Do you think Tolkien would be insulted by the LOTR movies? - Page 2 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

The Only Real Estel · 01-13-2004, 09:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>it was 200 miles away and hidden in a ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds like a complaint about RotK to me .Seriously, guys, I don't think that Tolkien would go for the movies solely because they've sold more of his books, or because lotr is now all over the place. I think he'd be more insulted by the shamless mass merchandising (like I said before) than by the movies themselves. Really, I'm sure J.R.R. would appreciate that they sold more of his books, & maybe he'd like one or two of the merchandising stuff (swords, etc.), but I think selling more copies of his book would not increase his opinion towards the movies. And I still think that he'd not be insulted by them, but that he wouldn't like them.

Lathriel · 01-13-2004, 09:16 PM

I agree with the only real Estel. I don't think he would like the movies simply because of the amount of books that were sold. Besides I read somewhere that he was amused how some people got so obsessed about ME. Personally I think he would mind the fact that there were longer battle scenes instead of more explanation or more exploration of ME.

Annantar · 01-17-2004, 01:24 PM

I personaly think that Tolkein would be insulted in many ways (not about everything), but the people that made the movies, in my opinion, made it a little harder to love middle earth, and it's characters. Like in the FotR movie, they replaced Glorfindale with Arwen, and Arwen wasn't even really in the book,it MENTIONS her like 3-4 times. Although the movie did make a beautiful love story out of it. But, When I 1st read the 2 books (fotr & ttt,) I was only 12, and I didn't quite understand what Middle-Earth was. But when I saw the movie, I understood a little more who each character was and the setting and so on...., and then when I got to the RotK, after I saw the 1st 2 movies, I could easliy understand it more. But If I were to have read the books right after I saw the movies I would have been extra confused because of the many mix-ups that they felt necessary to put in there (like the Arwen/Glorfindale mix-up). So I quess that it made the book easier to understand (in very few ways), but not necessarily better. Reading the books right after seeing the movies, would have gave too many surprises. Long story short, it's a wonderful movie, but would be better if the book didn't excist. But since the book does, the movie gives mixed feeling and understanding of the 3 books. Thanx, Annantar.

Sparrow · 01-17-2004, 04:45 PM

Lord of Angmar: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He may have had some misgivings, and may not have wished to see the movies himself lest someone else's interpretation of Middle-earth get muddled with his own, but I do not think it is easy to get insulted by hundreds of people devoting years of their lives to create an epic film trilogy in your honor (albeit with a motive of personal gain in their minds as well). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Saucepan Man: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree with Lord of Angmar that he would have had misgivings, and he probably would have intensely disliked some of the character changes, particularly those made to Frodo and Faramir. But I like to think that he would have appreciated the visualisation of the films, which I thought really brought the world that he created to life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. Why on earth would he be insulted? To say someone is insulted means that they feel that they have personally been affronted or done wrong. While Peter Jackson may not have gotten everything the way that Tolkien would have wanted it, I am sure Tolkien would appreciate the effort put into it, if nothing more.~Sparrow[ 5:46 PM January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Sparrow ]

Theron Bugtussle · 02-27-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

From Tolkien's Letter # 207, about his initial review of the proposed movie's storyline:
...this document, as it stands, is sufficient to give me grave anxiety about the actual dialogue that (I suppose) will be used....

Do we have complaints about the dialogue? Then he would have had more.

Quote:

I feel very unhappy about...his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without discernible technical reasons at nearly every point).

Most people's complaints have to do with Jackson erring from the Tolkien original text in some manner that[list=a][*]has no discernable technical reason (i.e., appears not to be done for the reason that the author's version would not translate well to a movie medium)[*]appears to be just the scriptwriters' version of how it should have happened[*]purports to increase the drama[/list=a]It would be my judgment that at least Peter Jackson did not have a "complete lack of respect for the original," though of the complaints that I have, most of them fall into one of the above categories.

Quote:

But I need, and shall soon need very much indeed, money, and I am conscious of your [Allen and Unwin, his English book publishers] rights and interests; so that I shall endeavour to restrain myself, and avoid all avoidable offence.

I think he was primarily driven by a desire to increase the revenue from the book--both for himself and his publisher. At the time (1957-1958), the book was not providing a large income for him. Neither would the movie rights have been sold for very much money.

I could speculate along the economics line that when an author is not well known, not a best seller, and not rich from his books, he would be more eager to get publicity and be a little less inclined to nitpick at such a movie idea and its storyline or script. And I think he VERY seriously took this proposed animated movie apart with criticism.

Suppose, however, that Tolkien were already a best selling author, was sitting rich on a Smaug-like hoard, and had the acclaim and "personal power" that comes from having his work voted best book of the century. (He also would have been one hundred seven years old when Peter Jackson began on his movie!)

