Tolkien in General

Pettytyrant101 wrote:"I think he has found his feminine side."- Jane

Then he would be well advised to put it back where he found it! That sort of thing can lead to terrible confusion- look at poor Lorient.

I can safely say, that bolt flew straight over my head:-Jane

Your innocence is your shield Jane- and not a little suprising!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Your innocence is your shield Jane- and not a little suprising!

I almost think I should back track with open eyes. But women don't operate that way, as you should know by now, I'll just follow my intuition and put yor comment down to being a case of "males" only "sense", and not anythng an intelligent woman need disentangle:-Jane

I wonder what Tolkien would think of people who have never read the book but have seen the LotR movies? Secondly, would he approve of anything PJ added or changed?

In answer to the first question I think he could not help but be pleasantly flattered that his work was reaching new people in some form, many of whom would subsequnetly turn to his book- and how it loooked would have flabbergasted him of course. Unfortuntely your second question would also have taken a bit of the shine off it. However having seen some of the previous ideas presented to him for making a film version he might have felt that whilst all PJ's changes were terrible and wrong (as I'm sure he would have) that it was also not as bad as it could have been given previous attempts.
I think like a lot of his literary generation he never really got why people would want to turn a book into a film when you could just read the original book which was always better. At least thats the sentiment I get from reading his responses to varies film proposals put to him over the years.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:In answer to the first question I think he could not help but be pleasantly flattered that his work was reaching new people in some form, many of whom would subsequnetly turn to his book- and how it loooked would have flabbergasted him of course. Unfortuntely your second question would also have taken a bit of the shine off it. However having seen some of the previous ideas presented to him for making a film version he might have felt that whilst all PJ's changes were terrible and wrong (as I'm sure he would have) that it was also not as bad as it could have been given previous attempts.
I think like a lot of his literary generation he never really got why people would want to turn a book into a film when you could just read the original book which was always better. At least thats the sentiment I get from reading his responses to varies film proposals put to him over the years.

I think he would have been happy with some change, but replacing perfectly filmable stuff with PJ's puerile "creative" stuff would have made him feel quite insulted.

From prior reading I remember thinking that the way the orcs spoke to be unrealistic- I found it comical! For example at the hornbug. So I'm glad Pj didn't copy that from Tolkien!


I love the movie, and thought that cinematically that the movie was breathtaking. Significant changes from the story is (and understandably) a sore spot for those of us who are really into Tolkien's work, y'know, who actually read other books by him than the hobbit and LOTR, but meh, awesome film! (That's what Tolkien might say probably!)

It may be the buckie speaking but I'd pay to see some grainy old footage of Prof Tolkien in his tweed suit, smoking his pipe discussing the films and suddenly turning to the camera giving a big thumbs up and saying "Awesome" like Bill and Ted!
(Never happen of course he'd be to unhappy but I'd still laugh my guts out if I saw it)

But the way that the main characters were portrayed (too many characters really, Merry and Pippin are not main characers!) was still pretty faithful to Tolkien!

Hobbits: Still come through from their nice Shire routes showing their braveness but still remain light hearted in nature

Frodo: Finds courage after being so scared of his appointed task (I can't do it Sam) and him and Sam show the value of true friendship in the face of adversity.

I still see these themes in the films! Plus the films deal with addiction aspect of the ring much better than the films, I think PJ shows the addictive power of the ring to tempt peeps in Middle Earth like the ring bearer etc, excellently!

Thank god for PJ!

Oh Ally. So wrong I fear!

Main characters- Faramir- a different sor tof man entriely.

'Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly whtat this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.'

This is the exact opposite of PJ's Faramir. And I don't feel I need to go over again all thats wrong with Deenthor. And if those are not 'main' enough for you there is the awful portrayal of Gimli as a comic device, Legolas being a superbeing of some sort- can't just be because he is an elf, there a whole battalion of elves can't even survive Helms Deep Leoglas can take whole Mumakil down single handed. And Merry and Pippin ARE main characters in the book- that you consider the film versions not to be says it all right there.

Hobbits: Still come through from their nice Shire routes showing their braveness but still remain light hearted in nature

Frodo of the book doesn't remain lighthearted he is haunted by loss and his own sense of failure, a failure snatched from him by PJ in the whole dangling of the Cracks of Doom fiasco. And without the Scouring the entire hobbits character story arc is left unresolved and one of the main themes of the book is completely lost.

"Scouring of the Shire...is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset.." Tolkien

Frodo: Finds courage after being so scared of his appointed task (I can't do it Sam) and him and Sam show the value of true friendship in the face of adversity.

