Tolkien's Opinion

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

can you imagine an alive tolkien giving away the rights to his life's work like his dis-interested (in the unknown medium of mass market film just then) heirs???

JRR Tolkien himself sold the rights to the movies in 1968 or 1969 to pay his taxes, as I posted earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted by Gordis

Anyone knows what was Christopher Tolkien's reaction to the movie like?

The initial reaction of C Tolkien and the rest of the family to P Jackson’s films was reported to have been quite negative. There were reports of a breach between Simon Tolkien and his father, the esteemed Christopher, over Simon’s presumed support of the films. Later, if I understood the media reports that followed, the family reconciled itself to the films. If you want to learn anything more, there were quotes in several stories in the press at the time attributed to various members of the family, and if you are interested, you might try Googling them or searching newpapers on-line such as The Daily Telegraph and The Times (of London), or the aforementioned Sunday Herald.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

The initial reaction of C Tolkien and the rest of the family to P Jackson’s films was reported to have been quite negative.

Thank you, Alcuin. I think Christopher did a pretty good job with Tolkien's texts. After spending all these yours on this work, he couldn't have remained apathic to the use (better term is misuse ) of his father's legacy.

I would have been surprised if Christopher liked the movies. I think his reaction mirrors the one his father would have shown, had he lived long enough to see all his world sacrificed to make it appealing to an average pop-corn eater.

[Huorn]

I can speak from experience since I write fantasy stories as a hobby. Very few if any writers like to have their creations altered. They tend to be very fussy about how the personalities and appearance of their characters are recreated on film.

Lets look at how Treebeard was portrayed in the film versus how he was discribed in the book for example. In the book he is discribed as a manlike somewhat troll like figure with a barklike hide or covering over the torso and legs. He had grey-green hair and beard. There is no mention of branches or leaves on him anywhere in the text. He stands about 14-15 feet tall. The Hobbits are carried on his hands. In the film he looks to be 30 feet tall and looks like a walking senile tree. If I were Tolkien I would be offended by the drastic departure from the text. This is only one example of how the film departs from the text.

I think he would be offended by how Gimli is turned from a serious noble Dwarf into a funny comic. The filmaker has completely changed the personality of this character, making him seem dirty and given to drink.

I admit the films are highly enjoyable. But as a writer of stories, I am aware that they would probably be offensive to Tolkien if he were alive today.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

JRR Tolkien himself sold the rights to the movies in 1968 or 1969 to pay his taxes, as I posted earlier in this thread.
The initial reaction of C Tolkien and the rest of the family to P Jackson’s films was reported to have been quite negative. There were reports of a breach between Simon Tolkien and his father, the esteemed Christopher, over Simon’s presumed support of the films. Later, if I understood the media reports that followed, the family reconciled itself to the films. If you want to learn anything more, there were quotes in several stories in the press at the time attributed to various members of the family, and if you are interested, you might try Googling them or searching newpapers on-line such as The Daily Telegraph and The Times (of London), or the aforementioned Sunday Herald.

Steven Maier, Intellectual Property Partner at the law firm Manches LLP, has written a letter to a blogger named Craig Finn, clarifying among other matters that “There was no dispute between Christopher Tolkien and his son, Simon Tolkien, as a result of Simon Tolkien going to see the first Lord of the Rings film. … Nor has Christopher Tolkien “disowned” Simon Tolkien.” A scanned portion of the letter appears on Craig Finn’s website here. While Finn is correct in saying that these unfortunate mischaracterizations were widely reported, he does seem to be unusually acerbic in his positions concerning Christopher Tolkien.

Some of the items in the scanned portion of the letter are quite unique, and rather new to me. The most interesting is that “The rights to The Hobbit are not controlled by Christopher Tolkien.” I am uncertain if it means that these are controlled by the Tolkien Estate or not. (I have an old 1970 edition of The Hobbit close at hand and cannot find any of my newer editions at the moment: J.R.R. Tolkien was still alive in 1970 and held the copyright himself.)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Alcuin, you hit the nail on the head.