In such a case, the movie rights would have been quite valuable. He could much better afford to negotiate his choice between "Art" or "Money." And if he preferred Art (as I am inclined to believe), he could then have been a lot more picky.

haltred · 02-27-2004, 05:22 PM

IF Tolkien were still with us . He would be pleased that as good a job as PJ has done happened. Some directors would have made a total mess of adapting the texts . Jackson has modified it for 1 basic reason , if he'd done a literal 1 to 1 interpretation of the text the movies would have been even longer than they are. And I hope that people who see the movie then read the book. must admit that prior to the movies I had not looked at them. But the movies give a taste of what the texts tell us. And the languages used in the movies a sound for the poetry of the books

Lobelia · 03-29-2004, 09:34 PM

I think if Tolkien was still alive, PJ would have flown out to England, discussed his ideas with him, showed him the Alan lee and John Howe designs and invtied him to be involved. He might, perhaps, have explained why some things had to be changed. Probably he would have been upset about the removal of the Scouring of the Shire, but given how much else was true to the spirit of the book, and how passionate about the novel everyone was, he might have been gracious about it. Given that he had sold the rights, he would probably have heaved a sigh of relief when he saw the finished product. I read the Letters and from what I recall, he was actually quite excited about the initial concept, till he saw what the American studio was going to do with it. And I don't blame him! It was horrific.

Given that they did leave out the Scouring, BTW, I found the ending they did have, with that scene in the pub, rather touching - here are the four who have saved the world and no one at home knows or cares - in the spirit of the hobbits realising just how much the Rangers had done for them without ever letting them know. And the last scene was out of the novel, wasn't it? "Well, I'm home."

Kitanna · 04-07-2004, 05:14 PM

I honestly think Tolkien would have been impressed with how Peter Jackson put Middle Earth onto the big screen. I'm sure there are parts or little details he would have been less pleased with, but on a whole I do believe he would have liked it. And I totally agree with Lobelia that PJ would have discussed everything with Tolkien before making the LOTR films.

If Tolkien were to dislike anything related to his books it would be some of the fanfictions out there. Not to knock anyone who writes them, but there a lot of slash fanfics out there and it's just sick.

But all that's off topic to restate myself: Tolkien would most likely like the movies except for a thing here or there.

Caunwaithon · 02-11-2006, 12:42 PM

I don't think Mr. Tolkien would be angry, per se. The man is very mellow, and level-headed.

He might be...perturbed.

Personallly, That is just how I envisioned it. The orcs, the trolls, Oliphants.

But if Mr.Tolkien would have been alive, he would have had a huge say in the movie anyway. So we would have probably had a MUCH different film.

Salacia Deloresista · 02-26-2006, 01:19 PM

I don't think Tolkein would be angry with the movies. Much of his studies were mythologies, stories that by nature change with the re-telling. Peter Jackson was re-telling a legend when he made the Lord of the Rings movies, and I think that Tolkien, with all his knowledge about how the stories develop over time, would have expected many changes. I think he would have been disapointed about the missing characters, just as any parent would when one of his children was left out, but insulted at the re-telling of The Lord of the Rings, which he himself considered to be a recording of pre-existing myths? I think not.

One of the greatest apeals of The Lord of the Rings is not that it has an extremely exciting plot, but that when you read the books, you feel like you can actually travel to Middle Earth. The fact that the movies carry over that sense of realism in my humble opinion makes up for any shortcomings in plot. The focus of the books wasn't plot, in any case. It was Middle Earth itself, the land, the history, the culture of the people living there. The creators of the movies took that aspect of the books to heart, and every detail of set, costume and even in most cases the behavior of the actors brings to life the wealth of characterization that Tolkien wrote, not just for the main characters, but for the land itself, and the history leading up to the climax of the War of the Ring. I prefer to think of the movies as one big fan-art project, not dissimilar to a John Howe painting. The analogy makes sense in my head; whether it makes sense to anyone else, I can't say. What I mean is simply that we shouldn't be so quick to condemn the movies for failures in the plot line, and forget that they were made with the best intentions at heart, and made in a way that was meant to pay tribute to Tolkien, not rip off his work. Just look at the differences in interpretations between The Lord of the Rings movies and the Harry Potter movies, and you'll see what I mean.

Sorry for the digression.

~Sally

Legolas in spandex · 03-19-2006, 04:17 PM

If I were Tolkien, personally, I would be rather proud. If he could see them, he should be flattered by the fact that someone wanted to show the world what their idea of LotR appears as and what it means to them. Yes, it does, in the end, affect the way new readers percieve the books and this new perception may be different than if there were no movies at all, but the movies still do not take away the reader's ability to use their imagination. The movies never could decently do absoloutely everything in the books, and they still leave room for the imagination. Plus, the New Line Cinema movies aren't the only LotR movies out there. I'm very glad for the movies. They have actually let some people know the books are out there. They're the reason I've begun to read the books, and I love the books very much.

Glaurung · 03-21-2006, 10:52 AM

I myself guess that Tolkien wouldn't be very satisfied to the movies. Of course they bring more readers to his books. But still, sometimes when watching the movies I wonder if Tolkien would have liked them after all. At times, I felt that PJ has made LotR just an action spectacle, which I think Tolkien wouldn't have been very pleased with.

Ellewen · 03-21-2006, 02:29 PM

Personally I don't think he'd be insulted, but rather displeased with the final cut... I mean they cut out the Barrow Downs scene, and Tom Bombadil! (and Fatty Lumpkin!) Among other things (too numerous to name)... Although according to one of my relatives/relations, those scenes weren't exactly "needed" I dissagree however...

Boromir88 · 04-26-2006, 02:54 PM

Ellewen, surprisingly enough, I don't think Tolkien would be too upset over the cutting of scenes. As Tolkien states that he understands time constraints and things have to be contracted if you are making a movie from a book:

Quote:

Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be visually represented.

