piece of information I found that I wished to use and to cite as much information as possible so readers could know where my info was coming from. I might put something I couldn't verify up, but I would label it as such: "Here it is... but I can't verify it"

I don't have time to verify every thing I run across in real life before I might throw it out there in leisure. But I keep a critical sense of 'unless I do verify it, I can't really know if it's true.'

I once ran across a quote 'by Tolkien' on one of those quote sites and it was something I'd never run across before (in my own readings) nor did it sound quite like Tolkien. I wish I could remember what it was. I think I asked people about it - wondering if anyone else had run across it and could attribute it but it must not have been on these boards (I can't find it in a search). What drives me nuts about those quote sites is that they dump quotes from the movies (not from the books), quotes from characters (from the books and/or movies), and quotes from Tolkien all together with almost no attribution. I want to know who said, it: Tolkien? Gandalf in the book? Gandalf in the book and the movie? Or Gandalf only in the movie? (by rights, if it's only in the movie it's not a Tolkien quote but that's another layer of fussiness). I want to know where the quote is from. What book or what letter or what speech.

I have used those quote sites in the past but I don't much anymore. I just find them too vague. And just like anything that gathers its content from any user who wishes to register and submit, it's too risky. I'm trusting someone I don't know and I know that too many people aren't half as scrupulous as I am about stuff and I'm only half as scrupulous as others might be.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 7:46pm


Views: 4642
Ah, thanks for that -

but wait; Gandalf's comments on the far country come from the movies, not from JRR. In LotR, as you'll recall, the dream of the 'far green country under a swift sunrise' comes to Frodo in the house of Tom Bombadil. (FotR, 'A Knife in the Dark) - and then the narrator reminds us of this dream, at very nearly the end of the book.

But Frodo's journey has nothing to so with death.
.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 19 2012, 7:54pm


Views: 4673
Very well said, JWplatt

and I largely agree.

In Reply To
In his uniquely extreme way, Shelob represents my more moderate view about screen writers who think they know better - audience be damned. They'll kill off beloved characters with impunity ostensibly in the name of character-driven story when in reality they get a thrill from snuffing someone else's work in the name of drama because they can't think of anything better to invest in the existing franchise. See Kirk in Generations or Newt, Bishop and Hicks in Alien 3. Or they'll not give the audience what they want because they think they're smarter than us and are not imaginative enough to actually answer questions with direct linkage and still make things fresh and surprising. See Prometheus. See anything Chris Carter does. Or they'll have stupid scientists and two women running in a straight line under a gazillion ton rolling space ship instead of running to the side. See Prometheus again. Or they will change Faramir, have Frodo say "Go home, Sam," change plot and motivation and feel superior about it. I know I'd feel at least a little better about writers who do these things if I ever once hear them say "That was a bad decision -mea culpa."


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


dernwyn
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 19 2012, 7:55pm


Views: 4632
LOL! Yes, those are the lyrics to the Rankin-Bass "Hobbit" theme song!

Here's a link, with the pertinent info at the bottom of the page: http://www.jjjwebdevelopment.com/...ong/hobbitsong.shtml

Definitely not written by Tolkien, no not at all, preciousss!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I desired dragons with a profound desire"

"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915




AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Aug 19 2012, 8:01pm


Views: 4696
I cannot do much other than bow my acknowledgent of the general accuracy of this post

There are a couple things you mentioned which didn't bother me too muh. . . and some other things which went unmentioned that bother me horribly still. But generally your points are both insightful and well made. I applaud your commentary.

In Reply To
I've not once slighted PJ for his spectacular cinematography, the look and feel of Middle-earth with the assists of Lee, Howe and Weta, or even switching dialogue from one book character to another (which was done in most instances to marvelous effect).

However, it is the unnecessary script changes (yes, unnecessary and blithely inane in most instances) that prove most irksome and has left the movies unwatchable for me. One is often left scratching their head at some of the "creative license" taken with the original plot -- changes that did not in any way improve upon the original story:

Elrond whining about "Arwen is dying", the goofy warg attack with gangrel hyena-like creatures and Aragorn falling off a cliff (only to be resuscitated by a french kiss from his horse), the cartoonish disennoblement of Denethor, the debasement of Faramir (and the long sequence of Faramir dragging Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath with Frodo offering the Ring to a Nazgul), the green scrubbing bubbles eradicating Sauron's army from Minas Tirith while Legolas surfs down a Mumakil's trunk (thus rendering Rohan's incredibly brave charge utterly useless), the WiKi breaking Gandalf's staff and knocking him to the ground like some dottering old fool -- the list is endless, and not some mere episodic annoyance.