Jon S., see BB.

There is really just no reason whatsoever that anyone can give for believing Tolkien would like the movies, other than "I like the movies, and I like Tolkien, therefore, Tolkien would like the movies". It just don't work that way, folks. Never mind the general "niggling" referenced by the Bearded Sage (though she chose to use different words ), the letter to Zimmerman should be more than sufficient to give a damn near demonstration that he would not approve of PJ's rendition.

Earniel has given really the only thing one could even hope for; that is, that he would appreciate the spectacle of some scenes.

That said, he would despise the spectacle of others.

Gordis, I disagree that PJ made the same mistakes as Zimmerman, but much worse. I think he made the same mistakes, but somewhat moderated.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

can you imagine an alive tolkien giving away the rights to his life's work like his dis-interested (in the unknown medium of mass market film just then) heirs???

I'm not sure I understand this post.

For the money the film rights would bring today, I can certainly imagine an alive Tolkien selling (not giving away) his film rights to a mass medium filmaker, though he might be more selective as to who to sell to and the terms of the contract/potential reservations of creative control over this or that.

I'm sorry if this view conflicts with others' views of Tolkien as "above all this stuff." It's just that the amount of $$ involved in these types of deals today is orders of magnitude beyond what he would have had to consider in his day. That being the case, past performance may not, in this case, be the best indicator of future yield.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Gordis, I disagree that PJ made the same mistakes as Zimmerman, but much worse. I think he made the same mistakes, but somewhat moderated.

Let us compare the famous letter 210 about the Zimmerman script with PJ’s film.

L210: The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different ; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

Isn’t it FULLY applicable to PJ’s film? All his unwarranted new scenes and plotlines (Arwen’s going to the Gray Havens, Arwen’s "dying" ?? "The Age of Men has ended" (!) The WK breaking Gandy’s staff, Aragorn killing the Mordor Ambassador during the Parley
etc – you name it!) are all indications that PJ utterly failed to understand the core of the original.

L210: He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important pan of this has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered. .

"Preference for fights" is indeed one of the things that makes PJ’s creation so bad. The last part of the journey to Mordor was murdered again – and don’t tell me it was because there were no time: there was enough time to introduce the silly new scene with Frodo dismissing Sam.

There were some Zimmerman’s mistakes that PJ hadn’t repeated: the early intrusion of the Eagles, time-contraction of the story, and so on.

But PJ made lots of his own: For instance Zimmerman made Aragorn run from Bree at night. And PJ did worse: remember this silly scene where mounted nazgul were hunting hobbits AT NIGHT in the woods near Buckleberry ferry? Yes-yes where Frodo outruns the mounted nazgul .

But some mistakes that Tolkien pointed out in Zimmerman’s script PJ DID repeat all right:

Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book. Naturally not: his sword was broken. …Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons?

In the new film we have Aragorn fighting 5 nazgul single-handedly and winning. AND setting them on fire.

A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows – until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed – would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.....

That is what PJ did – a scene of screams and meaningless slashings and setting the wraiths on fire.

The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence.

What is the sound that alerts the hobbits to the nazgul in PJ’s film? – Screaming, of course. Why on Arda would the nazgul scream before attacking? – it was a sure way to send the hobbits scampering in different directions.

The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not 'spur'. There is no fight. Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20:4 the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)

As I said PJ did make a big fight out of it. Moreover he did WORSE than Zimmermann: he completely murdered Frodo’s character in this scene and later at the Ford. Instead of a brave little person who is frightened, but FIGHTS BACK – repelling the Wraith Lord, Frodo becomes a frightened, tearful, whiny package that other characters carry around.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't have my Letters with me, but I remember Tolkien referring to Zimmerman making Lothlorien some sort of fairy-castle, using the Eagles freely as a device, having the Balrog "laugh or sneer", and various other errors into which even PJ does not fall.

Z .... has intruded a 'fairy castle' and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Faramir).

