If Tolkien were alive today...

[Gerbil]

Just posting in the awards thread made me think of something.
There, I basically stated my belief that if Tolkien were alive today, the music is the one part of the whole film lot that he'd appreciate and quite possibly love.

Now, obviously he'd be less pleased about the story - given how much of a perfectionist he was, but this begs the question (to me it does, anyway!)....

If Tolkien were alive today, would New Line have deliberately shut him out of the film-making / screenplay writing process?

I honestly think they would, given both the knowledge that he's a perfectionist, and (to their mind) has no idea of what people want to see on the screen - IE he's not the man to be behind adapting book to screen.

Or, more interestingly, they'd have him on board to start with, then get annoyed at him 'meddling' and distance him more and more from any practical input.

I still can't think of the changes they made to Gandalf, Denethor and (more importantly) Aragorn without cringing, so Eru Alone knows what a certain JRRT would think.

[Wayfarer]

Well, if Tolkien was alive today, he would have done as he did before his death and retain ultimate control over the filmmaking process,

In my mind, this is the real failure- not what was done with the film, but the fact that those owning the liscence didn't make sure there was someone in charge who knew what was going on.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Just posting in the awards thread made me think of something.
There, I basically stated my belief that if Tolkien were alive today, the music is the one part of the whole film lot that he'd appreciate and quite possibly love.

Now, obviously he'd be less pleased about the story - given how much of a perfectionist he was, but this begs the question (to me it does, anyway!)....

If Tolkien were alive today, would New Line have deliberately shut him out of the film-making / screenplay writing process?

I honestly think they would, given both the knowledge that he's a perfectionist, and (to their mind) has no idea of what people want to see on the screen - IE he's not the man to be behind adapting book to screen.

Or, more interestingly, they'd have him on board to start with, then get annoyed at him 'meddling' and distance him more and more from any practical input.

I still can't think of the changes they made to Gandalf, Denethor and (more importantly) Aragorn without cringing, so Eru Alone knows what a certain JRRT would think.

Yes they would shut him out, but only for one reason. When writing a screenplay it is the common recommendation that the the author of the book being adapted to not be involved or writing the screenplay. This is done the majority of the time, because the original authors have a harder time cutting things that need to be cut and adding things that need to be added to make it a succesful movie. If you look over the history of film making 9 times out of 10, when an original author writes the screenplay for his/her book it fails to be a good film...

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think Tolkien would want a movie made in the first place.

[Gerbil]

Maybe, but let's not forget he did sell the rights to a movie while he was alive, so it would be hard to take that back
I think he was 'ok' selling it (and for such a low price) because he deemed the books unfilmable.

Of course, his opinion there wouldn't have changed seeing PJ's wild adaptation, but I think AT THE TIME he thought it was unfilmable because of the scale. We now know that that has not prevented it being filmed, and indeed PJ has got the 'scale' of the film right. The unfilmable part is apparently staying accurate to people and motivations, which to be honest is probably going to remain 'unfilmable' in that sense, mostly because anyone who's been given enough money to make a LotR film will undoubtedly have ideas of their own where the story should go.
As a result, we have PJ and co's butchering of people and motivations.

I do feel that, while beaering in mind what Dunedain said (which I was not aware of, so that was an interesting fact), I do not think they could have ignored the author of one of the greatest works of literature ever when making the film (assuming he was alive).

Having said that, it's quite possible he'd have done like his son, and simply refused to be part of it (although look what happened with the cartoon - he didn't resist for long, although given their original draft of the screenplay I can't say I blamed him).

Having said that, I think of all the things that were changed, the only REAL issue he might have had (or rather, the biggest issue, and a real show-stopper at that) would have been Aragorn being a cowardly yellow-bellied old man, which serves no purpose and is a huge departure from the books of such a magnitude it's near impossible to comprehend PJ's logic behind it.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Gerbil
Maybe, but let's not forget he did sell the rights to a movie while he was alive, so it would be hard to take that back
I think he was 'ok' selling it (and for such a low price) because he deemed the books unfilmable.

Of course, his opinion there wouldn't have changed seeing PJ's wild adaptation, but I think AT THE TIME he thought it was unfilmable because of the scale. We now know that that has not prevented it being filmed, and indeed PJ has got the 'scale' of the film right. The unfilmable part is apparently staying accurate to people and motivations, which to be honest is probably going to remain 'unfilmable' in that sense, mostly because anyone who's been given enough money to make a LotR film will undoubtedly have ideas of their own where the story should go.
As a result, we have PJ and co's butchering of people and motivations.

