Jackson Purists Deplore Tolkien Changes

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Jackson Purists Deplore Tolkien Changes
By Viv Morter
August 21, 2005
www.allnewsallthetime.com

It's been nine months since the last of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films was released in extended edition, but some of his more avid fans are now making waves about a new book, based on the movies and penned by British author J. R. R. Tolkien.

"I'm absolutely outraged," said Sean Johns, president of the internationally known "Peter Jackson is the Lord of the Rings Fan Club". "The changes that Tolkien has made to Jackson's work are thoroughly unacceptable."

Among the changes made in the book, which is published in America by Houghton Mifflin, are the addition of a lengthy storyline involving a new character named Tom Bombadil, the removal of the Two Towers storyline where Aragorn falls off a cliff, and the strengthening of numerous characters including Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir, Theoden, and others.

"No one will take this work seriously as a representation of Jackson's masterpiece," Johns said. "Arwen is only mentioned about five times. Faramir just lets Frodo and Sam go instead of taking them to Osgiliath. Sam joins Frodo for the journey into Shelob's lair. I could go on and on."

Amanda Locko, another prominent Peter Jackson fan, agreed with much of Johns' assessment but said she doesn't mind the changes as much. "Although Tolkien certainly doesn't follow the Jackson canon, his work is overall enjoyable. Merry and Pippin are less childish, the Ents never waver in their decision to go to war, and a strange event called "The Scouring of the Shire" is added. Not a big deal, in my mind. I'm the most unhappy about the removal of any swashbuckling stunts by Legolas."

Johns calls the book a "pretender to the throne," and says it will never be taken seriously. "Tolkien has done a fine job of writing, to be sure, but Peter Jackson's movies will forever remain THE Lord of the Rings."

Locko said she thought the book would do quite well. "As far as movie-based books go," she said, "this one is the best I've ever read. It even surpasses the Star Wars-based novels."

J. R. R. Tolkien was unavailable for comment, and Peter Jackson declined to comment as well.

David Flowers and Donny Boyce also contributed to this report.

[Ainaserkewen]

Teehee.

[Alcarillo]

Is this a joke? If so it's terribly funny. Elladan and Elrohir, the link you provided brings me to a page that says "Coming Soon". I didn't see an article.

J. R. R. Tolkien was unavailable for comment,

I get a kick out of reading that.

[Knight of Gondor]

Good catch. Sounds like something Scott Ott of Scrappleface.com would write.

I liked the quote from someone in the RotK:EE commentary who said we now have two windows into Middle-Earth. Not only does it make a clear definition between two seperate but distinct windows -- Tolkien's and Jackson's -- but it also makes one feel as if these worlds do exist.

[Elrowen Tinúviel]

"The changes that Tolkien has made to Jackson's work are thoroughly unacceptable."

Heehee... I got a kick out of that one.... Jackson's work...

-Elrowen

[Frodo Baggins]

ummmmm hmmm wierd. Either this is some wierd joke or whoever wrote that is a total idiot! However, I am still rolling on the floor over "Tolkien's changes to Jackson" and Tolkien unavailable for comment. I mean don;t they READ the credits when they say "Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien??

I guess it's BAD to strenghten Characters? (See my post in Elves and Hobbits) Oh Arwen taken out, how sad *not*. Yes Farmir so dumb he lets the hobbits go, no wonder his father hated him. Ai Varda!

Jackson's masterpiece *put on very incredulous face then stifles giggles Willy Wonka style*

[Son of Númenor]

I would not go quite as far as Mr Johns or Miss Locko in criticizing the new novelization of Peter Jackson's epic. Most of the changes Tolkien made were reasonable enough, although I was somewhat dismayed to learn he left out Legolas's gnarly Hornburg railgrinds, Aragorn's famous "Let's hunt some orc!" and Gimli's thoughts on dwarf-tossing.

I found it a bit strange that Tolkien would bog his adaptation down with all the trite stuff -- historical allusions, poems, Bombadil -- that Jackson rightly chose to gloss over. The pacing bordered on the ludicrous (Seventeen years before Frodo leaves? Where's the urgency?), the characters were given less than their fair share of witty one-liners despite the abundance in Jackson's films, and the nature of Sauron and Saruman's relationship was plain wrong.

Despite these shortcomings the book was pretty snappy, if overlong. It captured the 'essence' of Jackson's work: unfortunately the written word is by nature a constrictive medium -- reading is simply not the same as seeing when it comes to a world as brilliantly composed as Middle-earth -- but Tolkien manages to get around this and still provide new insight into Jackson's world.

I highly recommend The Lord of the Rings series by J.R.R. Tolkien as a companion to Jackson's Legendarium. I would go as far as to say it holds as much weight as Jackson's own movie picture guides and Monopoly game sets, though others might not be so liberal with issues of canonicity.

