Tolkien's Opinion

[Tahquamenon]

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

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

[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

[durinsbane2244]

good show old boy! lol...good ol' hobbit sense, eh sam? i agree...

[BeardofPants]

What are you talking about? He would have been anally neurotic about it. Read Letters - it's all there. He was a neurotic bastard at the best of times.

[durinsbane2244]

and a devout Catholic...

[Earniel]

... and dreadfully protective about his writings. Jackson may very well have thanked his lucky stars that Tolkien wasn't around anymore when this movie was made.

[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.

[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.

[KingTheoden]

hi all

Originally Posted by Sam

...I think Tolkien would enjoy parts and dissagree with others.

i have the same opinion.


however the works of PJ are very successful. the battles are uproariouses, the set is fantastic...the cast is SUPER!!!



Theoden

[Jon S.]

Since Tolkien previously sold the movie rights for peanuts, I think it's safe to speculate his opinion might have been different than if he had kept them and collected royalties.

[GreyMouser]

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'm not sure about that- he did write the story of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendix, and he was obssessed with Luthien and Beren, so he might agree that it needed to be included, though certainly not PJ's version

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.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

I don't know, I think he would've liked it. The core of the story is still there. The overwhelming odds to defeat Sauron. The friendship of the hobbits and all of the Fellowship. I'm sure he would've got a kick outta the battle scenes and how could he not like the portrayal of Sam done by Sean Astin. He did a helluva job IMO.

[Elfhelm]

I don't think he liked the idea of novel adaptations in general. I really don't think he would have liked any of it. I imagine his take on the Rankin & Bass might have been a bit harsher than his take on the Bakshi or the Jackson, but I doubt he would have liked any of them.

[King of The Istari]

Thats not what people who knew him or have written about him etc have said, look at the extended edition appendicies, they all say he'd love 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.

--

[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.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Imagining....

Yikes.

Seriously though, I remember one of his biggest beefs with Zimmerman was his tweeking of the characters; the plot was bad, but that was nothing next to the characters.

With that in mind, let us ponder Faramir, shall we...and then Aragorn...Arwen...

BB, I think you have it right.