I do feel that, while beaering in mind what Dunedain said (which I was not aware of, so that was an interesting fact), I do not think they could have ignored the author of one of the greatest works of literature ever when making the film (assuming he was alive).

Having said that, it's quite possible he'd have done like his son, and simply refused to be part of it (although look what happened with the cartoon - he didn't resist for long, although given their original draft of the screenplay I can't say I blamed him).

Having said that, I think of all the things that were changed, the only REAL issue he might have had (or rather, the biggest issue, and a real show-stopper at that) would have been Aragorn being a cowardly yellow-bellied old man, which serves no purpose and is a huge departure from the books of such a magnitude it's near impossible to comprehend PJ's logic behind it.

Well typically speaking, authors usually don't charge a lot of money when they sell their rights to have their book adapted. In fact some authors, like Stephen King, have sold their rights for $1. The reasoning is that they expect to earn more off of a spike in books being bought after the film is released. Case and point, LotR's books sold a ridiculous amount over the past few years compared to the previous decades! Also, sometimes rights are given with a % of the cut on the backend and with a time period of how long the rights are good for per this said person "buying" them, but typically the rights don't cost too much.

If Tolkien were alive, I don't think they would completely shut him out. Sometimes the authors are brought in as consultants, but not to help in the writing. I also think Christopher Tolkien reacts to things much differently than his father, but who really knows

As far as the Aragorn thing, he is my favorite character in the books. I'm not too disappointed with the path them gave him in the movies, and I think they did so only for the fact that it adds a more dramatic element to it. Also, there are parts in the book where he questions himself and it happens on a number of occasions, so it can go either way. I think they just took that angle and played it up a bit more, because it would translate better on the screen. Remember, some things that we love about the books just wouldn't have that same dramatic effect and feeling as it would on screen, compared to the page. That is in essence the toughest thing in adapting a book to film. The writers have to make changes, that the readers most likely won't agree with, in order for it to translate on screen. Now, I am not defending PJ & Co., even though I enjoyed the movies a lot, but I am just saying in general from the screenwriting aspect of things...

[Gerbil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well typically speaking, authors usually don't charge a lot of money when they sell their rights to have their book adapted. In fact some authors, like Stephen King, have sold their rights for $1. The reasoning is that they expect to earn more off of a spike in books being bought after the film is released.

As far as I'm aware Tolkien sold the rights only because he needed the money, simple as that, so took what he could get.
I doubt he would have sold them if he hadn't needed the cash, and quite possibly the only thing that made him feel able to do so was that LotR was, he deemed, unfilmable.

Of course, initially they were going to turn it into a cartoon, and you should read his letters to see what he thought of THAT (although granted what they actually churned out in the end was nothing like their original proposal aftrer Tolkien had 'set them straight' on afew things ).

[Tuor of Gondolin]

While there are obviously numerous bits in the films JRRT would not have liked I believe he would have appreciated the "relative" effort of the movies to generally keep to the storyline and the casting and cinemetography. For a comparison, read over "Letters" #210:
(excerpt):
"...the Eagles are again introduced. I feel this to be a wholly unacceptable tampering with the tale.[Tolklien's italics] 'Nine walkers' and they immediately go to the air! The intrusion achieves nothing but incredibility, and the staling of the device of the eagles when at last they are really needed. It is well within the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and arduous journey, in secrecy, on foot, with the three ominousmountains getting nearer.
Z [movie producer Morton Grady Zimmermann] does not seem interested in seasons or scenery...
Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs?...
The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis."

Oh, and while I agree that Saruman's (if not Sharkey's) End should have been more clearly wrapped up in ROTK movie, consider this JRRT observation:
"Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay until you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!' "

(Not all that much different from the beginning of ROTK).

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
While there are obviously numerous bits in the films JRRT would not have liked I believe he would have appreciated the "relative" effort of the movies to generally keep to the storyline and the casting and cinemetography. For a comparison, read over "Letters" #210:
(excerpt):
"...the Eagles are again introduced. I feel this to be a wholly unacceptable tampering with the tale.[Tolklien's italics] 'Nine walkers' and they immediately go to the air! The intrusion achieves nothing but incredibility, and the staling of the device of the eagles when at last they are really needed. It is well within the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and arduous journey, in secrecy, on foot, with the three ominousmountains getting nearer.
Z [movie producer Morton Grady Zimmermann] does not seem interested in seasons or scenery...
Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs?...
The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis."