And what does Frodo choosing Smeagol over Sam in the middle of Mordor and sending Sam 'back' which would have in actuality been a death sentence, given where they are at the time. Also not giving Sam his scene wearing the Ring takes away showing Sam's entire temptation bit and reduces his understanding from that point on, which he has in the book, of what it is his master is going through. Plus PJ gives almost no time at all -about 10 mnnutes- to the entire journey of Frodo and Sam in RotK prior to Mount Doom. Shocking.

Plus the films deal with addiction aspect of the ring much better

I present for the jury the above loss of Sam's temptation to become addicted to the Ring and turn Middle-earth into a garden and the Tower of Cirith Ungol in which PJ changed Tolkiens excellent scene between Frodo and Sam in post according to the commentary because, it was too much of the addiction stuff.

"You've got it?" gasped Frodo. 'You've got it here? Sam, you're a marvel!' Then quickly and strangely his tone changed. 'Give it to me!'
he cried standing up, holding out a trembling hand. 'Give it me at once! You can't have it!'
'All right, Mr Frodo,' Sam said, rather startled, 'Here it is!' Slowly he drew the Ring out.....'You'll find the Ring very dangerous now, and very hard to bear. If it's too hard a job, I could share it with you, maybe?'
'No, no!' cried Frodo, snatching the Ring and chain from Sam's hands, 'No you won't, you thief.' He panted, staring at Sam with eyes wide with fear and emnity.'

Bad job PJ. I rest my case.

Uh huh, now I'm not saying the films are perfect, well maybe that Tolkien would cringe at some of the scenes (the Merry/Pippin/Gimli stuff), but I'm sure that he'd appreciate some of the captivating acting (I think he'd of loved Ian Mckellen and Ian Holm!) and some of the awesome scenes which show good and evil, I think he would have loved the elvish language too in the film, even if there were a few changes! So yeah, for an adaption, and considering how pessimistic Tolkien was- he would that his Lord of the Rings would be gone completely by a popular film adaption- but this takes a lot of tolkien, lots of other stuff, and makes a critcually acclaimed movie which has shaped the last decade!!



Not bad going Pj.

"Not bad going Pj."- Ally

Yes but it could have been good.....

Ally wrote:Uh huh, now I'm not saying the films are perfect.

And nor do I...

Ally wrote:well maybe that Tolkien would cringe at some of the scenes (the Merry/Pippin/Gimli stuff).

Quite possible.

Ally wrote:but I'm sure that he'd appreciate some of the captivating acting (I think he'd of loved Ian Mckellen and Ian Holm!).

I don't see why not but who knows?

Ally wrote: and some of the awesome scenes which show good and evil,.

That's always good to have.

Ally wrote: I think he would have loved the elvish language too in the film, even if there were a few changes! .

Who knows? I disliked the subtitles, which sadly, Petty left some of in his megaedit. I guess, not all of us are perfect (especially Petty).

Ally wrote:So yeah, for an adaption, and considering how pessimistic Tolkien was- he would that his Lord of the Rings would be gone completely by a popular film adaption- but this takes a lot of tolkien, lots of other stuff, and makes a critcually acclaimed movie which has shaped the last decade!!.

Popular with the Masses at the time. Posterity will judge - and negatively. Fashion and Quality are not often the same thing.

Ally wrote:Not bad going Pj.

Made lots of money. History will tell if it's a great movie. CGI was cutting edge. But CGI will continiue to improve. When LotR CGI becomes old hat, the script itself will come under closer scrutiny. It was written as the film was being filmed - and it shows, but only to anyone with an idea of how "story", especially realistic story, should be done. (Don't mean to say that in a pompous way, but I'm right )

Ally wrote: '... I think he would have loved the elvish language too in the film, even if there were a few changes!'

I disagree, because...

A) the Elvish in the films largely wasn't Tolkien's but fan-invented Neo-elvish actually -- and not in addition to Tolkien's authentic constructions, but largely in replacement of actual Tolkien-made Elvish.

B) the Neo-elvish was of a different order than Tolkien's Elvish, and I don't mean with respect to grammar or vocabulary. But...

But this provides yet another example of how little appreciation Jackson had for the tone and "feel" of Tolkien's work. Yes, Jackson went to considerable length to include Elvish in the movie: but he did so mostly by _discarding_ Tolkien's _own_ Elvish exemplars -- which, please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else).

Carl Hostetter

Oh and Tolkien is completely realistic too...

Not really

We seem to have divided ourselves between Tolkien and PJ fans. They are two different things it seems.

I like them both. I view the movie as great and outstanding as a movie. I can be critical of it when I wan to though. I love the book as well. I do believe some of you on here are a lot more critical of PJ than I think he deserves. He did a great job. Getting the general story and feel of the book was amazing. When you get down to saying "he made the book come to life" is definetly far from accurate. He did what he could and i believe he did a better job than anyone else could have. So on that note I will defend him from the major ridicule from Orwell and Petty. It definitely wasn't perfect and it strays from the book a lot. It did get the feeling of Middle earth down and the General feel of the story.