The host of changes were senseless and detracted from the original story and account for countless minutes of screen time better served for character development (not character assassination) or sequences from the original plot that were thought unnecessary in comparison to the scriptwriters' self-aggrandizement (and couldn't we all have lived without the fifteen or so minutes of Aragorn falling off a cliff, or Faramir dragging the hobbits to Osgiliath? They served no important purpose in furthering the plot). Jackson, Boyens, et al, thought they could improvise better, but frankly it was a waste of time. The films most defintitely would be better, and sadly it did not require rocket science to leave well enough alone.

Honestly, wasn't it more stirring hearing phrases uttered from Tolkien's original story (no matter which character said the dialogue) rather than "Arwen is dying" or "Sam, go home", or Frodo, alone and wounded, bravely fending off the Nazgul at the Ford, rather than Xenarwen calling up the flood without the aid of a Ring of Power? Where'd she get that power, and why didn't she just go and defeat Sauron single-handedly?

And now PJ wants to stretch The Hobbit into three movies? Does anyone else get the sinking feeling that the comedic, linear quasi-epic of a hapless and fat Hobbit turned unlikely and lucky hero that has endeared itself to generations of loyal readers will be completely lost in a flood of unsupported and fan-fictional subplots where Tauriel and handsomely undwarf-like dwarves cavort about with Mary-Sue action-adventure poses, spouting ludicrous dialogue?

I fear the scripting more than I would Smaug in person.

Peter Jackson offers great promise with his films. The visual uniqueness, the virtual depth and breadth of his conception of Middle-earth are at times magnificent, leaving one viscerally tingling and emotionally awed. He may be a Michaelangelo from a visual presentation point, but out of the mouth of such Olympian figures comes the voice of Donald Duck.

That is what is most infuriating: to see such awesome sights and be disappointed by so much extraneous and inept material.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 19 2012, 8:09pm


Views: 4638
Well, that's because I find it very tiresome

To continually type "IMO" into my posts.

When I make a statement that is clearly on a subject that is a matter of opinion, just assume that I am expressing my opinion!

For now, I will oblige. I think the screenplay is shoddy.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 8:12pm


Views: 4633
As can be seen -

- I'm not half as scrupulous as you, much of the time. Smile

I love the word mondegreen! Never heard it before. I wonder what Tolkien thought of it?

.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 8:19pm


Views: 4643
Well said

- to go further; I never type IMHO either. I don't hold any humble opinions; only opinions which are informed (to the best of my knowledge and ability). Usually I back them up straight away with facts and quotes; sometimes I just air them in the hope that they'll spark a question or discussion. Sometimes it works; sometimes it don't.

Smile


(This post was edited by geordie on Aug 19 2012, 8:21pm)


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 19 2012, 8:25pm


Views: 4609
Maybe it's the brevity

You could always try a fuller context description and see how that worked out?

Something like "I know they won some great awards and millions of people like the films that are founded on them but to my own eye they seem shoddy"

You never know....

LR


Gwytha
Rohan


Aug 19 2012, 8:28pm


Views: 4669
I'm sure it wasn't a ploy

I think PJ pretty well understands the Estate's feelings toward the films. I feel frustrated that I probably won't live long enough to see the Sil filmed because of what sometimes feels like obtuseness on the part of Christopher Tolkien.

But when I really think about it I can understand his point of view. I don't think Tolkien would have been happy with the films, and I think its very common for writers to be unhappy with the films of their works. In addition for his concern for preserving the integrity of his father's work, CT must also be influenced by how upset he thinks his father would have been made by filmed versions of his works. If you've lost a beloved parent, you don't stop caring about their feelings however hypothetical they might be. CT's relationship to his father's work is a long and complicated one. For example, it seems to me that JRRT was quite anxious to receive his advance for the Hobbit in order to pay for young Christopher's medical bills.

Much as I would love to see the Sil filmed, I don't think its fair to judge Christopher Tolkien for his point of view on the matter.

We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 19 2012, 8:40pm


Views: 4798
Brevity

May be the soul of wit, but it is also the soul of "not having enough time to write novels on messageboards, because one should be working." Smile

I waste far too much time here as it is!

I try my best to include context for my offerings, but I do believe certain things should be implied. I, and most others here, are well aware of the financial and critical success of the films, such as they are. So, I am not likely to make reference to that each time I criticise the films.

On the subject at hand, I will say that in context of the great scripts recognized by film historians and aficionados and such, LOTR may prove rather poor. But it is impossible to project the future with a high degree of certainty, so I can only surmise.

IMO, these films will not stand the test of time very well. And their scripts won't either.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 8:51pm


Views: 4820
It's pret-ty banal, isn't it?

- I'm just waiting for this so-called 'quote' to become common currency on the interweb:

"Who sits by the window will one day see rain. - J.R.R. Tolkien"

Tongue


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 9:04pm


Views: 4776
Here's another one, from the same page -

“If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. ”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Now I've been criticised for pointing things out without providing an alternative reading; but in this case -- Smile-- I'd like to put this up as a test question: Can anyone tell me what the actual quote is?