2. Why should the firework display include flags and hobbits? They are not in the book. 'Flags' of what? I prefer my own choice of fireworks.

8 line 24. The landlord does not ask Frodo to 'register'! Why should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.

9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.3

10. Rivendell was not 'a shimmering forest'. This is an unhappy anticipation of Lórien (which it in no way resembled). It could not be seen from Weathertop: it was 200 miles away and hidden in a ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.

19. Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form of Auks.)

In such a time private 'chambers' played no part. Théoden probably had none, unless he had a sleeping 'bower' in a separate small 'outhouse'. He received guests or emissaries, seated on the dais in his royal hall. This is quite clear in the book; and the scene should be much more effective to illustrate.

34. Why on earth should Z say that the hobbits 'were munching ridiculously long sandwiches'? Ridiculous indeed. I do not see how any author could be expected to be 'pleased' by such silly alterations. One hobbit was sleeping, the other smoking.

Saruman would never have committed suicide: to cling to life to its basest dregs is the way of the sort of person he had become.

[Gordis]

Oh, Gwaimir, Tolkien complained even about Zimmerman's choice of fireworks - because it deviated from the book.
What would he say if he saw Denethor and the nazgul turned into flaming torches?
And so on and so on... Arwen instead of Glorfy, Elrond the maniac, Denethor... I can't even remain civil when I think what PJ made with Denerthor's character!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

PJ did do awful things, it's true; but I think from my reading of 210 that Zimmerman deviated even more from the book, and more pointlessly.

[Wayfarer]

Mmm.

I observe in the author's critiques of the Zimmerman proposal that he frequently asks why. I think that's what he would ask, of the various questionable scenese.

Why is this changed? Why is this ignored? Why the additions? What purpose does this serve?

I do not believe he would have been satisfied with the answers.

[Lord of the Mark]

Originally Posted by Sam

I think Tolkien would enjoy parts and dissagree with others. For instance, the time that they spent on Aragorn's love life could have been spent on the old forest, or on Sarumans taking controll of the shire

Well, I'm not so sure that Tolkien would agree that the Old Forest was quite as important as Aragorn and Arwen's relationship. Tolkien called this it "highest love story". He thought it was one of the most important parts of the book. Tolkien once told a reviewer "I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying it's structure(which PJ wouldn't have to worry about since he already messed with the structure ).

While I think that Tolkien might have enjoyed the movies for there touching rendition of some elements of the story, and the films great effectiveness cinematicly, I'm pretty sure that he might well have gone mad if he had seen what was done to Faramir's character. I don't think anything would have bugged him as much as that(though some of the other changes surly would). He related more with Faramir then any other character in the book, and even though I think there are changes made by PJ in the film that he could have accepted(maybe
)I think that the changes made to Faramir would have pushed him over the edge. Of course, the leaving out of the Scouring of the Shire is right up there with PJ's Faramir when it comes to things that Tolkien would hate.

I would add though that we need not agree with what we think Tolkien might have thought, and though he as the author would have every right to be angry, we don't have to let it let it ruin what are some truly good films. Just let go...we all still have the books, and they're still awesome!

Originally Posted By Gordis
Denethor... I can't even remain civil when I think what PJ made with Denerthor's character!

Um, what did PJ do to Denethor's character? He made him look like a jerk, which, if I remember correctly, he was. Am I wrong? I admit, he didn't make him look quite as kingly as Tolkien did, but made him look much more like a fallen king, and only made it easier for you to identify with Faramir. That alteration of all bothered me the least.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Mark

I would add though that we need not agree with what we think Tolkien might have thought

Lies, I say. Lies!

(and there's no might about it)

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

The first time I read LoTR, I remember my reaction to Aragorn's wedding was "who the heck is she?", and going back 800 pages to find two brief mentions.

Yuck yuck!!

