What would Tolkien raise his eyebrows at?

[Siberian]

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.

There were plenty of great adaptations before LOTR and HP (Gone with the Wind, To Kill a Mocking Bird, Godfather, to name a few).

Look at the kind of concessions the Jane Austen Society have made regarding her books.

Pretty much everything I've seen is fairly close to the books (with movies having to cut more stuff out, of course).

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.

Perhaps I should say "not very faithful" or not as faithful as they could have been.

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.

Look, no one expects a literal adaptation - it's not possible, even with the TV shows (although I wouldn't mind seeing miniseries with a season per book). I also realize there're certain things the general public expects from Hollywood blockbusters like action and battle scenes. That's all understandable and I love spectacle too. What baffles me is when PJ removes great scenes from the book and adds stuff that makes no sense. The Osgiliath scenes in TTT is a prime example. The scenes in the book were perfectly tense on their own, instead we get character assassination of Faramir and unbelievable moments with Nazgul. What's ironic, the scenes likely require more screentime than a more straightforward adaptation of the book would have. There're other moments like that, when Frodo believes Gollum over Sam and Sam decides to leave, Gandalf basically pushes Denethor into the fire, Gandalf loses to the Witch-king, Aragorn beheading the Mouth of Sauron, Ents being tricked into attacking Isengard, etc. I can't call any adaptation faithful if the characters act in a manner totally opposite of their nature. This is not simplification for the visual media, it's a pure travesty. Are viewers really so stupid they wouldn't appreciate more subtle drama or heroes actually being noble for a change? I think it's PJ who simply can't do movies without over the top melodrama and overlong action scenes.

I suppose it could have been worse... but it could have been so much better - with more proficient writers and less self-indulgent director.

 

[Thadlerian]

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).

The violence.

We're talking about a guy who witnessed the hell of the WW1 trenches. Imagine him seeing the Hobbit movies, with their sadistic, gleeful, carefree violence, cutting off heads for comedic effect - and how hungrily the audience devours it all.

It would have broke his heart.

 

[Siberian]

The violence.

We're talking about a guy who witnessed the hell of the WW1 trenches. Imagine him seeing the Hobbit movies, with their sadistic, gleeful, carefree violence, cutting off heads for comedic effect - and how hungrily the audience devours it all.

It would have broke his heart.

PJ is actually supposed to be a big WWI enthusiast... I'd have never guessed just going by the movies. And it's not just the careless violence but completely unbelievable combat scenes and military situations. Of course, if PJ based warfare on the actual history it would have been too realistic, and we don't want that do we? We want our heroes to be comic superheroes or maybe video game characters.

The problem is, the public is used to total stupidity as long as it's entertaining. On Halloffire, a poster was saying how Helm's Deep in the movies made more sense than what Tolkien wrote in the book! And this on a Tolkien oriented board! Facepalm, that's all I can say.

 

[Flyerman11]

Most people today want the type of movie that PJ has made, lots of action and a good deal of blood. Now even though I understand that this may have influenced Jackson to eviscerate the original stories, I can't help but think that had he been more faithful to the books he could still have made tons of $$$$. Case in point:

When my kid (14 then) first asked me about the LOTR books, I told him he'd probably be bored. "There's a lot of walking" I cautioned, thinking he'd not understand the story's nuances. Boy was I wrong! He absolutely loved the books.

So what would J.R.R. have thought of the movies: I think it's pretty clear he would have hated them. From what (little) I know of Tolkien, he would not have approved of the excessive violence or of the introduction of invented characters and chronological inconsistencies. e.g. Tauriel and Azog.

EDIT: Forgot to mention.
The treatment PJ gives to Bilbo would be among those (I believe) Tolkien would be most annoyed by. In particular the confrontation with the spiders of Mirkwood. It is here that Tolkien reveals the courage and wit that make Bilbo such an important character. It is my belief that Tolkien thoroughly liked Hobbits and would not care to have then diminished.

Just my two cents.

 

[andreasn]

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.

Tolkien wanted his world to actually feel like a world of that time period, and the music should reflect that, but the music in the movies while great, doesn't really do that. Howard Shores music in these movies is actually very modern and very much what we now see as fantasy music. If you listen to the music of the middle ages it was much more fast and much less dramatic in tone, it had none of the sweeping melodies that the lotr soundtrack has.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

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

I agree.

I enjoyed them, but they largely are contrary to Tolkien's view. The Scouring of the Shire was one of the most important bits of LOTR for Tolkien. Also the Battles the least important. More important was people's attitudes and motivations.

Also the Hobbit was a children's book. The Film, reasonably enough, is done in the style of the LOTR. I'd be happier with a single film or animated version than the the 3 part. But I will watch the last episode when it's release on DVD. I'll enjoy it by not thinking of Tolkien or the book.

 

[JoanDrake]

I agree.

I enjoyed them, but they largely are contrary to Tolkien's view. The Scouring of the Shire was one of the most important bits of LOTR for Tolkien. Also the Battles the least important. More important was people's attitudes and motivations.

Also the Hobbit was a children's book. The Film, reasonably enough, is done in the style of the LOTR. I'd be happier with a single film or animated version than the the 3 part. But I will watch the last episode when it's release on DVD. I'll enjoy it by not thinking of Tolkien or the book.

A major problem here is that very few authors like movie adaptations of their works because they're apples and oranges. They may be the same story but they are NOT the same thing. This is reflected by the fact that most film makers don't hire the original author to write the screenplay. It's almost a truism in the business that the result will usually be an expensive and useless white elephant. Tolkien's work was a complicated allegory on modernity vs traditionalism and an attempt to make a mythology for the 20th century. Jackson's a try to make the definitive Great Fantasy Adventure in the film format.

