What would Tolkien raise his eyebrows at?

[Glen]

i saw the Hobbit move (part 1) t'other day. A few things I don't remember from the book. If I wasn't in the process of moving house I would probably re-read, but the chances of my putting my hands on that book right now are less than nil.

What differences between the book and the movie would Tolkien raise his eyebrows at? (Note: raising his eyebrows might not necessarily mean he would disapprove).

 

[Gordian Knot]

Oh he would disapprove alright! lololol The guy is sending bolts of ethereal lightning at Peter Jackson regularly. And probably a double dosage at his son for letting this travesty happen in the first place.

But then Tolkien would have been just as angry at the Lord of the Rings films. He was well known for his views on messing with his books. It is no accident that these films never happened until after J.R.R. died. His son, Christopher, is the one who okayed the films.

Which he called "crap" when they were released (that is not a direct quote, by the way). Which I always thought was quite crass since he and the estate made a gazillion bucks off of Jackson's movies.

 

[River Boy]

Probably almost everything.

The two things I'd imagine Tolkien would appreciate are 1. The artistry and 2. the music, both of which have consistently enrished our imaginations of Middle Earth.

The artistry especially is superbly done throughout all the films. The filmmakers seem to have an almost unshakable faith in the vision of the world that Tolkien had, but for some peculiar reason, not much faith in the characterisations.

I suspect Tolkien would be most confused by some of the characterisations, more so than any unnecessary subplots like the Azog entry. Most especially I'd point to Gandalf and his shy demeanour before the White Council, as well as coming across at the Dwaves dinner party as an apologetic advisor, rather than the no-nonsense General he seems to be in the book.

Gandalf in the book seems to be saying 'If you've got any brains you'll bloody well do this!' Whereas in the film we get, 'Maybe you should go to Rivendell, Thorin', and then they only get their by accident. Similarly, in Tolkien's White Council additions, though Saruman is the head of the Council the impression is that Gandalf is pressing the issue that the Necromancer might be Sauron and needs sorting out, much as, say, an MP might do in Parliament. And he certainly doesn't apologise for any of his so-called 'meddling' or seek permission for it.

 

[Joseph Gutierrez]

I think j r r tolkien was not concern about entertain people

I think he wanted to make art

 

[Cayal]

So basically we're just starting a thread of what we, as individuals, don't like about the movie and apply it to a guy who is not only dead, but none of us knew?

 

[River Boy]

So basically we're just starting a thread of what we, as individuals, don't like about the movie and apply it to a guy who is not only dead, but none of us knew?

I think it's a relevant question. Tolkien's work is widely praised and has a massive readership; it's interesting to ask whether the films match Tolkien's vision or if they've betrayed it at all, especially if, like me, you're interested in how stories are told.

 

[Cayal]

Which is simply what we like/dislike about the movies which I am sure has a number of threads related to it.

 

[hopewrites]

I agree, Cayal, that that is what this thread looks like it's turning into. Though I doubt that is what the OP intended. We would of course, be only giving our personal speculation about what JRRT would have thought. But that doesnt mean we couldnt set aside what we thought of the film to try and see it from his perspective.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Fair enough. No I never met Tolkien personally. I DID read his books when they were first widely available in the U.S. so I knew about them early on in his career. I DID pay attention to what was going on in Tolkien's life during the next decade or two. And I DID get to know through articles, interviews, etc. how he felt about his works in broad strokes.

My comments in the above post are not my opinion of what Tolkien thought. They are my remembrances of what Tolkien said. He was not shy giving his opinion. Tolkien was so possessive of his writings that he rarely accepted constructive criticism even from the prestigious literary writer's group he was a member of, The Inklings. Which included C.S. Lewis, amongst others.

Here is a statement by Christopher Tolkien during an interview just last month, which rather sums up the Tolkien family opinion of Peter Jackson.

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

Apologies if I'm a bit huffy at the moment. I try very hard to state clearly when I am giving my opinion versus when I am reciting the opinion of others.

For a very interesting read, here is the full article from which I quoted above:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-...arillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.UPIes47A7WN

 

[Cayal]

Fair enough. No I never met Tolkien personally. I DID read his books when they were first widely available in the U.S. so I knew about them early on in his career. I DID pay attention to what was going on in Tolkien's life during the next decade or two. And I DID get to know through articles, interviews, etc. how he felt about his works in broad strokes.

My comments in the above post are not my opinion of what Tolkien thought. They are my remembrances of what Tolkien said. He was not shy giving his opinion. Tolkien was so possessive of his writings that he rarely accepted constructive criticism even from the prestigious literary writer's group he was a member of, The Inklings. Which included C.S. Lewis, amongst others.

Here is a statement by Christopher Tolkien during an interview just last month, which rather sums up the Tolkien family opinion of Peter Jackson.

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

Apologies if I'm a bit huffy at the moment. I try very hard to state clearly when I am giving my opinion versus when I am reciting the opinion of others.

For a very interesting read, here is the full article from which I quoted above:

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-...arillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.UPIes47A7WN

Eviscerated but happy to sell the rights to make the movie. I guess disgust only goes so far.