[Alcuin]

At one point, Tolkien said that any movie would have to be about Art or Money, I think in a discussion he had with Rayner Unwin. (For once I will leave the citation to someone else; it is in Letters for anyone who cares to look.) The Jackson films certainly made a lot of Money; but as Art, they are on a distinctly lower plane of existence than Tolkien’s original works: turkeys rather than eagles. By which I mean no offence: Benjamin Franklin preferred the turkey rather than eagle as the symbol of the young United States, since the eagle is a raptor (Art), while the turkey is a source of sustenance (Mammon).

Tolkien sold the movie rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings around 1969 to pay the taxes assessed by Britain’s Inland Revenue. I have seen citations that he sold them for £10,000 and for £120,000: which if either is correct I cannot tell. He sold the rights to United Artists, which was the studio for Stanley Kubrick, who completed a technical tour de force to great acclaim in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey. But Kubrick did not direct movies based upon Tolkien’s work, and they were sold by United Artists to Saul Zaentz Company in 1976, which keeps them in a division of that company called Tolkien Enterprises. Tolkien Enterprises does not apparently own the rights to the stories in The Silmarillion, which I must suppose means that if a movie is made of The Children of Húrin, for instance, the Tolkien family will retain all the rights to that work through the Tolkien Estate or one or more of its family trusts.

The Tolkien family made no direct profit from Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movie trilogy: all the movie profits went to Saul Zaentz Company and were divvied out from there: a large portion went to Peter Jackson, as per his contract; indirectly, however, sales on the books shot through the roof (not to mention participation in discussion boards such as Entmoot), and the book sales were to the profit of Tolkien’s descendents.

Neither Tolkien nor his family made any additional money directly from Peter Jackson’s movies, though I think they profited handsomely indirectly, so that might satisfy the Money part of the equation. Which is a good thing, because I think Tolkien would have gagged on the Art part of the equation in the same vein that he reacted against the Zimmerman proposal.

By the way, the Zimmerman family has donated Mr. Zimmerman’s script to the J.R.R. Tolkien Collection at Marquette University – a rather decent thing for them to do in light of Tolkien’s savaging it. (I strongly suspect that, just as Tolkien sold his movie rights, they did it for tax purposes; but it will be to the gain of Tolkien scholars in the years to come.)

[Olmer]

Agree with Jon S and Alcuin about a monetary importance to Tolkien. I think, that undoubtfully, he would complain about an unsatisfactory interpretation of his book into the movie, as any author might do, but in the light of the prognosed income he would turn a blind eye on any attempt to generate more profit from his creation.
This is quotes from Forbes
Top earning dead celebrity: J.R.R. Tolkien

From Forbes2001. $7 millions. On the Internet, the trailer for The Lord Of The Rings film has already been downloaded more times than the trailer for the overhyped Star Wars: Phantom Menace. The $100 million movie, based on J.R.R.Tolkien's book, is shaping up to be a smash.Too bad The Hobbit's author sold the movie rights for the trilogy to United Artists in 1969. He was, however, lucky enough to strike a deal with the publisher of the popular Rings series to split the profits of the sales 50-50, instead of taking an advance and the standard 10% to 15% royalties. Since then, Tolkien and his heirs have reaped a dragon's hoarde of royalties, with the books still going strong on the best-sellers lists. In fact, recent U.K. reader polls have actually ranked Lord of the Rings above the Bible in popularity.

Forbes 2003. $22 millions. His heirs are said to have thought the fantasy epic The Lord of the Rings was unsuitable for translation to film, but they certainly can't complain about the financial rewards the films have brought. The second installment of the three-film series, The Two Towers, grossed $920 million globally. And the books are still going strong. The three volumes that make up Rings sold 8.6 million copies in the U.S. in the past year, while The Hobbit, a prelude novel to the series, tallied 2.3 million copies. Book sales alone earned the estate more than $15 million, while royalties from the film, DVD and videogames brought in about $5.6 million.

