Would tolkien agree??? - Page 3

samwiselvr2008 · 08-29-2002, 05:42 PM

Well, I think that Tolkien would have ben happy with it, because PJ would have him see it before released, and let him be involved, so, he would probaly would have ben happy with it. I can't imagine PJ doing LOTR without him if he was still alive!

BeardofPants · 08-29-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
I can't imagine PJ doing LOTR without him if he was still alive!

That's a good point. Given that he tried to go down the authenticity road, he might well have gone to Tolkien for creative advice. I can imagine how that would have gone!

sun-star · 08-31-2002, 07:32 AM

It never would have been finished

***Earniel*** · 09-03-2002, 08:59 AM

Possibly.

If I remember correctly from 'Letters' he was seldom direclty pleased with illustrations. He also got very irritated with the animation of LOTR. I doubt he would have liked this movie. I also remember hearing that Christopher as literary heir opposed to the filming of LOTR.

samwiselvr2008 · 09-03-2002, 08:41 PM

I heard that PJ couldn't get ahold of Christopher though, so that was why he never asked him what he thought, in fact, he dose not even know if Christopher even ever saw the movie!

But I don't think that PJ would have even started it without talking to Tolkien, no matter how long it took!

niggle · 09-07-2002, 12:42 AM

I'm sure Tolkien would disapprove - bitterly! You only need to read his letters to understand that.
Does that matter - IMHO not a lot.

Tolkien sold the film rights - the book as it stands is not filmable, therefore whoever filmed it was bound to make some changes. At least Jackson has kept the main plot lines and the major characters... He's even made three films out of the three books. In Hollywood terms that is sticking to the book with almost religious fanaticism.

I'm reminded of an incident recorded in a biography of John Cleese, where he tells of meeting some American film types at some party in the states. They introduced themselves and told him they had bought the American rights to his "Fawlty Towers" scenario. "Oh yes" said Cleese - "and are you making any changes". "Only one" they replied "we've written Basil out" !!!!!!

Jackson has not committed any comparable mutilation of Tolkien's book - of course most Tolkien fans will find things to cavill at, but the most valid criticism is of the film as a film. In my view most of the weaknesses in the film were caused by the inevitable tension between trying to stay true to the book, and trying to make a good film.

BeardofPants · 09-07-2002, 12:49 AM

Good post, Niggle.

jerseydevil · 09-09-2002, 11:50 PM

Everyone knows my opinion by now. I think that Tolkien would not have liked the movie at all. And saying that the books are unfilmable is an excuse for the fact that PJ changed so much about the characters and their motivations that they become unrecognizable from the books. Yes - the scenery was flawless - wow he got one thing right in the movie. The rest he dumbed down for the mass audience so they they can eat it up like the candy it is. It tastes great - but does not fill you up at all and after too much just makes you downright sick.

niggle · 09-11-2002, 12:26 AM

But Jerseydevil, the books are a mass audience phenomenon - voted Book of the century or whatever. This suggests that appealing to a mass audience does not always equate with "dumbing down". Without the potential mass audience appeal the film would never have been made! Sure Jackson changed elements - but isn't this common when making "the film of the book"? We could never expect to see our version of LOTR on screen, because my "best possible" version would differ from yours and everyone else's on this board. My point is this; the main question should be - does the film stand up as a film? The answer in my view is not entirely - although it's fun, and good entertainment, it's not the best film I've ever seen.

Vorernil · 09-11-2002, 08:13 AM

I heard from someone (so don't get mad at me if this isn't entirely true!) that when Tolkien's books began to be published in America for the first time - the Americans changed heaps words in their print to fit American spelling, etc . . . now Tolkien (remembering that Tolkien was a professor of English, or something) had an absolute FIT that his work was changed just that tiny little bit (fair enough too, I say!!!) - so judging by this, I'd say he wouldn't have been fond of people mucking with his works - unless the movie was done PRECICELY as it was written in the book . . .

Entlover · 09-11-2002, 12:19 PM

Nonsense.

He was smart enough to know the difference between a movie and a book, and to know that they require different presentations.
Messing with the English language is quite another thing.

Sween · 09-11-2002, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Entlover
Nonsense.

He was smart enough to know the difference between a movie and a book, and to know that they require different presentations.
Messing with the English language is quite another thing.

yes but apprentally he was a bit of a @*$&

Entlover · 09-12-2002, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sween
yes but apprentally he was a bit of a @*$&

Was not.
He was merely assertive.
He was courteous, kind to children and the less educated; but he didn't tolerate fools.

niggle · 09-12-2002, 02:14 AM

What didn't impress him was that the first paperback edition of the book published in the states was a "pirate" edition. This forced him to revise LOTR into a second edition for paperback publication. He was able to use American fans quite effectively to mobilise opposition to the unauthorised edition and the publishers eventually paid him a royalty.

