Do you think Tolkien would be insulted by the LOTR movies?

[The Saucepan Man]

When I read Tolkien's Letters a while back, I found his thoughts concerning the film then planned most enlightening.

However, while it is clear from what he says in that letter that there are many aspects of Jackson's films that would have displeased Tolkien, it is also very clear that the screenplay which Tolkien was commenting on was a very different kettle of fish to the trilogy which Jackson made. Zimmerman's script seems in many ways to be aimed at "disneyfying" the Book, whereas Jackson largely avoided this.

And I think that you apply some of Tolkien's criticisms of the Zimmerman screenplay to Jackson's films rather out of context. For example:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Second, the Witch-King Gandalf scene. As Tolkien explains they have no power of the fearless, Gandalf is one of the few Fearless ones. He was the LONE PERSON to stand against the Witch-king when he broke the gate. The scene with the encounter of the movie shows fear in Gandalf and goes totally against Tolkien's views on the powers of the nazgul.

Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King occurs at a time when he had been "raised to the stature of Vol. III". Tolkien envisaged that the Witch-King was "powered-up" for the attack on Gondor and Jackson portrays this nicely in the scene in Minas Morgul where he dons his armour. It is therefore not completely out of line with Tolkien's conception of the Nazgul that the Witch-King would represent a severe obstacle, if not a match, for Gandalf in this scene.

Similarly:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

Z .... has intruded a ’fairy castle’ and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Faramir).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I practically bolded this whole excerpt because most of this stuff Jackson does. Irrelevant magic...fight between Gandalf and Saruman, Saruman's fireball.

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between Jackson's changes in this regard and the intrusion of fairy castles, multiple Eagles and floating Faramirs.

And:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

... and the whole of ’Mount Doom’ has disappeared in the distorted confusion that Z has made of the ending.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

And the choppy 30 minute ending could show the "distorted confusion of the ending."

None of the changes that Jackson made are anything like as drastic as the removal of "the whole of 'Mount Doom'". The 20 minute ending was, I think, Jackson's best attempt to capture the spirit of the end of the book. Given that some of the worst criticism of the trilogy (from film critics) is that it takes too long to end, I can certainly see why the Scouring was left out. I think it is unfair, however, to say that the films do not adequately represent the journey of the Ringbearer. Tolkien's criticism of this aspect of the Zimmerman screenplay seems to be based on the disappearance of 'Mount Doom'. Something that Jackson certainly cannot be accused of.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It's nothing like the things we know on balrogs.

Ah, but how much do we know about Balrogs ...? The film Balrog certainly seems to be an accurate representation of many people's (inclusing my) visualisation of the Balrog from the book (even if not strictly cannonical). And it certainly doesn't seem to suffer from the same poor realisation that Zimmerman's sneering Balrog seems to have suffered.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

This is one of the biggest faults Tolkien would find in the movies (I think). The altering of dialogue, switching lines with people, and just making up your own dialogue. Tolkien would not be very fond of this, he makes it clear here, that to him his dialogue is important and a necessity to plot and scenery.

Agreed. But Tolkien was not a writer of screenplays ...

As, indeed, the following comment shows:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Company leading to the ’heroic’ matter. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things.

Portraying the two threads of the story sequentially, while it works well in a book, would have worked disastrously on screen. The same point applies to his suggestion that the Battle of the Hornburg is less important than the story of Merry, Pippin and the Ents. He may not have liked the idea of his book being made into an "action" film (even a superior one, which I believe Jackson's trilogy is), but it is difficult to see it enjoying the same success if done differently (and, when stumping up the kind of investment required for these films, studios and investors want box-office success).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So, now we get to the cutting of the Scouring. And Tolkien says if he's going to do this there is no reason in Saruman's death being shown.

Which is exactly what Jackson did (and got roundly criticised for) with the theatrical version. In any event, Tolkien's biggest gripe seems to be that Zimmerman had Saruman commit suicide, a mistake which Jackson did not make.

Overall, I agree that Tolkien would have been uncomfortable with many of Jackson's changes (just as his son and the purists are). But I do think that he would have appreciated it as a fine visual representation of the world that he created and I also believe that he would have recoginsed it as capturing much of the spirit of his story, certainly moreso than the screenplay upon which he comments in this letter.

And it also seems to me that Tolkien was unlikely to be satisfied with any film version of his book which stood a realistic chance of being made. Then again, he did do rather well out of selling the film rights to it ...

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=The Saucepan Man]
Overall, I agree that Tolkien would have been uncomfortable with many of Jackson's changes (just as his son and the purists are). But I do think that he would have appreciated it as a fine visual representation of the world that he created QUOTE]

I was thinking about this today as I was shelving the Home Index with it's John Howe picture. Since action films are not my thing and things like the troll fight bored me to sobs, and I am basically a purist, the look of the thing was what reconciled me to the films. I think hiring Howe and Lee was Jackson's masterstroke. Since I imagine Christopher Tolkien must have had some say in the covers of his works, it is reasonable to assume that he finds Howes vision of Middle Earth at least acceptable.

[Boromir88]

Well argued Sauce, but I still haven't been convinced. Now, I did leave out parts of this letter because it talked about the scenery, and all and all I though Jackson did wonderful on the scenery. Meduseld, Minas Tirith, Rivendell, I thought he did a good job, and I don't think Tolkien would have had a problem with the scenery.

However, while it is clear from what he says in that letter that there are many aspects of Jackson's films that would have displeased Tolkien, it is also very clear that the screenplay which Tolkien was commenting on was a very different kettle of fish to the trilogy which Jackson made.

Exactly, which is why some of it may be left up to interpretation, on whether Jackson did what Tolkien didn't like.

Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King occurs at a time when he had been "raised to the stature of Vol. III". Tolkien envisaged that the Witch-King was "powered-up" for the attack on Gondor and Jackson portrays this nicely in the scene in Minas Morgul where he dons his armour. It is therefore not completely out of line with Tolkien's conception of the Nazgul that the Witch-King would represent a severe obstacle, if not a match, for Gandalf in this scene.

I still disagree with this. Yes, at this time The Witch-King had the "power uppage" but regardless Gandalf is still fearless therefor the Nazgul had no effect on him. And as we see he is the only one that was able to stand up to the Witch-King and he quite convincingly shows he's not afraid and intent on going after the WK when he flees from the standoff.

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between Jackson's changes in this regard and the intrusion of fairy castles, multiple Eagles and floating Faramirs.

True, but you did not deny the irrelevant magic and the...

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 20 minute ending was, I think, Jackson's best attempt to capture the spirit of the end of the book. Given that some of the worst criticism of the trilogy (from film critics) is that it takes too long to end, I can certainly see why the Scouring was left out. I think it is unfair, however, to say that the films do not adequately represent the journey of the Ringbearer. Tolkien's criticism of this aspect of the Zimmerman screenplay seems to be based on the disappearance of 'Mount Doom'. Something that Jackson certainly cannot be accused of.

Yes, but I could remember somewhere (though I can't right now and I may just be making it up) but Tolkien does say The Scouring was an essential part to the story of the Hobbits. It marks the ending of the War of the Ring and the growth maturely by the Hobbits. Do I think The Scouring should have been added? I don't, but would Tolkien see this as an essential part of the storyline in the movie? I don't know, just food for thought.

Ah, but how much do we know about Balrogs ...? The film Balrog certainly seems to be an accurate representation of many people's (inclusing my) visualisation of the Balrog from the book (even if not strictly cannonical).

I don't know much, but I do know they aren't 40 foot tall giants, and they don't have horns or hooves. It's very unlikely that they have wings, though I don't want to get into the debate here, there's plenty of threads for it, and it would only go in circles as both sides can be argued.

Agreed. But Tolkien was not a writer of screenplays...

Portraying the two threads of the story sequentially, while it works well in a book, would have worked disastrously on screen. The same point applies to his suggestion that the Battle of the Hornburg is less important than the story of Merry, Pippin and the Ents. He may not have liked the idea of his book being made into an "action" film (even a superior one, which I believe Jackson's trilogy is), but it is difficult to see it enjoying the same success if done differently (and, when stumping up the kind of investment required for these films, studios and investors want box-office success).

I did say I disagreed with Tolkien on this, but it does not take away that he shows dislike for this part. He didn't think the two storylines could be jumbled together (though I strongly disagree and he may have changed his mind, who knows). And he thought The Hornburg was secondary to the Ents. I disagree again, but I do think that Jackson took way too much time setting up the battle scene, as it's a 30 minute fight and for about 30 minutes before building up to it with the elves. This does take off time from the Ents, and I do think Jackson didn't handle the Ents in the best way possible. As he just makes Treebeard blissfully unaware of what's going on in his own forest.

Which is exactly what Jackson did (and got roundly criticised for) with the theatrical version. In any event, Tolkien's biggest gripe seems to be that Zimmerman had Saruman commit suicide, a mistake which Jackson did not make.

Good point, but he does throw in an irrelevant fireball and we don't know what he would have thought of Saruman falling on a wheel of spikes. I've made the argument before he may have liked it as it's rather fitting for Saruman to be chopped up on the machines that he had made.

Overall, I agree that Tolkien would have been uncomfortable with many of Jackson's changes (just as his son and the purists are). But I do think that he would have appreciated it as a fine visual representation of the world that he created and I also believe that he would have recoginsed it as capturing much of the spirit of his story, certainly moreso than the screenplay upon which he comments in this letter.

And it also seems to me that Tolkien was unlikely to be satisfied with any film version of his book which stood a realistic chance of being made. Then again, he did do rather well out of selling the film rights to it ...

I agree, and as I've said I've come to learn and accept, and love the films. There are many wonderful things done with them (with some unnecessary things and not talking about diverting from the books). But I was trying to show that Tolkien would not be very happy with the movies made by Jackson, and as you say I doubt he would have been happy with any film adaption of his books?

Now, why would Tolkien be stingy on this? I think it comes down to that he is the creator of this stories, so naturally he would feel connected and want the need to protect them more than say you or me. While we all love his work, we can accept that making a film is much different than writing a book, and translating that book on film is difficult.

While Tolkien may go to understand this, it didn't take away the fact that these are his books and he would not like them to be changed, hence his unhappiness towards ANY film adaptation (I think). As he says he has dialogue in there for a purpose, for the plot, and for scenery, he knows things has to get changed around in movies, but he wrote everything for a purpose and making changed would change his purpose of writing the books. That's why I think he's much happier with cutting scenes instead of changing them.

[Cailín]

I'm no expert on Tolkien and have never read any of his letters...

But somehow I think he might just not have wanted to see the movie. Ever.
I don't think even Tolkien himself, had he been the director, could have lived up to the visions of grandeur he had concerning his own story. PJ's movie probably doesn't even come close. As an excuse, he would have started nitpicking about those minor mistakes - that actually really don't matter when you are telling a story - when in reality, he would just have been disappointed to see his story in visual. Because a visual, any visual, could never live up to a human mind that has been busy shaping a world for an entire lifetime.

No, I do not think he would not have liked it. I, however, did.

[Neurion]

I'd like to know what Tolkien would have thought of the manner in which the Gondorians were treated (one might almost say "mistreated") by Jackson.