 

[Glen]

I don't know much about Tolkien's life but read a lot of his stuff, probably thirty years ago, but read it all the same. I imagine him as a bit of a tweedy, bookish prof, but with a colourful creativity. He created so much! And I think his writing shows some sense of humour.

When I watched the movie I wondered if he would have liked the characterization of Bilbo, the trolls, and the dwarves.

Surely he would have raised his eyebrows in some astonishment at how todays filmmakers can represent alternate worlds.

 

[River Boy]

I took the question to be about author's vision, not about likes or dislikes. Don't see what the problem is with it, if you don't happen to have anything to contribute to it why hang around questioning the thread's existence?

Though we've only seen one-third of it, I suspect The Hobbit films will end up closer to Tolkien's vision as the book was largely written out of a spirit of adventure with a hint at a wider mythology. Whereas TLOTR blends interpretations of mythology, philology and - as Christopher Tolkien points out - a deeper philosophical meaning, such as with Tolkien's perspectives on mortality, the fall of man, and good and evil, which aren't really achieved by the films.

So perhaps Christopher Tolkien might actually prefer these films, but doubt he'll ultimately care to give them any credit considering he feels Jackson might have crucified Tolkien's vision already.

 

[HareBrain]

Eviscerated but happy to sell the rights to make the movie. I guess disgust only goes so far.

As I understand it, JRR Tolkien sold the right to make a film in the fifties or early sixties, and the rights have been sold around since: they've never passed back to the Tolkien estate. Christopher Tolkien had no say in agreeing them.

Tolkien sold the film rights before the book became massively successful, and when he needed money. It's clear from his published letters that he thought the project unlikely to succeed, and didn't expect to enjoy the result. I imagine that if you used a time machine to show Peter Jackson's films to a scholar in his sixties, at a time when the concept of the action film had barely been conceived, he would find them baffling, as would almost everyone else in that era.

 

[Gumboot]

Oh he would disapprove alright! lololol The guy is sending bolts of ethereal lightning at Peter Jackson regularly. And probably a double dosage at his son for letting this travesty happen in the first place.

But then Tolkien would have been just as angry at the Lord of the Rings films. He was well known for his views on messing with his books. It is no accident that these films never happened until after J.R.R. died. His son, Christopher, is the one who okayed the films.

As HareBrain pointed out, this is totally incorrect. Tolkien sold the film rights himself, while he was still alive (obviously), and he did it to cover his children's inheritance tax, which was rather high in the UK at the time.

Christopher Tolkien was pathologically opposed to any adaptation, so much so that he disowned his own son for daring to accept an invitation to observe the shooting of the original trilogy.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Quite right. J.R.R. sold the movie rights to both LotRs and the Hobbit to United Artists in 1968. My bad......

 

[Cayal]

Quite right. J.R.R. sold the movie rights to both LotRs and the Hobbit to United Artists in 1968. My bad......

What was the issue with getting the Hobbit started then? I thought it had something to do with the rights.

 

[Gordian Knot]

The answer in its most basic form is that Saul Zaentz had production rights to The Hobbit, but that distribution rights still belonged to United Artists (which had kept those rights, believing that filmmakers would prefer to adapt The Hobbit rather than The Lord of the Rings).

How the two were acquired separately is a mystery. But then much of what goes on behind the scenes in Hollywood is a mystery to most of us "normal" folks.

For further info, see the Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)

 

[Siberian]

Based on his letter regarding the proposed screenplay I'm pretty sure JRRT would have hated LOTR and Hobbit movies.

As for Tolkien Estate, they have to power to ok anything. I think they did prevent two of the more egregious changes (Arwen at Helm's Deep and Aragorn fighting Sauron). I wish Christopher was more local during LOTR running time so that people wouldn't think these movies are faithful adaptations of LOTR books.

 

[hopewrites]

so that people wouldn't think these movies are faithful adaptations of LOTR books.

Here's the thing though.
Look at what kind of Book to Film adaptations were happening before LOTR, and Harry Potter were running the show.
Look at the kind of concessions the Jane Austen Society have made regarding her books.

In comparison to the way things used to go (I feel the trend is coming round to the more faithful adaptations after recent successes. Marketers like making money after all.) these adaptations are quite faithful.

I understand this might seem like your spouse saying that they only watched porn, rather than hiring enough hookers to get every STD known to man, so they were being really faithful.
Jackson said from the outset he wouldnt be able to please everybody. That scenes and characters would have to be cut, or their roll reduced or altered. I get that. Books dont pace themselves the way movies do, the timing and exposition is like night and day.

If you have forgotten what Book to Movies used to be like, read The Hunchback of Notradome and then watch the cartoon. Read Pride and Prejudice and then watch the 1940's version with Lawrence Olivia. Hell, read Emma and then watch Clueless, that's one of the better adaptations pre-the-recent-revolution

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Tolkien was old school. He would have loathed everything new school.

In Humphrey Carter's biography of him there is a chapter that begins something like, "Fame baffled him..." :roll eyes: