|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 5:06am
Post #26 of 60
(1477 views)
Shortcut
|
That they're using the appendices to rewrite it. I'd love to get to the bottom of this someday.
Regarding the blue wizards, your quotation is very interesting. The first thing I thought when I heard Gandalf say "blue wizards" was that they didn't have the rights to that! And if I noticed it, surely someone else did, too. Of course, he could have easily said there were two others, but he can't remember anything about them. That would have steered clear of the copyright issue but still been a nice nod to fans.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
geordie
Dor-Lomin
Dec 19 2012, 7:31am
Post #27 of 60
(1512 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think it's a combination of some of these and something else -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in reply to -
"I wonder if Jackson actually believes that's what the appendices are, or if he's just trying to explain it to someone who doesn't know, or if he's just blowing smoke to make it appear that his added material has some basis in Tolkien"
I think he believes it - and I think he believes that the Appendices were added, as he once said, to 'later editions of Return of the King'. Possibly he believes the Appendices were added by Christopher.
The reason I think this is because many years ago he said his copy of LotR was the one-volume p/back with the still from the Bakshi movie on the cover. I have a copy of that edition - it only contains the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen from Appendix A.
I suspect pJ has only discovered the Appendices since he began working on The Hobbit.
.
(This post was edited by geordie on Dec 19 2012, 7:33am)
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 10:55am
Post #28 of 60
(1468 views)
Shortcut
|
Viggo Mortensen said that he tooks lots of influence from The Hobbit, The Silmarillion and all the appendecies when crafting the LOTR trilogy. I have a heard time believing that he was unaware of the appendecies 10 years after he made LOTR.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 2:59pm
Post #29 of 60
(1476 views)
Shortcut
|
Wow, I had no idea there was a version with just the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen. That goes a long, long way to explaining some of this. It does make all of his recent (since summer) comments make more sense. Now I'm convinced he didn't (and possibly still doesn't) know what the appendices really are.
It's a shame, really. There's loads of material in the appendices that could be beautiful on screen if actually done right.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 3:08pm
Post #30 of 60
(1502 views)
Shortcut
|
There isn't a single Appendecie at all... too bad, they were cut in the Swedish edition. Had no idea of them until I started digging some.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 3:39pm
Post #31 of 60
(1444 views)
Shortcut
|
That's loads of wonderful material you're missing out on. Have you gotten an English version and made your way through them all yet?
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Dec 19 2012, 4:27pm
Post #32 of 60
(1468 views)
Shortcut
|
I've heard that too, about Jackson owning a copy without the full Appendices, and as I've said, I believe Jackson really thinks what he thinks rather than believing that he finds this misinformation a convenient justification.
That said [the following is not addressed to you]: how long has it been now since Peter Jackson has been involved with adapting Tolkien or talking to the press about adapting Tolkien? And no one, not in all this time, has ever mentioned to Jackson what the Appendices really are or that they were published in 1955?
And what about Boyens or Walsh... did they also have copies without full Appendices when they were younger?
And they had a consultant to ask in Janet Croft, but Jackson asks Stepher Colbert rather, as well as making statements to the press in any case.
I don't get it 
(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 19 2012, 4:36pm)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 5:17pm
Post #33 of 60
(1456 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can't imagine a copy without the appendices
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When I first read the book (around age 10-11) I didn't read the appendices. I didn't think they were important, but now I can't imagine not reading them. They're fascinating.
The thing that gets me is that here's a filmmaker who has spent probably 10 years or more with the books. How is he just now finding out about the appendices in all their glory? It's just down-right shocking to me. But as I said, it makes all his comments about them much easier to understand.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Dec 19 2012, 6:35pm
Post #34 of 60
(1435 views)
Shortcut
|
|
TORN's Hobbit-movie forum is moving so fast right now
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Incidentally, Janet Brennan Croft just revealed that she was consulted for the film, and she notes...
...that it's almost impossible to keep up, and thus quite easy not to have realized that Croft's participation was first noted here early on Saturday.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
geordie
Dor-Lomin
Dec 19 2012, 6:55pm
Post #35 of 60
(1438 views)
Shortcut
|
pJ hasn't spent ten years with the books - he's had many other projects to think about.
My hobby is 'Tolkien and all that', so when I first heard about the movies (late '99 I think) I kept an eye out for any and all information I could get - mainly from magazines. In one of these I recall pJ saying that he'd read LotR once. On a train journey across NZ, when he was 18. Then when he decided to make a movie/movies of it, he dug out his old paperback and flicked through it, searching for what he calls it 'themes', in order to write the screenplay. I get the impression that he never actually read the book all the way through, twice.