So, it's not the cutting of scenes that upsets him the most, it's the altering and changing around his ideas (which Jackson did a lot of). Tolkien would rather prefer the Ents being cut out of the movies, than have them being changed from the books:

Quote:

If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go.

ArathorofBarahir · 06-01-2006, 02:07 PM

I don't think he would have been insulted, however, I think disappointed would be a better to describe the way he would have felt. Middle Earth was his creation, so I think he would be a little disappointed that he didn't live long enough to be able to oversee the making of these movies. However, I think Peter Jackson did a good job and stayed as faithful as he could, but there was no way you could take the Lord of the Rings the book and film it and be one hundred percent faithful, it would have been impossible.

06-01-2006, 07:09 PM

Insulted no Tolkein Appreiciates creativity and what Peter Jackson and Weta Digital did was definetly creative.

Groin Redbeard · 11-24-2007, 01:27 PM

Peter Jackson did an amazing job with the creation of the movies. He made it interesting, by adding his own point of view, but still held to the story line of the books.

warrenerd · 02-27-2004, 11:01 PM

maybe tolkien would've regretted what jackson had done to his books, but think about how the movies have affected the world. so many people that i know hadn't even read the books and are now converted to complete lotr nerds now. plus, they worked and tried so hard to make the movies right. i think tolkien would've been a bit critical, but proud. but who am i to say how tolkien would've felt?

11-23-2005, 02:48 PM

Although the evil power & spirit of Sauron & the Nazgul was destroyed when the One Ring was no more, is there anything to suggest that these guys can return in their original form, as in before Sauron turned to evil ways & ensared the nine men doomed to die?

A novel could follow in which Sauron returns as a good guy, but in seceret again plots the mastery of ME for his own, with the nine men, formerly the Nazgul, working as his agents? Sounds like re-telling the LOTR all over again, but not quite.

Beleg · 12-04-2005, 06:32 AM

Though I enjoyed the Return of the King, The Two Tours is for me the worst film in the trilogy.
I agree that PJ could not adapt the whole story. But why did he include scenes that didn't even exist in the book, instead of real events related in it? If he didn't have the possibility to do so because the books were too massive, he shouldn't have added others imaginary scenes (death of Aragorn, Elves in Helm's deep...).

About this last point: for me, the coming of Haldir was a mistake. The end of the 3rd Age shows the end of the Elves. They are all leaving Middle-Earth. And it's something that I really notice each time I read the books: it's the time of Men, with the 4th Age coming.
So, why should the Elves get involved in the war and help the humans in Helm's Deep battle?

Anyway, I enjoyed the two others, with just one great disadvantage: each time I'm reading the books, I have the faces of the actors instead of the ones I've imaginated until now. And for Eowyn, it's very annoying as I find Miranda Otto very far from what I was thinking. Fortunately, I'm quite happy with Boromir and Faramir.

EDIT: I lost the thread of the conversation. I meant by this answer that Tolkien, if he would not be insulted, would be (maybe) irritated by some aspects of PJ's adaptation.

Farael · 12-10-2005, 04:09 AM

Well, to voice what has been said before I guess, I do believe that it is all but impossible to say whether Tolkien would have liked the movies or not, as there are good arguments going both ways.

He was very critical of the other adaptation yet for the sounds of it, it was an outright DISASTER.... while PJ's adaptation had some.... incongruences... I do believe it did catch the essence of the books. The Shire was perfect, Bagg-end looked beautiful, as did Rivendel, Gondor and Rohan. Lorien looked a little different from what I had imagined (in the movie it looked to me like the 'houses' (can't remember their name) were like a massive building set on trees while I imagined them as much smaller yet somehow more closely associated to the trees themselves....)

The characters were mostly well done. I dont think any of the hobbits was badly portrayed (even Frodo and Gollum) Saruman's fireball and falling on a spike were not of my liking (but the way snake kills him at Othranc rather than The Shire was ok if they did not mean to add the scouring of The Shire to the movie) and Argorn not wanting to be the king was sort of a major mess-up yet if it had been stressed just a little less it would have been quite understandable (after all, it's not like being the King of a nation in constant war with a very powerful enemy is an easy choice)

I must say I enjoy the movies a lot, as when I'm watching them I am aware it is a movie and not hte original book. I don't think JRR (or for that matter any) Tolkien would have been able to abstract themselves from the books and enjoy the movies, but should they have been able to, I think they would have been overall pleased. Argorn talking and giving orders in Elvish was brilliant, even if the elves were not supposed to be there in the first place (by the way, are there not elves in the Siege of Gondor?) The love story was quite acceptable, as it was not stressed ad-nauseum and it fit in well with the story. The only part I disagree with is Arwen waking up Argorn pretty much from the dead with her kiss... but the rest worked out for me.

My only problem with the movie is that, while it did help me to imagine the cities and places a whole lot better, it also made it harder for me to "see" the characters as I imagined them before. The Hobbits were not quite the way I had thought of them, Argorn was also very different but the movie character had sort of the same "feeling" to him so it did not bother me as much. Eowyn was actually as I had imagined her (physically) as I thought of her as an amazingly good looking woman who was a little.... crazy is not the word but perhaps too saddened by life.

All in all, I believe that unless Tolkien had been able to abstract himself from his own work and enjoy the movies as they were, he would not have been completely pleased, although it is also possible that we, as lovers of Tolkien's work are far more strict than the writer himself. After all, it is also likely that he would appreciate a (good) effort to transform his books into film and I believed that PJ, for all his flaws did an excelent effort.