.


(This post was edited by geordie on Aug 19 2012, 9:05pm)


Gwytha
Rohan


Aug 19 2012, 9:18pm


Views: 4833
Are you referring to..?

"But I am the real Strider, fortunately," he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will."

We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!


(This post was edited by Gwytha on Aug 19 2012, 9:22pm)


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 19 2012, 9:52pm


Views: 4770
Yes, that's it. :-) //

 


grammaboodawg
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 10:37pm


Views: 4870
*high five* Yeppers :)

That's exactly what I was Tolkien about ;)

*hugs*


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



grammaboodawg
Immortal


Aug 19 2012, 10:42pm


Views: 4815
Well...

I completely respect Mr. Tolkien's feelings and opinion. I've always accepted and understood this. As Elizabeth said, I was talking about the assumption that the films were directed at a very narrow market of young men when the films were first released, and how some still have that opinion.

I can see where my comments could be misunderstood :)


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



(This post was edited by grammaboodawg on Aug 19 2012, 10:46pm)


imin
Valinor


Aug 19 2012, 11:46pm


Views: 4732
Did C. Tolkien say it was aimed at young males?

From the le monde interview he says young people - never saying it was made for either sex, just for people between the ages of 15-25, an action movie. Now C.Tolkien may have said they were aimed at young men in another interview but from the le monde one (the one i have been thinking everyone is referring to) he does not.

I think most fast paced action movies are wanting to reach as broad an audience as possible but do have a target audience, most likely people (either sex) of that age range.

Take the avengers - fast paced action movie - aimed at comic book fans and young adults. Though it has had unbelievable box office success so it is appealing to a wide audience. It still will have had a target audience in mind - young people.


Spaldron
Rivendell


Aug 20 2012, 12:07am


Views: 4706
If you had said this...


Quote
IMO, these films will not stand the test of time very well. And their scripts won't either.


....ten years ago people might have taken you seriously but as the films seem to be standing the test of time very well more than ten years on (and show no signs of getting old) then I have to frankly call you out on that one. Especially considering films age so quickly these days (just look at the SW prequels for examples of rapid ageing).

"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities."


grammaboodawg
Immortal


Aug 20 2012, 1:55am


Views: 4766
That that I'm aware of.

I tend to jump around when I talk about things. The specific audience of young males I was talking about were articles and television interviews wih reviewers that mentioned it being so popular with young males. Made with young males in mind. Even Elijah Wood talked about that assumption and how surprised many were that so many females and people of all agest were fans of the films.

This assumption was more during the first year or two of the LotR film releases; but it still crops up every once in a while. I wasn't talking about any specific article :)


sample

I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.




TORn's Observations Lists
Unused Scenes



RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 20 2012, 4:11am


Views: 4834
Silverlode's post should be pretty much the last word on this thread.

Peter Jackson & Co. (and all of us as well) owe all the respect in the world to the creative genius of JRRT Tolkien and the literary efforts of Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate. Without them there would be no books, and without the books PJ would have no movies.

Christopher Tolkien and the Estate "owe" nobody anything. CT understands his father's work in a way PJ can only dream he does, and it's base presumption to suggest that it's CT who should be meek and grateful.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)

(This post was edited by RosieLass on Aug 20 2012, 4:12am)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 20 2012, 5:51am


Views: 4698
Amen, Rosie

Honestly, this is one of the most bizarre conversations I have ever participated in...


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 20 2012, 6:11am


Views: 4706
No.

He didn't use the word 'Hate', either.
.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 20 2012, 6:12am


Views: 4640
Exactly! //

 


sador
Half-elven


Aug 20 2012, 7:06am


Views: 4761
Not quite exact.


In Reply To
Peter Jackson & Co. (and all of us as well) owe all the respect in the world to the creative genius of JRRT Tolkien and the literary efforts of Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate. Without them there would be no books, and without the books PJ would have no movies.


The books were out there before Christopher became executor of his fathers literary legacy, and the right to make the films were also sold before that. So he would have movies without the literary effort of Christopher and the Estate. After all, everything published by Christopher (such as The Quest of Erebor) is off-limits.

"This chapter seems to be full of movement—slowly and deliberately (then less so) down hills; scrambling up trees-- then up, up, and away into the Eagles’ eyrie; and down, down back to the ground.
Flora, fauna, food, fear, and flight are featured..."
- batik



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for a somewhat less clever discussion of Out of the Frying Pan-into the Fire!


sador
Half-elven


Aug 20 2012, 7:09am


Views: 4642
Psst geordie...

It is in Fog on the Barrow-downs, is it not?