Oh, and while I agree that Saruman's (if not Sharkey's) End should have been more clearly wrapped up in ROTK movie, consider this JRRT observation:
"Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay until you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!' "

(Not all that much different from the beginning of ROTK).

That last part is interesting, I wonder if they read Letters and that one specifically...

[Fewin Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think Tolkien would want a movie made in the first place.

same here...i don't think he'd want his story edited. he had his reasons why he created each and every character and made each and every scene in the story. he probably wouldn't want tom bombadillo omitted.

[dawningoftime]

You know we can speculate on how Tolkien would have felt about PJ interpretations of the film. I think in a lot of ways the fans have become the true keepers of the story. We like to think we know what Tolkien would want but the reality of it is we don't. I have heard Tolkiens grandchildren say their grandfather would be really proud his book had been made into a movie.

[Gerbil]

I'm not convinced - during his lifetime he saw that making a film (granted animation given the technology of the time) was simply a means of making some money for his old age. His 'letters' show ample dismay at the whole process (which ultimately had some effect - the things he hints at regarding their original screenplay is truly awful in it's implications on diversion from the text - see example earlier in this thread).

I think he'd have been astounded at the VISUAL impact of the film - the technology does his vision justice. I also truly believe he'd have loved the music, most of the casting and much of the acting.
However, the key underpinning of the lot, the screenplay, would 'undoubtedly' have made him have kittens.*

* Which is no bad thing, kittens are cute. But it's still an extreme shock.

[Kalimac]

**As far as I'm aware Tolkien sold the rights only because he needed the money, simple as that, so took what he could get.
I doubt he would have sold them if he hadn't needed the cash, and quite possibly the only thing that made him feel able to do so was that LotR was, he deemed, unfilmable.**

Well, I'm old enough to actually remember when Tolkien was alive.
I'm not sure where you dreamed up the above fantasy. Tolkien never thought that his books were unfilmable at all. He also had the option of retaining Artistic Control over any or all films that were created . . but he CHOSE not to (it wasn't necessary to completely sell off all rights at all, deals can or are made all the time giving the writer artistic control over the material. There is a Letter that provides details about his choice . . Art or Cash . . he chose Cash.) . . He wanted films to be made of his work . . he just didn't know how to do it. Also by the time Tolkien got around to trying to sell the film rights . . no one was all that interested in attempting it. Bakshi gave it go . . and I believe was in contact with either JRR Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien during the process. And, we all know how Bakshi's films ended up.

[Gerbil]

Then you've not read much of Letters, where he states both of the points I mentioned. Not to mention Christopher says the same, although TBH I can't remember the source of his comments.

[Kalimac]

Really now . . .


"But it looks as if business might be done. Stanley Unwin (publisher) and I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations." -Letter #202. To Christopher. Sept. 11, 1957.

Of course the deal fell through . . no cash . . no art . . no interest . . Tolkien sold for what he could get (interest in his work was beginning to wane in the late 60's from the studios perspective . . fantasy wasn't exactly a favored meduim.)

He also had less of a problem with the idea that 'someone' else would be writing the 'screenplay' than young people today think . . he understood that people need the 'freedom' to create with 'no strings' attached.

" . . can a tale not conceived dramatically but (for lack of a more precise term) epically, be dramatized -- unless the dramatizer is given or takes liberties, as an independent person?" -Letter #194. To Terrence Tiller. November 6, 1956.

[olorin]

Hmm...touche', kalimac. I think JRRT would have enjoyed the films. Seeing some aspects of his work brought vividly to life would have pleased him. (Not that he would not cried (in sorrow) over a few things though)

[Gerbil]

Yes but at the same time he complained ceaselessly about the changes that were made. I don't have the book to hand so can't quote quotes, but you obviously have it, so I don't need to prod you any further
But he was a perfectionist, and clearly couldn't leave any proposed screenplay alone because it deviated from his own works.

[Thorin II]

I suspect JRRT would've been asked to act as a consultant, but since he the studio didn't need to give him any creative control, I don't imagine he would've wanted to be involved. Like his son did, he could've stayed out of the project and just enjoyed the huge spike in book revenues.