(sidenote, I tried to look up if there were elves in the Siege of Minas Tirith yet I could not find it... but it is quite late over here and I might have missed. I'd appreciate it if anyone could check for me)

davem · 12-10-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

(sidenote, I tried to look up if there were elves in the Siege of Minas Tirith yet I could not find it... but it is quite late over here and I might have missed. I'd appreciate it if anyone could check for me)

The sons of Elrond were there in the battle (as well as Legolas, of course

)

Goldberry101 · 05-02-2006, 01:48 PM

Oops, I didn't realize the first one had post, this is my first time ever doing anything like this so I'm sorry because they kind of say the same thing.

Estelyn Telcontar · 05-02-2006, 04:08 PM

Goldberry, welcome to the Downs! Duplicate posts aren't a problem - you can delete them yourself. Just click on the "edit" button, and you'll find a box with the option of deleting your post in the edit window. If you have any problems or would like help, please send me a PM and I'll be happy to do it for you.

Hope you're enjoying yourself here!

davem · 05-02-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldberry101

Oops, I didn't realize the first one had post, this is my first time ever doing anything like this so I'm sorry because they kind of say the same thing.

I think you'll find that repeating yourself is the best way to come out on top in any discussion here on the Downs. Many people here initially disagree with me, but I find that if I just keep on saying the same thing over & over & over they get bored & go away so that I get the final word & so win the point. This is a good thing. Some posters do, admittedly, keep on but they underestimate my persistence, insight, wisdom & all-round stubbornness & in the end give up out of sheer exhaustion.

Using big words intimidates most of them too (especially the Colonials

)

Welcome to the Downs.

Boromir88 · 05-02-2006, 04:53 PM

davem, or you're just like me and I just gave up a long time ago and shake my head yes to whatever you have to say.

Welcome to the forum Goldberry and I agree. I don't think Tolkien would have made a good director (especially now adays) looking at his stance on certain quarrels he had with Zimmerman's screenplay...but I think it's clear that Tolkien would have had issues with many things PJ did, several of them which he criticized Zimmerman for doing.

Nirvana II · 02-28-2004, 09:21 PM

both Tolkiens (C.T. and JRR) would most likely be insulted by them.....they leave out mostly every important part and put in useless parts, such as the part when Aragorn drown's in that river and Arwen kisses him from around 500 miles away?Or how they took out Fatty Bolger.....

Nirvana II

The Only Real Estel · 02-28-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

He would be pleased that as good a job as PJ has done happened.

I don't think that pleased is what he'd be at all. I think he'd appreciate the effort, but I also have no doubt that he would share our anger at some spots, and be extremely put out by things that we wouldn't have even thought about. Although I guess no one can ever be for sure...

Anarion · 03-01-2004, 12:36 PM

Most who read the books admired the job that was done on the films, despite what was changed or omitted. I think JRR would therefore have some appreciation of them as well.

Reg Pither · 03-02-2004, 06:23 AM

I think 'insulted' is perhaps too strong a word, but I think he would almost certainly have been affronted at some of the liberties taken with the story, dialogue and characterisations.

On the other hand, I feel sure that many of the visuals would have met with his approval, as PJ's team have done a stunning job of bringing the locations and costumes to life.

Overall though, money or not, I don't think he would have enjoyed the films as he would be consistently nit-picking over the treatment of his creation.

The Only Real Estel · 03-03-2004, 08:39 PM

I wonder what J.R.R. would've thought of Gollum? I imagine he'd like him, but it could be that he envisioned him totally differently...

Nirvana II · 03-03-2004, 09:27 PM

nah...in an interview with PJ he said he took the decriptions of Smeagol directly from the book.....i think it was something on the Biography Channel

rutslegolas · 03-04-2004, 08:40 AM

ya i certainly think that tolkein would have been very proud that his books have been made into a film.

but some scenes are not according to the books.

but atleast someone tried didnt they?

The Only Real Estel · 03-04-2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

nah...in an interview with PJ he said he took the decriptions of Smeagol directly from the book

Of course, I think he tried to do that with most of the characters, but there's still a lot of lee-way inbetween the descriptions & how Tolkien actually imagined him, mostly things that can't really be accurately described on a page in a book.

Voralphion · 03-24-2004, 05:48 PM

I don't think he would have been insulted by the movies. He may have been a little disapointed or upset that some things were changed, so much so that they were almost different characters, but overall I think he would've been happy with most of the movies. The movies introduced many people to the world of Middle Earth, encouraging them to read the books, and so he would've been happy that they did that.

Goldberry101 · 05-02-2006, 01:44 PM

I, personally, think that the movies would have insulted him. I saw the movies before I read the books, so I was expecting something totally different in the books. Things move a lot faster in the movies, but that's good for a movie because otherwise it would take FOREVER to make a movie. Another thing that I think he might not have liked about the movies is that they make Arwen into such a big star. She has, like, two or three lines in all three books. She is second in the credits in the movie and on the cover of almost everything. In conclusion I think that Tolkien would not have liked, and would have been dissapointed in the movies.