And at least Frodo's journey at the end of the book could be seen as having to do with death - at the very least, he is leaving the lands of the living forever.

"This chapter seems to be full of movement—slowly and deliberately (then less so) down hills; scrambling up trees-- then up, up, and away into the Eagles’ eyrie; and down, down back to the ground.
Flora, fauna, food, fear, and flight are featured..."
- batik



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for a somewhat less clever discussion of Out of the Frying Pan-into the Fire!


imin
Valinor


Aug 20 2012, 7:44am


Views: 4752
Oh ok

Just you were saying you take C.Tolkien's views personally and you were getting those from the interview, i was just wondering which interview this was if not the one in le monde.

I think some people have said the films are aimed at young males, however C.Tolkien has not (to my knowledge) said this, though he has said they are aimed at young people - something i think they definitely are - which there is nothing wrong about either. Just so happens they were liked by many of all ages, sexes, races.


On another point. What i get from reading C.Tolkien's views on the films, its not so much the films (as films), he is criticizing but more how they have (in his view) commercialized his fathers works - making it all about a race to get to mount doom, taking out all the beauty and seriousness of the books.

I think he is too close to the material to ever be happy with any adaptation of his fathers work. I think its a shame he cannot see that from the films have come many more readers of the books and money (after years of dispute from new line cinema).

I think to him people understanding and getting what ME is, is more important than an increase in book sales - was already in the hundreds of millions. As this seems to be his main problem with what the films have done in his opinion.

At the end of the day his is fully entitled to that opinion and i can see where he is coming from and i think if i were his age, having lived and breathed the works for my entire life and had it all made by my father i to would feel the same as he does.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Aug 20 2012, 7:59am


Views: 4674
He is not

leaving the lands of the living. All in Valinor were alive and Frodo got to live out his remaining mortal life there.


Zubeneschamali
The Shire

Aug 20 2012, 9:57am


Views: 4747
Far green country


In Reply To
but wait; Gandalf's comments on the far country come from the movies, not from JRR.


In the DVD extras, the makers note that these beautiful words from Tolkien are moved to a different place, a different character and a different purpose. They seem quite pleased with themselves. McKellen notes that it's a bit problematic that an older war-leader is telling a young soldier that he'll go to Heaven if he falls in battle, an old, old story, but nobody remarks on the fact that:

Gandalf straight out tells Pippin that Hobbits go to Valinor when they die!

WTF???


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Aug 20 2012, 12:18pm


Views: 4624
Well that rather depends

How literally one takes it. I always took it to be a metaphor - especially with the references to the "grey rain curtain" and "silver glass".

I don't think Gandalf was describing a direct journey to Valinor.

LR


Phibbus
Rohan


Aug 20 2012, 12:46pm


Views: 4591
I'm with you on this

Tom Shippey has likewise seen the transposition of the "Far Green Country" bit in a favorable light. While I usually find myself pretty firmly in accord with his thinking, in this instance, I find the attempt to preserve an element from the original runs amiss.

For all his Catholicism, Tolkien keeps formal religion and strict predictions of an afterlife (at least for us mortals) pretty firmly out of Middle-earth. It is important for the whole unfolding of his legendarium that the premise be kept which is laid out at its beginning—that mortals do not know what happens when they die. That is the Gift of Illúvatar to the secondborn, and, once arrived at, Tolkien sticks to it throughout his published Middle-earth writings. Characters may accept it, affirm it, rebel against it, or attempt to get around it, but they are not given direct promise of a "something better to come" after the inevitability of death; only that death itself, the ability to escape the confines of the world, is a "gift."

Now, we can argue (as we have already begun to do) whether or not the "Far Green Country" vision and its reiteration are simply foreshadowing and follow-through of Frodo's eventual passing into the West or Tolkien's metaphor for an afterlife promised to all of us (and affirmed by his faith.) I suspect it is both. However, I think it is a big point that Tolkien does not directly express the latter but leaves it open to interpretation. I think it certain that he would not have had Gandlaf (or any other character) say it outright.

Man is but an ass if he go about to expound this dream.

(This post was edited by Phibbus on Aug 20 2012, 12:51pm)


Patty
Immortal


Aug 20 2012, 3:39pm


Views: 4651
Can somebody say...

AMEN.

"For starters, he should see the average age of TORn's regular board members."


Of course, there are those of us who are here out of loyalty to the books only. But I think it's pretty evident that most of us like/love the movies, too, even if we think there are flaws.


Permanent address: Into the West






Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 20 2012, 4:01pm


Views: 4619
It seems to me

That there are a decent number of people here who do not like the LOTR films very much...

But yes, I would say most here on TORN either like or love them.


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 20 2012, 5:02pm


Views: 4852
Let's have a look...

...Oops! Quite right - Fog on the Barrow-Downs it is.