I don't think it makes his remarks any easier to understand. If I knew so little about a subject, I would keep quiet.
.
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 19 2012, 7:08pm
Post #36 of 60
(1410 views)
Shortcut
|
I was just estimating given the amount of time spent on both trilogies. But I wouldn't be surprised if he actually knew so little as you suggest.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Dec 19 2012, 7:21pm
Post #37 of 60
(1475 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've said it before - and please forgive the repitition....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... but I still think that when Peter Jackson said that about the Appendices being 'notes' which expanded the world of 'The Hobbit' - which I think was the sense in which it was meant - he was offering a brief outline of the development of Tolkien's published fiction - an interview soundbite rather than an in-depth analysis.
If you look at his comment in that light it does work, in a way. The argument would run something like this:
1. Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit'. It started out as a story for his children but became darker and more complex.
2. His publishers wanted a sequel. He wrote 'Lord of the Rings', which started where 'The Hobbit' left off, took decades to write and became darker and more complex still, eventually including a whole series of background notes to explain the backstory of the world he had created - the world which began, as far as the world was concerned, with 'The Hobbit'.
So far as I know, PJ has only described the Appendix material in that way in the context of adapting 'The Hobbit' - specifically, in the context of enlarging the project to three films. That's how he explains what he's doing and in that sense he's not wrong: Tolkien's published 'Middle Earth' fiction begins with 'The Hobbit' and expands into 'Lord of the Rings', with a whole series of background notes on the culture and history of that imagined world. It's just that, viewed apart from the film, there's a whole level of creation he's leaving out - the original mythology that seeped into The Hobbit and underlies Lord of the Rings and the Appendices.
And in the circumstances in which he's speaking - explaining his adaptation for the film - it seems reasonable to leave all that out. It would only complicate the picture for the interviewer, who really wants to know about the film, not the books.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Dec 19 2012, 9:29pm
Post #38 of 60
(1400 views)
Shortcut
|
I also thought that he was giving "an interview soundbite rather than an in-depth analysis." And it seemed to me that he'd been criticized in past interviews about LOTR for being a little arrogant or pedantic about what he knew, so in talking to Colbert, it seemed he was trying to appear modest in pretending he didn't know everything.
(This post was edited by CuriousG on Dec 19 2012, 9:29pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Dec 19 2012, 9:49pm
Post #39 of 60
(1428 views)
Shortcut
|
... Peter Jackson has implied or said something quite specific here.
'... when he did The Lord of the Rings and he'd hit on this whole epic story, he was going to go back and revise The Hobbit and he wrote all these notes about how Gandalf disappears and was really investigating the possible return of Sauron, the villain from The Lord of the Rings. Sauron doesn't appear at all in The Hobbit. Tolkien was retrospectively fitting The Hobbit to embrace that mythology.
He never wrote that book, but there are 125 pages of notes published at the back of Return of the King in one of the later editions. It was called The Appendices, and they are essentially his expanded Hobbit notes. So we had the rights to those as well and were allowed to use them.'
So Jackson connects the Appendices [as expanded Hobbit notes] to the notes intended to revise The Hobbit.
And in this interview with Stephen Colbert, he makes it clear what he thinks the scenario is: with respect to the Appendices ['from what I understand' says Peter Jackson], Jackson asks Stephen Colbert were they...
'... kinda like notes that he was preparing to do a revised version of The Hobbit, [there was?] that was the story that I heard'
Peter Jackson does not merely characterize the Appendices as an expansion of Middle-earth, but equates them with notes to revise a specific story -- again, something that the filmmakers are essentially doing with that sory (and so would appear quite justified in doing, if this were the case) -- but the Appendices were not notes to revise The Hobbit however.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 19 2012, 9:54pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Dec 19 2012, 11:27pm
Post #40 of 60
(1417 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, but you're analysing words spoken in interview....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... in the same precise way in which you would analyse written words. It doesn't work like that. When someone gives an interview, the words that come out aren't all that precise, and they're spoken in a particular context, in response to a particular question.
The context here is 'The Hobbit' - its relation to 'Lord of the Rings' and his adaptation of it - how he can make three films out a a single book. And in that context what he says is correct, as a broad outline of Tolkien's published fiction. The Hobbit came first, LotR was the sequel, and the Appendices, explaining and developing the background grew in the writing of that - and Tolkien did see inconsistencies between The Hobbit and the later work and he did consider rewriting. There is a lot of material in the Appendices which provides background information relating to The Hobbit.