Goldberry101 · 05-02-2006, 01:47 PM

I think he might not really feel insulted, but a little put off and maybe angry. I mean, I saw the movies before I read the books, and so when I did read the books I was expecting a faster pace, like the movies are (not to say I don't like the books...they are just different from the movie). I think he might have been mad about how Arwen was changed from a two or three line character into a really big star. All of this to say, I think he might not have been insulted but dissappointed.

ninja91 · 05-31-2006, 11:36 AM

I think not. Tolkien would not mind if the movie portrayed the images differently than what he had in mind, because everyone gets a slightly different view. It would be impossible for it to be exactly right, unless Tolkien himself had filmed it.
Plus, how could it be insulting? The beautiful scenery and the spectacular interactions of the characters were too rich and fulfilling to be "insulted" by.
Also, Christopher Tolkien did not bash the movies, did he?

01-13-2004, 09:39 AM	#1
The Only Real Estel Raffish Rapscallion Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-( Posts: 2,835	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>it was 200 miles away and hidden in a ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sounds like a complaint about RotK to me .<P>Seriously, guys, I don't think that Tolkien would go for the movies solely because they've sold more of his books, or because lotr is now all over the place. I think he'd be more insulted by the shamless mass merchandising (like I said before) than by the movies themselves. Really, I'm sure J.R.R. would appreciate that they sold more of his books, & maybe he'd like one or two of the merchandising stuff (swords, etc.), but I think selling more copies of his book would not increase his opinion towards the movies. And I still think that he'd not be insulted by them, but that he wouldn't like them.

01-13-2004, 09:16 PM	#2
Lathriel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME) Posts: 612	I agree with the only real Estel. I don't think he would like the movies simply because of the amount of books that were sold.<BR>Besides I read somewhere that he was amused how some people got so obsessed about ME.<BR>Personally I think he would mind the fact that there were longer battle scenes instead of more explanation or more exploration of ME. __________________ Back again

01-17-2004, 01:24 PM	#3
Annantar Pile O'Bones Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: I have no idea Posts: 13	I personaly think that Tolkein would be insulted in many ways (not about everything), but the people that made the movies, in my opinion, made it a little harder to love middle earth, and it's characters. Like in the FotR movie, they replaced Glorfindale with Arwen, and Arwen wasn't even really in the book,it MENTIONS her like 3-4 times. Although the movie did make a beautiful love story out of it. <BR> But, When I 1st read the 2 books (fotr & ttt,) I was only 12, and I didn't quite understand what Middle-Earth was. But when I saw the movie, I understood a little more who each character was and the setting and so on...., and then when I got to the RotK, after I saw the 1st 2 movies, I could easliy understand it more. But If I were to have read the books right after I saw the movies I would have been extra confused because of the many mix-ups that they felt necessary to put in there (like the Arwen/Glorfindale mix-up). So I quess that it made the book easier to understand (in very few ways), but not necessarily better. Reading the books right after seeing the movies, would have gave too many surprises.<BR> Long story short, it's a wonderful movie, but would be better if the book didn't excist. But since the book does, the movie gives mixed feeling and understanding of the 3 books.<BR> Thanx, Annantar. __________________ I'm a sneaky little Hobbit!

01-17-2004, 04:45 PM	#4
Sparrow Animated Skeleton Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Paris Herself Posts: 28	Lord of Angmar:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He may have had some misgivings, and may not have wished to see the movies himself lest someone else's interpretation of Middle-earth get muddled with his own, but I do not think it is easy to get insulted by hundreds of people devoting years of their lives to create an epic film trilogy in your honor (albeit with a motive of personal gain in their minds as well). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Saucepan Man:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I agree with Lord of Angmar that he would have had misgivings, and he probably would have intensely disliked some of the character changes, particularly those made to Frodo and Faramir. But I like to think that he would have appreciated the visualisation of the films, which I thought really brought the world that he created to life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree. Why on earth would he be insulted? To say someone is insulted means that they feel that they have personally been affronted or done wrong. While Peter Jackson may not have gotten everything the way that Tolkien would have wanted it, I am sure Tolkien would appreciate the effort put into it, if nothing more.<P>~Sparrow<p>[ 5:46 PM January 17, 2004: Message edited by: Sparrow ] __________________ Were kisses all the joys in bed, One woman would another wed. -Bill Shakespeare

02-27-2004, 05:22 PM	#6
haltred Pile O'Bones Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Victoria BC Canada Posts: 20	IF Tolkien were still with us . He would be pleased that as good a job as PJ has done happened. Some directors would have made a total mess of adapting the texts . Jackson has modified it for 1 basic reason , if he'd done a literal 1 to 1 interpretation of the text the movies would have been even longer than they are. And I hope that people who see the movie then read the book. must admit that prior to the movies I had not looked at them. But the movies give a taste of what the texts tell us. And the languages used in the movies a sound for the poetry of the books __________________ In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit

03-29-2004, 09:34 PM	#7
Lobelia Wight Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 150	I think if Tolkien was still alive, PJ would have flown out to England, discussed his ideas with him, showed him the Alan lee and John Howe designs and invtied him to be involved. He might, perhaps, have explained why some things had to be changed. Probably he would have been upset about the removal of the Scouring of the Shire, but given how much else was true to the spirit of the book, and how passionate about the novel everyone was, he might have been gracious about it. Given that he had sold the rights, he would probably have heaved a sigh of relief when he saw the finished product. I read the Letters and from what I recall, he was actually quite excited about the initial concept, till he saw what the American studio was going to do with it. And I don't blame him! It was horrific. Given that they did leave out the Scouring, BTW, I found the ending they did have, with that scene in the pub, rather touching - here are the four who have saved the world and no one at home knows or cares - in the spirit of the hobbits realising just how much the Rangers had done for them without ever letting them know. And the last scene was out of the novel, wasn't it? "Well, I'm home."