Though I don't agree that they're leaving the land of the living; as has been said, people in the Undying Lands are alive, and Frodo lives out his life there. BTW - as I recall, Frodo doesn't go to Valinor, but to Tol Eressea.
.


Patty
Immortal


Aug 20 2012, 6:28pm


Views: 4592
A decent number...

but I'd say, from years of observation, that they are not the majority. It looks like most like/love them. No offense, but that's just how I see it.

Permanent address: Into the West






Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Aug 20 2012, 7:27pm


Views: 5249
Why would that cause me offense?

I did, after all, say almost exactly what you did (below):


Quote
But yes, I would say most here on TORN either like or love them.


So, we're in agreement. Smile


(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Aug 20 2012, 7:27pm)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 20 2012, 7:56pm


Views: 5138
Well, there are Frodo's verses...


In Reply To
but wait; Gandalf's comments on the far country come from the movies, not from JRR. In LotR, as you'll recall, the dream of the 'far green country under a swift sunrise' comes to Frodo in the house of Tom Bombadil. (FotR, 'A Knife in the Dark) - and then the narrator reminds us of this dream, at very nearly the end of the book.

If nothing else, the first lines of the song from the film are reminiscent of Frodo's take on "Roads Go Ever Ever On" and of the song he sings when he, his cousins and Sam bed down for the night on their way out of the Shire.

"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house." - Aragorn


RosieLass
Valinor


Aug 20 2012, 8:04pm


Views: 5121
Christopher Tolkien was actively involved in the creation of LOTR, too.

Read JRRT's bio sometime. He would send chapters of text to Christopher while he was stationed overseas. And he had a large part in creating all the maps, too.

So he was heavily involved long before the film rights were sold.

"BOTH [political] extremes are dangerous. But more dangerous are team fanboys who think all the extremists are on the OTHER side." (CNN reader comment)

It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)


geordie
Tol Eressea

Aug 20 2012, 8:12pm


Views: 5132
Further to Rosie's post: here's a link

- to a page listing Christopher's works.

http://www.tolkienbooks.net/php/cjrt-bibliography.php

.


jschomburg
Rivendell

Aug 20 2012, 8:32pm


Views: 5110
Careful - I may resemble that comment :)

Many I know are as you state, but also many are quite open minded. Sometimes I catch myself being stubborn and an "old codger", but try to not be that way.

Anyway - I chuckled and had to respond.


sador
Half-elven


Aug 21 2012, 12:45pm


Views: 5106
"Then it was late in coming"


In Reply To
as has been said, people in the Undying Lands are alive, and Frodo lives out his life there. BTW - as I recall, Frodo doesn't go to Valinor, but to Tol Eressea.


In The Lord of the Rings itself, there is no reason to believe that Frodo is granted anything beyond a vision of the Undying Lands. As far as we are concerned, Frodo has left this world never to come back.
In letter 154, and as late as letter 246 (an unsent draft dated 1963), the suggestion that he would reach the Undying Lands is qualified, as opposed to the categorical assertion that even if he does immortality would not be bestowed upon him.

As far as I know, only in a footnote to the 1967 unsent letter to "Mr. Rang" the idea that Frodo lived for some period of time in Eressea appears for the first time. But this was a tangential footnote, and the letter was never sent - which in my opinion would carry a lesser weight than a sent one, just as a draft published in The History of Middle-earth carries less weight than the published The Lord of the Rings, even if it doesn't contradict it in no place. This might have been, as Christopher put it elsewhere, "an ephemeral idea".
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that towards the end of Tolkien's life, he did view Frodo as going to a kind of healing, or purgatorio - as shown in the 1971 letter to RL Green (325). But at the very least, ten years after publishing The Lord of the Rings he wasn't so sure.

What you recall is probably the footnote to the Mr. Rang letter (no. 297) in which JRRT stated that Galadriel's lament for Lorien was a prayer that Frodo shall be received at Tol Eressea, not Valinor; and that her prayer was granted, and also the personal ban over her lifted (there is something similar in Unfinished Tales, which I forgot to check last night before my connection broke down). The place in Eressea specifically was because of his statement (whose sources go back one of the outlines in The Book of Lost Rings) that she was banned forever from Valinor.
However, this does not fit in with the actual lament, which concludes "Farewell! Maybe thou shalt find Valimar" - Valimar being the city of the Valar; which quite spoils a beautiful conception.
In the 1971 letter, Frodo is granted a sojourn in Aman.