Interestingly this also happened to Charles Dickens whose books were widely pirated in the US. When he complained about it however, he was vilified by the American press, which explains why he became quite anti-American in "Martin Chuzzlewit" in particular

Vorernil · 09-12-2002, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Entlover
Nonsense.

He was smart enough to know the difference between a movie and a book, and to know that they require different presentations.
Messing with the English language is quite another thing.

Ah - quite true. U R quite right - I guess he wouldn't have been so unreasonable (perhaps I didn't think my post thru too hard!!!

)
I think he would have liked to retain a certain amount of creative control, thou . . .

sun-star · 09-12-2002, 01:35 PM

Quote:

yes but apprentally he was a bit of a @*$&

Why would you think that?

***Earniel*** · 09-12-2002, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Entlover
Nonsense. He was smart enough to know the difference between a movie and a book, and to know that they require different presentations. Messing with the English language is quite another thing.

Oh, he would no doubt have understood the difference. But I sincerely doubt that him knowing that would make him like the movie. I don't think he would have agreed with some of the changes as they were unnecesary to the story. I'm pretty convinced of the fact that - if he had been alive today- the movie Arwen would have given him a heart attack.

In all he might have liked the visual presentation, but I doubt he would have seen it as his LOTR.

jerseydevil · 09-12-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eärniel
Oh, he would no doubt have understood the difference. But I sincerely doubt that him knowing that would make him like the movie. I don't think he would have agreed with some of the changes as they were unnecesary to the story. I'm pretty convinced of the fact that - if he had been alive today- the movie Arwen would have given him a heart attack.

In all he might have liked the visual presentation, but I doubt he would have seen it as his LOTR.

YES!!! That is exactly how I feel about the movie.

Sween · 09-12-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sun-star
Why would you think that?

i saw a documentry about him one time. and my mates uncle or summet was taught by him and he said that he allways said he was a complete and utter ******. He said in particluar he was humorless.

He was a scollar and loved launage i dont he would like movies that much esspecially a movie about his book.

Aeryn · 09-12-2002, 06:35 PM

I completely agree with what some of y'all are sayin' I doubt that Tolkien would have seen it as his own LOTR, but I'm sure he would be impressed or at least like PJ's version. For the simple fact of it is sort of a movie master piece, alot of digital effects, beautiful sets, and one hot Legolas.

Did you know Orlando Bloom (Legolas) was in 'Black Hawk Down' as Blackburn? - tid bit of trivia

08-29-2002, 05:42 PM	#41
samwiselvr2008 Elf Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hobbiton Posts: 739	Well, I think that Tolkien would have ben happy with it, because PJ would have him see it before released, and let him be involved, so, he would probaly would have ben happy with it. I can't imagine PJ doing LOTR without him if he was still alive! __________________ Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES!

08-31-2002, 07:32 AM	#43
sun-star Lady of Letters Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England Posts: 2,476	It never would have been finished __________________ And all the time the waves, the waves, the waves Chase, intersect and flatten on the sand As they have done for centuries, as they will For centuries to come, when not a soul Is left to picnic on the blazing rocks, When England is not England, when mankind Has blown himself to pieces. Still the sea, Consolingly disastrous, will return While the strange starfish, hugely magnified, Waits in the jewelled basin of a pool.

09-03-2002, 08:59 AM	#44
*Earniel* The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium) Posts: 14,363	Possibly. If I remember correctly from 'Letters' he was seldom direclty pleased with illustrations. He also got very irritated with the animation of LOTR. I doubt he would have liked this movie. I also remember hearing that Christopher as literary heir opposed to the filming of LOTR. __________________ We are not things.

09-03-2002, 08:41 PM	#45
samwiselvr2008 Elf Lord Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hobbiton Posts: 739	I heard that PJ couldn't get ahold of Christopher though, so that was why he never asked him what he thought, in fact, he dose not even know if Christopher even ever saw the movie! But I don't think that PJ would have even started it without talking to Tolkien, no matter how long it took! __________________ Jesus loves you! Movie vewing count from the theater: Return of the King:9 Two Towers: 11 Fellowship: 13 FRODO LIVES!

09-07-2002, 12:42 AM	#46
niggle Hobbit Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 18	Could have been worse I'm sure Tolkien would disapprove - bitterly! You only need to read his letters to understand that. Does that matter - IMHO not a lot. Tolkien sold the film rights - the book as it stands is not filmable, therefore whoever filmed it was bound to make some changes. At least Jackson has kept the main plot lines and the major characters... He's even made three films out of the three books. In Hollywood terms that is sticking to the book with almost religious fanaticism. I'm reminded of an incident recorded in a biography of John Cleese, where he tells of meeting some American film types at some party in the states. They introduced themselves and told him they had bought the American rights to his "Fawlty Towers" scenario. "Oh yes" said Cleese - "and are you making any changes". "Only one" they replied "we've written Basil out" !!!!!! Jackson has not committed any comparable mutilation of Tolkien's book - of course most Tolkien fans will find things to cavill at, but the most valid criticism is of the film as a film. In my view most of the weaknesses in the film were caused by the inevitable tension between trying to stay true to the book, and trying to make a good film.