04-07-2004, 05:14 PM	#8
Kitanna Child of the West Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Watching President Fillmore ride a unicorn Posts: 2,132	I honestly think Tolkien would have been impressed with how Peter Jackson put Middle Earth onto the big screen. I'm sure there are parts or little details he would have been less pleased with, but on a whole I do believe he would have liked it. And I totally agree with Lobelia that PJ would have discussed everything with Tolkien before making the LOTR films. If Tolkien were to dislike anything related to his books it would be some of the fanfictions out there. Not to knock anyone who writes them, but there a lot of slash fanfics out there and it's just sick. But all that's off topic to restate myself: Tolkien would most likely like the movies except for a thing here or there. __________________ "Let us live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." - Mark Twain

02-11-2006, 12:42 PM	#9
Caunwaithon Pile O'Bones Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 21	I don't think Mr. Tolkien would be angry, per se. The man is very mellow, and level-headed. He might be...perturbed. Personallly, That is just how I envisioned it. The orcs, the trolls, Oliphants. But if Mr.Tolkien would have been alive, he would have had a huge say in the movie anyway. So we would have probably had a MUCH different film. __________________ Caunwaithon is an Outrider of rohan, one that travels outside of the borders of his homeland to scout, bring news or bring small hosts of men to do battle in far-off lands.

02-26-2006, 01:19 PM	#10
Salacia Deloresista Pile O'Bones Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: in a state of confusion Posts: 22	I don't think Tolkein would be angry with the movies. Much of his studies were mythologies, stories that by nature change with the re-telling. Peter Jackson was re-telling a legend when he made the Lord of the Rings movies, and I think that Tolkien, with all his knowledge about how the stories develop over time, would have expected many changes. I think he would have been disapointed about the missing characters, just as any parent would when one of his children was left out, but insulted at the re-telling of The Lord of the Rings, which he himself considered to be a recording of pre-existing myths? I think not. One of the greatest apeals of The Lord of the Rings is not that it has an extremely exciting plot, but that when you read the books, you feel like you can actually travel to Middle Earth. The fact that the movies carry over that sense of realism in my humble opinion makes up for any shortcomings in plot. The focus of the books wasn't plot, in any case. It was Middle Earth itself, the land, the history, the culture of the people living there. The creators of the movies took that aspect of the books to heart, and every detail of set, costume and even in most cases the behavior of the actors brings to life the wealth of characterization that Tolkien wrote, not just for the main characters, but for the land itself, and the history leading up to the climax of the War of the Ring. I prefer to think of the movies as one big fan-art project, not dissimilar to a John Howe painting. The analogy makes sense in my head; whether it makes sense to anyone else, I can't say. What I mean is simply that we shouldn't be so quick to condemn the movies for failures in the plot line, and forget that they were made with the best intentions at heart, and made in a way that was meant to pay tribute to Tolkien, not rip off his work. Just look at the differences in interpretations between The Lord of the Rings movies and the Harry Potter movies, and you'll see what I mean. Sorry for the digression. ~Sally __________________ Some may carve through wood and stone to find a thing of beauty, while some may chase their cause around the world for love or duty

03-19-2006, 04:17 PM	#11
Legolas in spandex Wight Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 102	If I were Tolkien, personally, I would be rather proud. If he could see them, he should be flattered by the fact that someone wanted to show the world what their idea of LotR appears as and what it means to them. Yes, it does, in the end, affect the way new readers percieve the books and this new perception may be different than if there were no movies at all, but the movies still do not take away the reader's ability to use their imagination. The movies never could decently do absoloutely everything in the books, and they still leave room for the imagination. Plus, the New Line Cinema movies aren't the only LotR movies out there. I'm very glad for the movies. They have actually let some people know the books are out there. They're the reason I've begun to read the books, and I love the books very much. __________________ "I want to die in my sleep, like my grandfather... not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."

03-21-2006, 10:52 AM	#12
Glaurung Pile O'Bones Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Dancing in rain Posts: 16	I myself guess that Tolkien wouldn't be very satisfied to the movies. Of course they bring more readers to his books. But still, sometimes when watching the movies I wonder if Tolkien would have liked them after all. At times, I felt that PJ has made LotR just an action spectacle, which I think Tolkien wouldn't have been very pleased with.

03-21-2006, 02:29 PM	#13
Ellewen Animated Skeleton Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Somewhere in the woods looking for a place to recharge my laptop's battery. Posts: 35	Personally I don't think he'd be insulted, but rather displeased with the final cut... I mean they cut out the Barrow Downs scene, and Tom Bombadil! (and Fatty Lumpkin!) Among other things (too numerous to name)... Although according to one of my relatives/relations, those scenes weren't exactly "needed" I dissagree however... __________________ "Wait one moment and I'll get my bow and quiver... No wait I'll quiver first and get it over with." quivers - Robin Hood

06-01-2006, 02:07 PM	#15
ArathorofBarahir Wight Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Crickhallow Posts: 247	I don't think he would have been insulted, however, I think disappointed would be a better to describe the way he would have felt. Middle Earth was his creation, so I think he would be a little disappointed that he didn't live long enough to be able to oversee the making of these movies. However, I think Peter Jackson did a good job and stayed as faithful as he could, but there was no way you could take the Lord of the Rings the book and film it and be one hundred percent faithful, it would have been impossible. __________________ King of the Dead: The dead do not suffer the living to pass. Aragorn: You will suffer me.