All this is fascinating, but I did not mean to make a statement about whether Frodo himself actually reached the other side.
"The Lands of the Living" is a Biblical phrase (Ps. 116:9; see also Ps. 27:13), which clearly means this world as we know it - which Frodo is clearly leaving. If you do not like the "purgatorio" of the Letters, think of Niggle's Workhouse. Are people there dead? No. Are they living? Not as we know it.
A rough parallel would be Beren after returning from death to Ossiriand - which Tolkien insists "and was never seen by mortal men again", i.e., has not really returned to the life he was born to. Even this is not quite parallel, as Beren progeny after being resurrected do jojn the world of Men again, which Frodo never achieves.


Okay, end of digression. Back to mutual bashing. Unsure

"This chapter seems to be full of movement—slowly and deliberately (then less so) down hills; scrambling up trees-- then up, up, and away into the Eagles’ eyrie; and down, down back to the ground.
Flora, fauna, food, fear, and flight are featured..."
- batik



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for a somewhat less clever discussion of Out of the Frying Pan-into the Fire!


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 21 2012, 2:42pm


Views: 5059
Ingrates?

In my mind, Frodo and Bilbo reach Valinor and live to whatever end of days they desire to endure as long as they stay there. For if the capricious Valar treat those who were "meant to carry the ring" like so much hired help who sit at a separate table for meals by not letting them onto Valinor proper, or they treat them as disposable by not "bestowing" immortality (I prefer to believe immortality is intrinsic to the land and not the Valar who bestow it), then the Valar are truly snobbish ingrates who do not deserve my respect for treating their agents against Sauron in such a poor manner.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 21 2012, 2:46pm)


Morthoron
Gondor


Aug 21 2012, 4:45pm


Views: 5064
Well, the Valar have a history of mucking things up...

Not very good stewards of Arda, based on their benign and sometimes intentional neglect of their charges.

They drag the Eldar off to Valinor for the express purpose of protecting them, but allow Melkor to walk freely amongst them (even though individual Vala saw through his facade). Of course, they did not root out all of their foes when Melkor was captured and let Sauron rebuild the evil empire, then they get all up in arms when Melkor causes havoc and murder and the Eldar wish to leave, then ban them completely when Feanor causes civil war (not condoning Feanor's actions, mind, merely the lackadaisacal approach of the Valar that led up to the Kin-strife). Meanwhile, the Two Trees are destroyed and the Valar offer only a half-hearted chase of Morgoth and then give up.

The Valar then ignore Arda for most of the 1st Age, allowing Morgoth to crush the Eldar and Edain, totally corrupt the rest of Mankind, and generally make Arda a living hell. But lo! They reconsider and send an army to defeat Morgoth, but only at the last possible moment and only when Earendil returns a Silmaril. But what happens? Well, once again they neglect to capture Sauron and he goes right back to his evil ways, subverts most of mankind once again and goes about creating the One Ring. The Valar do nothing.

But not learning from their original mistake, the Valar once again remove a race from Arda and create Numenor so that the Edain can ostensibly be happy and safe. Of course, this all backfires once more as Sauron (who somehow escapes the Valar's attention at every turn) deludes Ar-Pharazon and causes him to attack Valinor. At this point, the Valar are completely at a loss and hopelessly muddled. They surrender their governance to Eru who, with obvious irritation at being interrupted from his usual cosmic itinerary, decides to destroy Numenor utterly - which amounts to slapping the Valar upside their heads for their bad judgment.

But Sauron gets away again and causes another age of grief! So, what do the Valar do? Well, they don't want to piss off Eru again, obviously, so they take a more unobtrusive approach, sending the Istari to be their goodwill ambassadors. Naturally, this goes awry as well as only one Istari out of five actually keeps to the program (a horrible ratio from a business sense).

So you wonder at the Valar's attitude thereafter?

Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.



(This post was edited by Morthoron on Aug 21 2012, 4:48pm)


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Aug 22 2012, 2:15am


Views: 5045
If he only had a vision

of the Undying Lands then that means that he died on the trip there which would seem an untimely and strange coincidince. If this was Eru's plan then it is reasonable to assume that Bilbo would also die on the trip. This would be a meagre reward from Eru for their effort and pain. I do not see sound reasoning for it. If they only get a glimpse of the Undying Lands why not let them die in peace in their Shire instead? Why can they not reach the Undying Lands yet Gimli can. The whole notion of going to the Undying Lands is well established in the published appendices.

JW, the Valar were not ingrates, they simply could not withold Illuvatars Gift to mortals, only he could decree any such change, and who is to say that Frodo or Bilbo would choose that fate if given the opportunity. They show an understanding of the great matters of fate in a similar fashion to many of those deemed much wiser than them, there is nothing in their character to suggest they would not welcome the gift as nobly as Elessar Telcontar did.


DemoElite
Rivendell


Aug 22 2012, 2:44am


Views: 5019
nice commentary

Lots of wsll written editorials


Quote
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!



ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Aug 22 2012, 7:35am


Views: 5089
Read 154

and I cannot see what is qualifying the fact apart from possibly the word "supposed" but even considering the inclusion of that word, the rest of the letter describes in too great detail the facts of.such a sojurn that it seems inevitable that the journey did happen in it's fullness for Frodo, Bilbo, Sam and Gimli.


sador
Half-elven


Aug 22 2012, 7:52am


Views: 5022
This is a complicated question


In Reply To
If this was Eru's plan then it is reasonable to assume that Bilbo would also die on the trip.


Of course! Bilbo's last version of his walking-song seems clearly indicative of it:

Quote

The Road goes ever on and on
Out from the door where it began.

Now far ahead the Road has gone,
Let others follow it who can!
Let them a journey new begin,
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet.'


At least on one level, The Road is a metaphor for life; and Bilbo is clearly turning aside.

(This idea is expressed far better than I can by prof. Shippey in Author of the Century, but I think I understood it so even before reading his book.)

Note also that Bilbo's final words (in the book) are joy that he beat the Old Took by living to 131 years. Clearly time after embarking doesn't count, and Bilbo has no expectations of it.



Quote
This would be a meagre reward from Eru for their effort and pain. I do not see sound reasoning for it.


Eru is never mentioned before appendix A, and the Valar are only twice, and very opaquely. The whole strength of The Lord of the Rings is that like in the real world, we might have faith but we do not know. Had we explicitly known how Frodo is rewarded, the book would lose much of its tragic point.
Even in the Silmarillion, we do not know that Eru Himself rewards mortals for their effort and pain, and definitely not how He does it. Knowing that He is good and cares for elves and men, we can trust and believe that He does; but if so - why in Aman, of all places? This sounds more like the Elves and Valar want to keep the Ringbearers for themselves a bit, before they leave for their ultimate destiny. Even in the later letters, in which Tolkien stated that Frodo did live for some time in the Undying Lands, he called it a "purgatorio" or more pleasantly "healing".

By the way, one of the reasons hostile critics dissed The Lord of the Rings as "trash" was by their perception that no real sacrifice or pain is involved; all the good characters (except for Theoden) live happily ever after, like in any children's fairy-tale.

And as a last note - have you ever read Leaf by Niggle? One of Tolkien's short stories, which I personally love (although not everyone has a taste for religious allegory). In it, a clear vision is not a "meagre reward" but a Gift.



In Reply To
If they only get a glimpse of the Undying Lands why not let them die in peace in their Shire instead?


Bilbo has left the Shire forever (well, he will pass through on his way to the Havens). And Frodo cannot find peace in it any more.
However, dying in the Shire of having nothing left to live for, is being fatalistic in the opposite direction. I am not arguing that Frodo did not get to Valinor. He set out on his last, ultimate Quest. Whether he succeeded or not is a matter of faith. And I contend that leaving this to faith is exactly what makes The Lord of the Rings more meaningful, and more 'true' than Lewis' The Last Battle.

(Where is Curious? He could say this far better than I can.)



In Reply To
Why can they not reach the Undying Lands yet Gimli can.


Not quite! Regarding Gimli, the end of appendix A is very careful:

Quote
Here follows one of the last notes in the Red Book.
We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Gloin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter.


Also the end of appendix B has only "with him, it is said, went Gimli the dwarf" - even his embarking is a mere rumor, and nothing is said of his arriving there. The same thing goes for Sam:

Quote
1482... On September 22 Master Samwise rides out from Bag End. He comes to the Tower Hills, and is last seen by Elanor, to whom he gives the Red Book afterwards kept by the Fairbairns. Among them the tradition is handed down from Elanor that Samwise passed the Towers, and went to the Grey Havens, and passed over Sea, last of the Ring-bearers.


Once again, there is only a family tradition that he Sam left for he Havens. Of course, they can say no more.



In Reply To
The whole notion of going to the Undying Lands is well established in the published appendices.


Well, I've cited the sources. I think they are purposedly ambiguous, and also that therein lies their beauty.


A last thing which needs mentioning is the whole idea of being sent over the Sea as a holy mode of dying, one which Tolkien took very seriously in his retelling of the legend of King_Sheave - to which he returned twice, both in The Lost Road and in The Notion Club Papers.

"In the morning Bilbo misses breakfast. – is this the most unbelievable part of this chapter?"
- Elven



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for a somewhat less clever discussion of Queer Lodgings!


sador
Half-elven


Aug 22 2012, 7:59am


Views: 5005
"supposed" is a very strong qualifier


In Reply To
even considering the inclusion of that word, the rest of the letter describes in too great detail the facts of.such a sojurn that it seems inevitable that the journey did happen in it's fullness for Frodo, Bilbo, Sam and Gimli.