Lorient Avandi wrote:I like them both. I view the movie as great and outstanding as a movie. I can be critical of it when I wan to though. I love the book as well. I do believe some of you on here are a lot more critical of PJ than I think he deserves. He did a great job. Getting the general story and feel of the book was amazing. When you get down to saying "he made the book come to life" is definetly far from accurate. He did what he could and i believe he did a better job than anyone else could have. So on that note I will defend him from the major ridicule from Orwell and Petty. It definitely wasn't perfect and it strays from the book a lot. It did get the feeling of Middle earth down and the General feel of the story.

His greatest cime was adding stuff that had nothing to do with Tolkien. If you want write your own movie, fine, but don't cal it an adaptation, call it what it was, a rip off.

Nothing really wrong with that. It's an adaption. Iprefer to look at them as separate worlds. One is PJs middle earth the other tolkien's. When I do think of them together, I can find many faults with pj's though.

Lorient Avandi wrote:I do believe some of you on here are a lot more critical of PJ than I think he deserves. He did a great job. Getting the general story and feel of the book was amazing.

What exactly is this "general feel of the story" that PJ was so faithful to? I've seen a lot of different people trot out this argument on a lot of different forums and, strangely enough, they all seem to have quite different notions of this "feel", despite usually claiming that it's extremely obvious (though, clearly, in this case you did not).

Ok I don't know what I was thnking when I used the word "amazing" but he still did a good job with the general story. There were several parts he had problems with but he got the general story and feel. The movie series is my favorite movie series of all time, but like I said before I view it as the LOTR movie and, not as LOTR.

I personally believe that that's the way it should be. Ifyou want the book's Exact story, then read it. Theres not a huge point in making a movie the exact same way as the book. Otherwise there'd be no reason to read the book. This is my opinion though.

Surely the point of making a film of a book is to see the book in the flesh. To create a visualiation of the books story? Not to just write your own story and use the books name?

Tolkien books

http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/208?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TcgNews+%28Tolkien+Collector%27s+Guide+News%29

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/08/27/47681-new-release-%E2%80%9Ctolkien-and-the-study-of-his-sources%E2%80%9D/

Elthir wrote:

Ally wrote: '... I think he would have loved the elvish language too in the film, even if there were a few changes!'

I disagree, because...

A) the Elvish in the films largely wasn't Tolkien's but fan-invented Neo-elvish actually -- and not in addition to Tolkien's authentic constructions, but largely in replacement of actual Tolkien-made Elvish.

B) the Neo-elvish was of a different order than Tolkien's Elvish, and I don't mean with respect to grammar or vocabulary. But...

But this provides yet another example of how little appreciation Jackson had for the tone and "feel" of Tolkien's work. Yes, Jackson went to considerable length to include Elvish in the movie: but he did so mostly by _discarding_ Tolkien's _own_ Elvish exemplars -- which, please note, are almost entirely in the form of songs, poems, spells, and exclamations made in crisis or _de profundis_ that are used sparingly so as to punctuate the story and to not cheapen the effect of the Elvish -- and instead substituting for them long passages of made-up "Elvish" (however skillfully) constituting (mostly banal) _dialogue_ of the sort entirely _missing_ from Tolkien's own application of Elvish in his story (or anywhere else).

Carl Hostetter

Well sure, I can't argue with that, but I still feel Jackson did a fine job captruing the themes and feeling of the books in his films, and despite the few bad exceptions which do not spoil the films for me!

"Made lots of money. History will tell if it's a great movie. CGI was cutting edge. But CGI will continiue to improve. When LotR CGI becomes old hat, the script itself will come under closer scrutiny. It was written as the film was being filmed - and it shows, but only to anyone with an idea of how "story", especially realistic story, should be done. (Don't mean to say that in a pompous way, but I'm right"

I think it will be a great movie. Off the top of my head I can think of numerous so called 'classic films' all with major plot changes from the original book- Jane Eyre (after learning of Bertha Jane leaves Thornfield, does not meet cruel villagers of the nice Rivers family, instead she runs off to Mrs Reed's beside who is dying- which actually happens earlier in the book. The second half of The Grapes of Wrath, the 1940's version of Pride and Prejudice. Many amazing based on books films have some invented scenes which alter the story arc, some with rushed concluding endings with a voice-over which leave major plot developments, but they are still considered good films of the time (well by me at least) and I do believe that PJ's LOTR will go down in history as a defining movie in the history of the fantasy genre!