 

[Pyan]

Anyone remember the old TV "Black Beauty" series? In the credits, it said "With acknowledgements to the classic by Anna Sewell"

That's how I think of the LotR and Hobbit films. Same titles, mainly the same characters, but only a nod to the original storylines and dialogue...

On Halloffire, a poster was saying how Helm's Deep in the movies made more sense than what Tolkien wrote in the book! And this on a Tolkien oriented board! Facepalm, that's all I can say.

I actually saw a forum post somewhere criticising the "book of the film" for missing bits out, like the creation of the orcs and Aragorn falling off a cliff...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There are changes Jackson made to The Lord of the Rings that, I believe, made it a better movie than it would have been if he had not made those changes. There were others that I approved of in principle, but I didn't think the ideas were well executed, and still others I didn't understand at all. At those points in the movies it seemed to me that the film-makers were just writing their own story because they loved their own ideas so much and wanted to see them onscreen. And when they did that, the story suffered. Nevertheless, they managed to make three movies that I loved (most of the time).

With An Unexpected Journey, on balance I liked it very well. There were some things I loved, and some things I thought were not in the spirit of the book at all. I am of two minds about Radagast and the rabbits. If they had been adapting it as a children's movie, perhaps Tolkien would not have minded too much, although it was a quite unnecessary touch, so perhaps he would have hated it. Rather like the sandwiches in that screen adaptation they sent Tolkien during his lifetime, which he hated so much. And with most of the changes I believed they were trying too hard to make a prequel to The Lord of the Rings (the movies, not the books) and not a true adaptation of The Hobbit, and to stretch the story out to three movies when two would have been enough adding in the parts with the White Council (which was another thing I approved of on principle, but thought they handled in a very clunky way, and I think Tolkien would have raised his eyebrows at those). Without the White Council and Sauron, I think one three hour movie would have been enough.

As for the score, I thought Howard Shore did an amazing job for Lord of the Rings. Even though the music didn't sound to me like any music of Middle Earth, at least I found it moving. For An Unexpected Journey there were the main theme which I thought was good (and the way they sung it at Bag End did sound to me like it might be genuine music of Middle Earth) and "That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates," but everything else was a disappointment.

Still, I liked the movie well enough to watch it three times.

For The Desolation of Smaug, I cannot at this moment think of one change from the book that made a better movie. Looking for the tomb of the Witch King could have been good, but somehow it was lacking. I think the romance between Kili and Tauriel would have made Tolkien very angry. It was handled badly, too. The way that the elves killed most of the spiders, robbing Bilbo of his moment of glory, would have infuriated him, I think. I hated it, at least. The barrel journey with the elves and orcs along the way, the whole sequence at Lake Town, dividing up the dwarves so that some of them stayed in Lake Town and did not go with the others to the Lonely Mountain ... I think all those Tolkien would have hated. They were not in the spirit of the book at all.

The score did not improve. That may be because there were no places in the movie for the music to soar.

I will not be seeing that movie a second time.

They way they've set it up for There and Back Again, I think it will mostly be battles and slaughter: Smaug attacking Lake Town, The White Council vs. The Necromancer, The Battle of Five Armies. If that is indeed what the movie is like, I think it would have made Tolkien sick. I have a horrible feeling that Kili is going to die defending Tauriel instead of his uncle.

I have low, low expectations for this movie, but will go see it in the hope that it will be better than The Desolation of Smaug.

Tolkien did sell the movie rights, so in that sense it was his own fault if they made a hash of his story. But I believe I read that he didn't think it was possible to make a movie of The Lord of the Rings, so he felt safe doing so.

 

[Bick]

What would Tolkien have raised his eyebrows at? Not much I suspect... because like me, I imagine he would have walked out of the first Hobbit movie, and based on everything he'd heard about the second one, he would never have watched it.

I love the Tolkien books, just love them. I was very excited by the notion that LotR was being filmed. I liked that film trilogy when they were first released, but they don't stand the test of time for me. There are far too many problems with them, and I came to realise that in many ways, Jackson made a complete mess of them. I now can't watch great slabs of them, they grate too much. It's as though, metaphorically, I can now see the wires. So, when I heard the Hobbit was being filmed, I was a bit ambivalent. But I went to see the first film with my son. He was 7. Ideal for the Hobbit I thought - at least a film of the Hobbit should be perfect for a little boy (we had just read it as a bedtime story and he liked it). We had to leave the cinema - it was far too bloody and the dark tone was completely inappropriate for children (and unlike the book). My lad was scared and asked to leave. Tolkien would have wept at that, let alone raise his eyebrows. A film version of his charming children's book about elves, and trolls and little people, made too bloody for children to watch?! Good God, he'll be turning in his grave. The second movie sounds so bad, deviates from Tolkien's plot and tone so much, I have no interest in seeing it whatsoever, and for a huge fan of Tolkien's books to say that speaks volumes.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Jackson's Hobbit is very much a film for Adults done in same style as his LOTR. It probably sort of works if you are an Adult and don't know the book.

I have more difficulty with the recent TLTWTW and Prince Caspian. Seems to have almost none of the books' ethos and attempting to replicate LOTR films' battles?

 

[BAYLOR]

Writers tend to dislike the film adaptations of their work especially adaptations not done by them . Tolkien would probably have hated the film adaptations of LOTR and The Hobbit.