I don't think so. The rest of the letter tries to explain what would happen to them had they reached the Undying Lands, and whether this could be reconciled to all that is known to the contrary.
It shows what a powerful impact this story has upon the believing mind. Call it the Middle-earth version of speculative theology. Are the Primary World parallels less detailed or well-imagined?

"In the morning Bilbo misses breakfast. – is this the most unbelievable part of this chapter?"
- Elven



The weekly discussion of The Hobbit is back. Join us in the Reading Room for a somewhat less clever discussion of Queer Lodgings!


imin
Valinor


Aug 22 2012, 8:11am


Views: 5029
i have never read it as such

'there may be certain rare exceptions or accommodations (legitimately supposed? there always seems to be exceptions); and so certain 'mortals', who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo (by the express gift of Arwen) and Bilbo, and eventually Sam (as adumbrated by Frodo); and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.

I took that to mean frodo, bilbo, sam and gimli all at some point get to elvenhome not just have a vision of it. Though i know like you say from the appendices there is more uncertainty about Gimli.


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Aug 22 2012, 8:52am


Views: 4980
For myself

there seems to be too much discussion about the subject of several mortals departing, with commentary on each person occuring more than once, for it not to be fact within the myth, whereas JRRT would have dismissed it out of hand and clarified that none of them made it to the Undying Lands if that was the case. I feel it is reinforced by writings on specifics such as the plan for Frodo by Arwen, Gandalf and Cirdan. I cannot argue against the fact that he may have died before getting there, but it seems unlikely and tragic to the point of cliche. Furthermore he is still relatively young and apart from intermittant physical pain bought about by the damage to his soul, he seems in generally good health, withdrawn yes, diminished yes, but not at deaths door.

JRRT also writes about Frodo as a means of providence so Eru's influence is considered present.


(This post was edited by ElendilTheShort on Aug 22 2012, 8:59am)


ElendilTheShort
Gondor


Aug 22 2012, 9:20am


Views: 5005
I will say

that your comments have made me consider the matter further in replying, and I do agree with your notion that the fact it is not spelt out, there is no welcome for Frodo in Eressa that is written about, keeps it a matter of faith, the event is remote, untouched, unreachable for the reader apart from in their imagination and it adds a great deal of emotional and spiritual value to the last text about what Frodo sees.


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Aug 22 2012, 4:06pm


Views: 4958
Literary Cowardice

I'll disclaim first that this might not apply to Tolkien, but for literature in general that a good number of vague notions of faith are literary cowardice in the unwillingness to turn it into the tangible. In other words, the author does not want to attempt any greater description for lack of knowledge or experience of it or not wanting to be wrong in the end or offend sensibilities of possibly religious critics.

I have found many a story that are disappointing, for example, because it turns out the evil one is fighting is a minion or agent of the devil - not the devil himself. Why not go for the root? It would be a braver move by the author. If I recall correctly, The Exorcist is guilty of this. If not, others are. One story which is not guilty of such cowardice is Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards because it not only goes after agents of Adolf Hitler, but Hitler himself, as a fantasy independent of our own reality. That was brave.

It is therefore unremarkable at best to me that one should avoid, for example, Frodo's description of the peoples, life and land of Valinor upon reaching it just as The Scouring of the Shire was an epilogue to the War of the Ring. Perhaps the authors of stories like this simply feel they are not capable or worthy to their own satisfaction that they can imbue the text with that certain emotional and spiritual value. Or they are afraid of it and this idea of leaving things to imagination or faith is just a rationalization.


(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Aug 22 2012, 4:13pm)


Solicitr
Lorien

Sep 5 2012, 5:15pm


Views: 5159
Yes, he has

Or at least FOTR; he wrote a lengthy and very negative commentary on it which he has shared with some of us.


Solicitr
Lorien

Sep 5 2012, 5:34pm


Views: 4951
Zimmerman treatment retread


In Reply To
The Oscar and BAFTA winning screenplay whichIs incredibly poor quality in the context of your personal taste?

LR


In the context of my knowledge and understanding of the books- which PJ, Fran and Philippa never understood; the screenplays fell apart because they naver understood in the least the nature of the Ring, of Sauron, of the Nazgul, nor of Tolkien's conception of evil; nor had a clue as to the actual Denethor/Faramir dynamic; nor could PJ ever restrain himself from his "that would be sooo kewl self-indulgences.

JRRT's famous letter where he guts Zimmerman's attempt at a screenplay applies almost as well here. "Another scene of screams and meaningless slashing."

You are aware, aren't you, that the Academy Awards are voted on by idiots?


JWPlatt
Grey Havens


Sep 5 2012, 5:57pm


Views: 5108
Nature

You mention a nature of things that Peter, Fran and Philippa never understood. I'd be very interested in your understanding of those natures; what they are. Maybe in a new thread for discussion about their natures? It could be enlightening.