At any rate I would not be completely disappointed if this Mr Tolkien was chosen to write the adaptation for Dead Alive or King Kong, though I think it needless to say that Professor Jackson ought to hire another author to adapt The Hobbit should he choose to pen and direct it, lest the trolls be made to speak and the elves made to sing like children.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I was shocked by the ending. If there is one slight weakness in Jackson's work it is that the story is not wrapped up quickly enough. Tolkien, rather inexplicably, makes things worse. For those of you unfamiliar with Tolkien's version he chooses to introduce a very large section at the end of his book called 'The Scouring of the Shire'. In this he invents some convoluted nonsense about trouble in the Shire, even after Sauron was defeated. What's up with that!!!

That's not the best bit though. Get this: Saruman is the one causing the trouble! Remember Saruman? That guy killed at Isengard before the battle on the Pelennor? He's right there in the Shire! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

Other than that, J's version is pretty decent. It's probably worth a read.

[The Saucepan Man]

To my mind, Tolkien's greatest failure is to omit any reference to Legolas as the hot Elf dude that he really is. He doesn't even describe Orl - er - I mean Legolas' hair colour! What's that all about!!??

And at one point, I think it's the bit about the big burning demon dude with the wings, he has Legolas wailing "Ai! Ai!" like a little girlie. Most uncool. This is not the amazingly good-looking guy with the never-ending supply of arrows and the cool stunts that we see in the films. I mean, why on earth did Tolkien leave out the shield-surfing and the Oliphaunt climbing? They were some of the best bits of the film. Instead Tolkien has him singing about some stream or chick or something and droning on about the nature of time and such stuff, rather than explaining some of the finer points of the plot. If I hadn't seen the films before I read this sub-standard adaptation, I would have, like, totally missed that the bit before the gates of the bad guy's land was supposed to be a diversion.

It's such a shame that Tolkien missed the point of Legolas' character completely ...

[Oddwen]

And what's worse, this "Tolkien" fellow left out most of the angst of...get this -

Aragorn.

I mean, in the movie, he is of course reluctant to claim his bloodright (as well should be) or to accept the wrongdoings of his evil ancestor.

Not so in the book. "Nobility" is a codeword here, "Heir of Isildur" is another. And save for a moment of doubt before setting out from the hill (names given in the book as "Parth Galen" and "Amon Hen"), he is confident and even eager to claim his kingship, which Tolkien seems to think he deserves and is even worthy of.

I can't even begin to tell you how many levels this is wrong at.

And the way Tolkien treats love - never is there any doubt in this impostor Aragorn's mind to choose between Arwen and Eowyn! No possible room for NC-17 fanfics! Think of the fanfic writers just getting started into the world of writing, Tolkien, now they have no opportunity to shine!

And as well, little to no contact between Aragorn and Arwen, merely a moment of speech while her father is present.

??? You'd think if they were in love, they'd be all over each other, but not so in this adaptation. C'mon, let's get realistic here. This is the 21st century, nobody involves their parents anymore.

And at the paths of the Dead, Tolkien screwed up badly. He took a scene which worked well, and totally took the suspense and excitement out of it.

Instead of just Legolas and Gimli going through, (which are enough to keep track of, thank you) Aragorn took thirty or so of his relatives (who pop up only for this scene!) and also a couple superfluous elves, whom Tolkien disguised as the sons of Elrond. Makes you wonder which of Tolkien's relatives he inserted, hmm?

There is never a moment of doubt with the Dead either - Aragorn commands them, and they go. WHAT?? If an RPG writer were to introduce this, it would be called "godmodding", but if Tolkien can do it, it's okay?

And not a skull to be seen in the book! Merely a skeleton of an ancient Rohan king, which was a distraction and an unneeded side plot.
The Dead could be anything in Jackson's works - cannibals, criminals, yet in Tolkien's words, they merely broke a promise to come to war.

Well, maybe they changed their minds folks, perhaps they didn't believe in war as a solution! Here only is Isildur presented as evil, in the rest of the book he is shown as merely foolish or headstrong.

In the end, I could not get past the wedding of the King. It was reduced to merely a paragraph, and was months after the coronation! I finally was so angered that I threw the book down and pulled out my DVDs.

Ah well. At least I can watch and forget.



Thanks E&E for bringing this to our attention!

(No, I'm not bitter at all!)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, and what about the "Mouth of Sauron"? Tolkien makes him an ambassador softie, and robs Aragorn of his chance to give him what he deserves!

Gandalf too - instead of being a bad-*** wizard, he's all talk - he doesn't even give Denethor that decisive push in the right direction! And Denethor's death is way too tame without the jump off the cliff.

Oh, and whatever happened to Lurtz? Tolkien just completely left him out of the book!!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Oddwen

It was reduced to merely a paragraph, and was months after the coronation! I finally was so angered that I threw the book down and pulled out my DVDs.