09-07-2002, 12:49 AM	#47
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	Good post, Niggle. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

09-09-2002, 11:50 PM	#48
jerseydevil I am Freddie/UNDERCOVER/ Founder of The Great Continent of Entmoot Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Plainsboro, NJ Posts: 9,431	Everyone knows my opinion by now. I think that Tolkien would not have liked the movie at all. And saying that the books are unfilmable is an excuse for the fact that PJ changed so much about the characters and their motivations that they become unrecognizable from the books. Yes - the scenery was flawless - wow he got one thing right in the movie. The rest he dumbed down for the mass audience so they they can eat it up like the candy it is. It tastes great - but does not fill you up at all and after too much just makes you downright sick. __________________ Come back! Come back! To Mordor we will take you! "The only thing better than a great plan is implementing a great plan" - JerseyDevil "If everyone agreed with me all the time, everything would be just fine"- JerseyDevil AboutNewJersey.com New Jersey MessageBoard Another Tolkien Forum Memorial to the Twin Towers New Jersey Map Fellowship of the Messageboard Legend of the Jersey Devil Support New Jersey's Liberty Tower Peacefire.org AboutNewJersey.com - New Jersey Travel and Tourism Guide Last edited by jerseydevil : 09-09-2002 at 11:51 PM.

09-11-2002, 12:26 AM	#49
niggle Hobbit Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 18	But Jerseydevil, the books are a mass audience phenomenon - voted Book of the century or whatever. This suggests that appealing to a mass audience does not always equate with "dumbing down". Without the potential mass audience appeal the film would never have been made! Sure Jackson changed elements - but isn't this common when making "the film of the book"? We could never expect to see our version of LOTR on screen, because my "best possible" version would differ from yours and everyone else's on this board. My point is this; the main question should be - does the film stand up as a film? The answer in my view is not entirely - although it's fun, and good entertainment, it's not the best film I've ever seen.

09-11-2002, 08:13 AM	#50
Vorernil Hobbit Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mirkwood Posts: 22	I heard from someone (so don't get mad at me if this isn't entirely true!) that when Tolkien's books began to be published in America for the first time - the Americans changed heaps words in their print to fit American spelling, etc . . . now Tolkien (remembering that Tolkien was a professor of English, or something) had an absolute FIT that his work was changed just that tiny little bit (fair enough too, I say!!!) - so judging by this, I'd say he wouldn't have been fond of people mucking with his works - unless the movie was done PRECICELY as it was written in the book . . . __________________ Diddle deeeee!!!

09-11-2002, 12:19 PM	#51
Entlover Elven Warrior Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 463	Nonsense. He was smart enough to know the difference between a movie and a book, and to know that they require different presentations. Messing with the English language is quite another thing.

09-12-2002, 02:14 AM	#54
niggle Hobbit Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 18	What didn't impress him was that the first paperback edition of the book published in the states was a "pirate" edition. This forced him to revise LOTR into a second edition for paperback publication. He was able to use American fans quite effectively to mobilise opposition to the unauthorised edition and the publishers eventually paid him a royalty. Interestingly this also happened to Charles Dickens whose books were widely pirated in the US. When he complained about it however, he was vilified by the American press, which explains why he became quite anti-American in "Martin Chuzzlewit" in particular

09-12-2002, 06:35 PM	#60
Aeryn Bank'ress of Sith Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a hot-hot place, heh Posts: 913	an opinion I completely agree with what some of y'all are sayin' I doubt that Tolkien would have seen it as his own LOTR, but I'm sure he would be impressed or at least like PJ's version. For the simple fact of it is sort of a movie master piece, alot of digital effects, beautiful sets, and one hot Legolas. Did you know Orlando Bloom (Legolas) was in 'Black Hawk Down' as Blackburn? - tid bit of trivia __________________ my new account name feigndeath. This one is deactivated, I think.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
English Paper Help	Lady Ravyn	The Life of J.R.R. Tolkien and his Other Works	22	03-31-2007 12:10 PM
In which way has Tolkien changed your life?	Jonathan	General Messages	11	01-28-2003 09:53 PM
The Sundering of the Tolkien Fans	Black Breathalizer	Lord of the Rings Movies	55	01-22-2003 01:27 PM
Asimov VS Tolkien	Niffiwan	Fantasy and Sci-Fi Novels	20	09-24-2000 08:36 PM