View Single Post
Old 01-01-2012, 09:27 AM   #7
Lalwendė
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendė's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,814
Lalwendė is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendė is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Tolkien is not alone. Alan Moore never watches the adaptations of his work. Even though some of them are awesome. That's just how it is when someone else's mind is putting their vision of the world and characters you created into another format. If writers were unhappy with this prospect they would not sell the film rights, and the end result is we would probably have half as many films to watch. The problem with Tolkien being involved is to put it bluntly, he was dead.

There are some notable writers who have been fully engaged in adaptations of their SF novels/stories/comics. JK Rowling is one, who though she hasn't written the scripts for the Harry Potter films, she has appeared at premieres and been involved in promotional work. George RR Martin even went so far as to write one of the episodes of HBO's A Game Of Thrones (and it was a superb episode, too) - though in fairness, he is also an expereinced scriptwriter and it's as specialised a skill as writing a novel. Davem tells me that Pullman also wrote a new scene for the film of Northern Lights (which goes by the name of The Golden Compass but I can't bring myself to call it that....).

Anne Rice wrote the script for Interview With A Vampire. Stan Lee appears in most of the modern Marvel films. Neil Gaiman writes scripts and novels, and his work has also been adapted, notably by Jane Goldman who rewrote the whole tone of Stardust into something much lighter and created a wonderful film. Gaiman says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by USA Today
"You have to find someone you trust and let them go on with it. The alternative is 'give me a check, and do whatever you want.' But the pain, if that goes wrong, is too great," he says.

Though many writers try to reassure themselves by divorcing themselves entirely from the film adaptations, Gaiman says the reach of movies is too powerful to ignore.

"On the one hand, it's very easy for a writer to say, 'Oh, they didn't destroy my book. Here's my book right here, and it's just fine.'

"But the truth is, maybe 2 million people have read Stardust. But 2 million people would see the Stardust movie if it was playing on TV during a wet afternoon in Germany," he says.
There's the rub. Tolkien sold the rights and was unable to be involved (just as Austen, Dickens and Shakespeare are unable to be involved in hundreds of adaptations), but what about his heirs?

The estate are not at all opposed to adaptation. Christopher Tolkien has said nothing derogatory about the films and helped with the radio version, and Tolkien himself helped with one adaptation of The Hobbit (of which there are many). Royd Tolkien also appeared in Jackson's RotK. And Joanna Tolkien approved of the Bakshi animation. I note - davem also told me about this, so any credit/brickbats to him please

As has been discussed many times on here, there are many things in the films which messed about with the story, but whether you accept and enjoy them as something fun to watch while lolling on the sofa is a different matter. I take them as highly enjoyable films which though they make me go "TCH!" quite a bit, do capture quite a lot of my own imaginings well (the Hobbits in particular) and which also have added something (my own mental picture of Saruman is something like a cross between The Master in late 70s Doctor Who and Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon, but Christopher Lee's vision added another idea I liked).

My ideal would have been several series of BBC adaptations, complete with weird depictions of Tom Bombadil and a Faramir that was like Robin Hood, but that wasn't ever going to happen. And even if it was, then no doubt Moffat would have got hold of it and ruined it.

I think that you cannot be driven by what any deceased writer would make of an adaptation because you simply cannot ever know what they would think. It's what you think that's important. Even your own vision that you gain from reading the books is wholly different to what Tolkien himself will have seen while writing late at night in his study - it's the nature of subcreation.

Yes, some fools will forever think that Legolas is a himbo who skateboards and Arwen is Xena-lite, but if they don't care to pick up the books then I don't much care what they think, either. They are probably the kind of people I spend my life avoiding. The good thing is we have lots of members on here who did see the films and did pick up the books and did form their own visions. Before the films (and the internet), being a Tolkien fan was a decidedly lonely thing.

Maybe it's just me being positive...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendė is offline   Reply With Quote