Forbes 2004 .The battle for Middle Earth came to a close with the last film of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series, The Return of the King. The Ring may have been destroyed but plenty of wealth was created: New Line Cinema grossed nearly $3 billion on the trilogy. The author's estate gets a slice of that and of home video sales, but merchandising was nary a glint in Gollum's eye when Tolkien's contracts were drawn up. So it's doubtful his heirs will see any of the $700 million that movie tchotchkes have grossed. Book sales peaked in 2002, but they still put $9.5 million in estate coffers this year. A film based on The Hobbit may now be in the works.

--

[Anglorfin]

There are definately some spectacles that I think he would enjoy, however a lot of the spectacles and huge scenes didn't always fit the story either.

Regardless of how the Ents were aroused to war, I think he might have liked the assault on Isengard. In the books you only really see the aftermath. So the battle itself is open to interpretation as long as the necessary casualties are suffered. He would definately disagree with the events afterwards, where Gandlaf is supposed to ceremoniously remove Saruman from power and Grima is to drop the Palantir from the tower.

Helm's Deep I think he would disagree on pretty much all points. The fact that Elves were there while Eomer was not would have really gotten to him. This is one of the many partnerships between Aragorn and Eomer that were cut throughout the films. I know this bothers me so I can only imagine what Tolkien would say. It's like Aragorn and Eomer hardly know each other.

Another big issue would be how in the movie the ghosts basically swept across the plain of battle and laid waste to every orc in sight. I think this was a HUGE plot hole that just made PJ look stupid. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, "Well why didn't Aragorn keep them and bring them to the gates of Mordor?" And the way the movies portrayed it, it seemed like it would have been possible. Even the most logical thing to do. Tolkien would have certainly disapproved.

#1 On his list though I think would be there was no scouring of the Shire. One of the themes Tolkien used was that nothing went unchanged. Yet in the movies the Hobbits could just all go home as if nothing had happened. And how would Sam have been elected mayor if he just came home and people knew that he had a reputation of going off and having adventures. It doesn't make sense unless he were to rescue the Shire from some evil that should have happened.


Come to think of it, I don't even see a point to me posting this. Since this is basically stuff that I disagree with (and not all of it by far). I'm a big purist when it comes to book-to-movie adaptations and I'd imagine the author would be a purist even more so. It just seems to be common sense that Tolkien would disagree. If fans of the books dislike it I'm sure you could multiply that feeling x20 before you even came close to what Tolkien would feel.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not only is it common sense, Tolkien's quibbling with Zimmerman on even relatively small points bears out that he would be more of a purist.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Tahquamenon

I wonder what J.R.R. Tolkien would think of the movies

Beautiful or Great Elephants!!!!!! ????????

Originally Posted by Sam

I think Tolkien would enjoy parts and dissagree with others. For instance, the time that they spent on Aragorn's love life could have been spent on the old forest, or on Sarumans taking controll of the shire

I agree with sam. (must be that good old hobbit sense. )

I think that Tolkien would have liked much of the scenery and costumes used in the movies. The only area he would not approve (IMHO) is if the scenery or costumes were different than how he described them in his book.

I think he would have been more critical () about any changes from his book that did not keep with the spirit of his work.

I think he would have been more understanding about the need to leave certain elements of his novel out of the movie due to time/money constraints. (Tom & old forest to name one example) He may still have not liked it (especially if it changed the feel/mood/character of his work) but he could understand the need for some changes from his book to occur.

I think that he would not want any characters to be changed from how he created them. (Faramir, Denethor, Aragorn are some characters that come to mind)

I am not sure if he would have liked the expansion of the battle scenes in LOTR. I think he would have prefered to minimize the amount of time spent in battles and spend more time with the characters and their challenges. While that battles definitely had their place in LOTR, (IMO) they were not the primary force driving the story of LOTR.

[captain carrot]

I think he would have gone apeshit.

Literally.

..and this is a mild mannered Oxford Don we are talking about!

Imagine the mild mannered professor (from CS Lewis's 'The Lion the witch and the wardrobe') meeting Ozzie Osbourne.

... and you are halfway there.