06-01-2006, 07:09 PM	#16
Ryan_Wizard_Prince Guest Posts: n/a	Well I don't Know Insulted no Tolkein Appreiciates creativity and what Peter Jackson and Weta Digital did was definetly creative.

11-24-2007, 01:27 PM	#17
Groin Redbeard Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Facing the world's troubles with Christ's hope! Posts: 1,635	Peter Jackson did an amazing job with the creation of the movies. He made it interesting, by adding his own point of view, but still held to the story line of the books. __________________ I heard the bells on Christmas Day. Their old, familiar carols play. And wild and sweet the words repeatof peace on earth, good-will to men! ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

02-27-2004, 11:01 PM	#18
warrenerd Animated Skeleton Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 32	maybe tolkien would've regretted what jackson had done to his books, but think about how the movies have affected the world. so many people that i know hadn't even read the books and are now converted to complete lotr nerds now. plus, they worked and tried so hard to make the movies right. i think tolkien would've been a bit critical, but proud. but who am i to say how tolkien would've felt? __________________ as soon as you're born, you start dying. so you might as well have a good time.

11-23-2005, 02:48 PM	#19
Mansun Guest Posts: n/a	The return of Sauron and the Nazgul Although the evil power & spirit of Sauron & the Nazgul was destroyed when the One Ring was no more, is there anything to suggest that these guys can return in their original form, as in before Sauron turned to evil ways & ensared the nine men doomed to die? A novel could follow in which Sauron returns as a good guy, but in seceret again plots the mastery of ME for his own, with the nine men, formerly the Nazgul, working as his agents? Sounds like re-telling the LOTR all over again, but not quite.

12-04-2005, 06:32 AM	#20
Beleg Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Between France and Doriath Posts: 42	Though I enjoyed the Return of the King, The Two Tours is for me the worst film in the trilogy. I agree that PJ could not adapt the whole story. But why did he include scenes that didn't even exist in the book, instead of real events related in it? If he didn't have the possibility to do so because the books were too massive, he shouldn't have added others imaginary scenes (death of Aragorn, Elves in Helm's deep...). About this last point: for me, the coming of Haldir was a mistake. The end of the 3rd Age shows the end of the Elves. They are all leaving Middle-Earth. And it's something that I really notice each time I read the books: it's the time of Men, with the 4th Age coming. So, why should the Elves get involved in the war and help the humans in Helm's Deep battle? Anyway, I enjoyed the two others, with just one great disadvantage: each time I'm reading the books, I have the faces of the actors instead of the ones I've imaginated until now. And for Eowyn, it's very annoying as I find Miranda Otto very far from what I was thinking. Fortunately, I'm quite happy with Boromir and Faramir. EDIT: I lost the thread of the conversation. I meant by this answer that Tolkien, if he would not be insulted, would be (maybe) irritated by some aspects of PJ's adaptation. __________________ Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul Last edited by Beleg; 12-04-2005 at 08:25 AM.

12-10-2005, 04:09 AM	#21
Farael Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: In hospitals, call rooms and (rarely) my apartment. Posts: 1,538	Well, to voice what has been said before I guess, I do believe that it is all but impossible to say whether Tolkien would have liked the movies or not, as there are good arguments going both ways. He was very critical of the other adaptation yet for the sounds of it, it was an outright DISASTER.... while PJ's adaptation had some.... incongruences... I do believe it did catch the essence of the books. The Shire was perfect, Bagg-end looked beautiful, as did Rivendel, Gondor and Rohan. Lorien looked a little different from what I had imagined (in the movie it looked to me like the 'houses' (can't remember their name) were like a massive building set on trees while I imagined them as much smaller yet somehow more closely associated to the trees themselves....) The characters were mostly well done. I dont think any of the hobbits was badly portrayed (even Frodo and Gollum) Saruman's fireball and falling on a spike were not of my liking (but the way snake kills him at Othranc rather than The Shire was ok if they did not mean to add the scouring of The Shire to the movie) and Argorn not wanting to be the king was sort of a major mess-up yet if it had been stressed just a little less it would have been quite understandable (after all, it's not like being the King of a nation in constant war with a very powerful enemy is an easy choice) I must say I enjoy the movies a lot, as when I'm watching them I am aware it is a movie and not hte original book. I don't think JRR (or for that matter any) Tolkien would have been able to abstract themselves from the books and enjoy the movies, but should they have been able to, I think they would have been overall pleased. Argorn talking and giving orders in Elvish was brilliant, even if the elves were not supposed to be there in the first place (by the way, are there not elves in the Siege of Gondor?) The love story was quite acceptable, as it was not stressed ad-nauseum and it fit in well with the story. The only part I disagree with is Arwen waking up Argorn pretty much from the dead with her kiss... but the rest worked out for me. My only problem with the movie is that, while it did help me to imagine the cities and places a whole lot better, it also made it harder for me to "see" the characters as I imagined them before. The Hobbits were not quite the way I had thought of them, Argorn was also very different but the movie character had sort of the same "feeling" to him so it did not bother me as much. Eowyn was actually as I had imagined her (physically) as I thought of her as an amazingly good looking woman who was a little.... crazy is not the word but perhaps too saddened by life. All in all, I believe that unless Tolkien had been able to abstract himself from his own work and enjoy the movies as they were, he would not have been completely pleased, although it is also possible that we, as lovers of Tolkien's work are far more strict than the writer himself. After all, it is also likely that he would appreciate a (good) effort to transform his books into film and I believed that PJ, for all his flaws did an excelent effort. (sidenote, I tried to look up if there were elves in the Siege of Minas Tirith yet I could not find it... but it is quite late over here and I might have missed. I'd appreciate it if anyone could check for me)