What PJ said is a broad outline only which serves a particular purpose - it explains to an interviewer in simple terms how an apparently short book can be enlarged for a film adaptation along lines the author himself devised.
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Dec 20 2012, 3:51am
Post #41 of 60
(1397 views)
Shortcut
|
... in the same precise way in which you would analyse written words. It doesn't work like that. When someone gives an interview, the words that come out aren't all that precise, and they're spoken in a particular context, in response to a particular question.
In the Colbert interview Jackson is quite clear as to what he means, especially as it echoes what he said in another interview.
The context here is 'The Hobbit' - its relation to 'Lord of the Rings' and his adaptation of it - how he can make three films out a a single book. And in that context what he says is correct, as a broad outline of Tolkien's published fiction. The Hobbit came first, LotR was the sequel, and the Appendices, explaining and developing the background grew in the writing of that - and Tolkien did see inconsistencies between The Hobbit and the later work and he did consider rewriting. There is a lot of material in the Appendices which provides background information relating to The Hobbit.
Yet none of this addresses the still incorrect sentence that I quoted from the Colbert Repor(t).
Jackson did not merely say that Tolkien saw inconsistencies between the two works, nor merely that there is material in the Appendices which provides background information -- nor did he merely say that Tolkien considered revising The Hobbit.
He said he understood that the Appendices were written with intent to revise The Hobbit. Not so. And context doesn't change this.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 20 2012, 3:56am)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 20 2012, 4:05am
Post #42 of 60
(1369 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Dont' forget all the interview back in July
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
When the third film was announced. Peter was claiming that they "had been granted access to the appendices" that were in "one of the later editions of the book". I read those interviews over and over and was just bewildered by it because they've always had access to the appendices. They are part of LOTR and they come with the film rights to the LOTR.
I think geordie nailed it when he explained that PJ likely has been using a copy with only The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the back. It really explains why he's just now discovering the appendices.
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Dec 20 2012, 4:17am
Post #43 of 60
(1358 views)
Shortcut
|
Right, but above I'm more focusing on the particular claim that the Appendices were kinda like notes in preparation to revise The Hobbit.
If there are more than two instances of that I would like to know... although one seems enough, and two seems more than enough
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 20 2012, 4:23am
Post #44 of 60
(1357 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it corroborates the idea that he doesn't know what the appendices are.
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Dec 20 2012, 4:28am
Post #45 of 60
(1350 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well there is that question too
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And by the way, what is your reaction to dormouse's last post in reply to me... if you have one, and care to share it that is (no problem if you don't of course).
(This post was edited by Elthir on Dec 20 2012, 4:29am)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 20 2012, 4:45am
Post #46 of 60
(1450 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think what Dormouse says is true
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I don't think it's what Peter has been saying.
And I don't agree with Dormouse's last paragraph where he (or she, sorry Dormouse, I'm not sure!  ) states this is what PJ means. The appendices are essentially background material that explain and expand the whole history of Middle-earth (and was of course the only account of the first and second ages until 1977). But I don't think Peter knows what the appendices are. He's either deliberately confusing them with the Quest of Erebor writings & the 1960 Hobbit, or he's just confused and unsure. I tend to think it's the latter.
I hope that answered some questions. I never seem to be able to make a compelling argument for anything. I mostly just ramble until I think I've made my point  
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Dec 20 2012, 1:32pm
Post #47 of 60
(1358 views)
Shortcut
|
"I mostly just ramble until I think I've made my point "
That sounds like me. :)
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Doriath
Dec 20 2012, 4:39pm
Post #48 of 60
(1342 views)
Shortcut
|
Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!
|
|
|
macfalk
Doriath
Dec 20 2012, 9:49pm
Post #49 of 60
(1361 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The PJ and P.Boyens bashing is getting tiresome
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm all for critique, but sometimes, it would seem that some people take it a bit too far, almost personal, describing their feelings toward these two individuals. Not directed towards anyone in particular - It just saddens me, the venomous tone... and it's even worse on other sites.
There was even a poster here a while back who compared Boyens to the person who tried to destroy the Sistene Chapel.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
(This post was edited by macfalk on Dec 20 2012, 9:53pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Dec 20 2012, 10:00pm
Post #50 of 60
(1331 views)
Shortcut
|
Peering into their minds to better understand the literary background to the movies, and the general book/movie connection, is fun. But faulting the movie people in the Reading Room may not be too productive, or it could overtake all our conversations here.
|
|
|
|
|