05-02-2006, 01:48 PM	#23
Goldberry101 Pile O'Bones Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 20	Oops, I didn't realize the first one had post, this is my first time ever doing anything like this so I'm sorry because they kind of say the same thing.

05-02-2006, 04:08 PM	#24
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	Goldberry, welcome to the Downs! Duplicate posts aren't a problem - you can delete them yourself. Just click on the "edit" button, and you'll find a box with the option of deleting your post in the edit window. If you have any problems or would like help, please send me a PM and I'll be happy to do it for you. Hope you're enjoying yourself here! __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'

05-02-2006, 04:53 PM	#26
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	davem, or you're just like me and I just gave up a long time ago and shake my head yes to whatever you have to say. Welcome to the forum Goldberry and I agree. I don't think Tolkien would have made a good director (especially now adays) looking at his stance on certain quarrels he had with Zimmerman's screenplay...but I think it's clear that Tolkien would have had issues with many things PJ did, several of them which he criticized Zimmerman for doing. __________________ Fenris Penguin

02-28-2004, 09:21 PM	#27
Nirvana II Wight Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: The Yellow Submarine....sandwich Posts: 207	both Tolkiens (C.T. and JRR) would most likely be insulted by them.....they leave out mostly every important part and put in useless parts, such as the part when Aragorn drown's in that river and Arwen kisses him from around 500 miles away?Or how they took out Fatty Bolger..... Nirvana II __________________ Это - российская вещь, Вы не поняли бы. Вы - пончик желе! Я оказался снова. Частное сообщение меня, если Вы понимаете.

03-01-2004, 12:36 PM	#29
Anarion Animated Skeleton Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: at sea Posts: 27	Most who read the books admired the job that was done on the films, despite what was changed or omitted. I think JRR would therefore have some appreciation of them as well.

03-02-2004, 06:23 AM	#30
Reg Pither Pile O'Bones Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: London Posts: 23	I think 'insulted' is perhaps too strong a word, but I think he would almost certainly have been affronted at some of the liberties taken with the story, dialogue and characterisations. On the other hand, I feel sure that many of the visuals would have met with his approval, as PJ's team have done a stunning job of bringing the locations and costumes to life. Overall though, money or not, I don't think he would have enjoyed the films as he would be consistently nit-picking over the treatment of his creation.

03-03-2004, 08:39 PM	#31
The Only Real Estel Raffish Rapscallion Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-( Posts: 2,835	on Gollum I wonder what J.R.R. would've thought of Gollum? I imagine he'd like him, but it could be that he envisioned him totally differently...

03-03-2004, 09:27 PM	#32
Nirvana II Wight Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: The Yellow Submarine....sandwich Posts: 207	nah...in an interview with PJ he said he took the decriptions of Smeagol directly from the book.....i think it was something on the Biography Channel __________________ Это - российская вещь, Вы не поняли бы. Вы - пончик желе! Я оказался снова. Частное сообщение меня, если Вы понимаете.

03-04-2004, 08:40 AM	#33
rutslegolas Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: In Elven Lands of India Posts: 533	ya i certainly think that tolkein would have been very proud that his books have been made into a film. but some scenes are not according to the books. but atleast someone tried didnt they? __________________ If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with the bull - The Phantom.

03-24-2004, 05:48 PM	#35
Voralphion Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Sharkey's End Posts: 267	I don't think he would have been insulted by the movies. He may have been a little disapointed or upset that some things were changed, so much so that they were almost different characters, but overall I think he would've been happy with most of the movies. The movies introduced many people to the world of Middle Earth, encouraging them to read the books, and so he would've been happy that they did that. __________________ His sword was long his lance was keen His shining helm afar was seen The countless stars of heavens field Were mirrored in his silver shield

05-02-2006, 01:44 PM	#36
Goldberry101 Pile O'Bones Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 20	I, personally, think that the movies would have insulted him. I saw the movies before I read the books, so I was expecting something totally different in the books. Things move a lot faster in the movies, but that's good for a movie because otherwise it would take FOREVER to make a movie. Another thing that I think he might not have liked about the movies is that they make Arwen into such a big star. She has, like, two or three lines in all three books. She is second in the credits in the movie and on the cover of almost everything. In conclusion I think that Tolkien would not have liked, and would have been dissapointed in the movies.

05-02-2006, 01:47 PM	#37
Goldberry101 Pile O'Bones Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 20	I think he might not really feel insulted, but a little put off and maybe angry. I mean, I saw the movies before I read the books, and so when I did read the books I was expecting a faster pace, like the movies are (not to say I don't like the books...they are just different from the movie). I think he might have been mad about how Arwen was changed from a two or three line character into a really big star. All of this to say, I think he might not have been insulted but dissappointed.