Well at least we still have the films. Tolkien's travesty of a book has not changed that.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Tolkien's butchery of the film was nothing compared to the violence enacted by Jackson on the original computer game. It's almost as though he never played the game before turning it into a movie! Grrrrr.....

[Bêthberry]

What I was surprised with was the reactionary nature of some of Tolkien's changes. I mean, he put Arwen back in the sewing room, giving her little to do other than sewing that banner and looking beautiful. Isn't this Tolkien aware of just how horrible the sweatshops are in the thread trade?

Tolkien missed out, too, on using Arwen's finest line. Surely given how much he depicts her simply as a reward he ought to have maintained some fidelity to Jackson and at some point had Arwen say to Aragorn, "If you want me, come and get me."

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

he put Arwen back in the sewing room, giving her little to do other than sewing that banner and looking beautiful.

Yeah, I think this Tolkien dude is some sexist weirdo! He made a random Elf bloke steal Arwen's part at Bruinen!!! Besides, he forgot to put the Lothlorien Elves to Helm's Deep. I mean, come on, the Rohan guys wouldn't have ever survived without the Elf army!

And where's the drinking game between Legolas and Gimli! It was the best part in the movie and Tolkien left it out!

Ah, this is so annoying. Why didn't Tolkien just stay true to PJ's original masterpiece? He couldn't even get such a simple thing right as Faramir's hair colour! This Tolkien probably got the writing job only with a false resume!

[Elladan and Elrohir]

I'm glad that other Downers share my concerns about the drastic changes Tolkien made to Jackson's movies. That's why I posted this article to begin with. We need to raise awareness that there is such a thing as a "Jackson purist."

Tolkien appears to be getting too big for his breeches, to borrow the colloquialism. He's taken Jackson's work, enlarged it, changed some of the most enjoyable details, used language that is now approaching archaic, enlarged almost all of the major characters, and destroyed Legolas' hottiness.

I think all copies of Tolkien's book should in the future have the following posted on the title page:

"WARNING: The following work is very loosely based on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, produced by New Line Cinema. Readers should take caution and understand that this is only Tolkien's interpretation of Jackson's work."

[Durelin]

Tolkien clearly has no respect for classic film culture. He deliberately removed due tribute to such a timeless masterpiece as Back to the Future.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I'm delighted to see that we have finally turned our attention toward a fuller examination of the true nature of the relation between the films and the book, but if I could nudge the conversation slightly: which of the versions (theatrical or extended edition) is the truly canonical?

[Durelin]

The One Jackson always had aspirations for putting lembas on grocery store shelves everywhere. Thus, particularly in the case of The Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Edition, The Extended are far for canonical. It was Jackson's intention for Legolas to show us all how good lembas are, and thus the Extended Edition of the first of his great masterpieces most closely reflects his grand vision of a box-office smash. I think we can assume that all Extended Editions did so.

[THE Ka]

...I'm the most unhappy about the removal of any swashbuckling stunts by Legolas."

They have a pirate movie for that, you know...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This report sounds like such an anachronism at times through reading it, I had to go through it twice to see If someone wasn't making yet another Tolkien-Works April Fool's joke. I hope this is just a phase, it amazing what people have come to. I do not like to label, as would anyone else who likes to help others understand about a artists' written creation, but it is really hard to understand where these fellows are getting at. It's as if you read a book or biography one day, and wake up the next to find the news blaring about the dead author being seen on a bus with a bag of bagels...

Do those who are knowledgeable about M E live in such alturnate universes? Really, it's just amazing.

~ Aesthete

[The Saucepan Man]

I understand that this Tolkien chap was originally going to have Aragorn as a clog wearing Hobbit named Trotter! Can you believe it?

Thankfully, word got out, outraged Jackson fans posted their opposition on internet forums and chat sites in their thousands and Tolkien, bowing to the pressure, re-wrote the character to accord much more with Jackson's original. He still didn't get him quite right, though. I mean, what's with Aragorn carrying around some broken old sword when eveyone knows that the shards of Narsil were kept at Rivendell and were not reforged as Anduril until after the Battle of Helm's Deep!!?

[Earendilyon]

I heard tell that the computer game was based on a spin-off of the original 1970s Dungeon & Dragon games! Anyone here who can verify this?

[Oddwen]

I heard the books were based off of Terry Brooks's "Sword of Shannara"! I've read that, and I must say Tolkien, there are laws against plagary where I come from!

[arcticstorm]

Where does Tolkein get off with having Eomer actually attend the entire battle of Helm's Deep? And who is this Erkenbrand fellow? More importantly who gave him the right to add something called the "red arrow" to help summon the Rohirrim to Pellenor instead of the beakons only?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I'm delighted to see that we have finally turned our attention toward a fuller examination of the true nature of the relation between the films and the book, but if I could nudge the conversation slightly: which of the versions (theatrical or extended edition) is the truly canonical?

My understanding is that New Line Cinema actually has the editted bits that were removed for both the theatrical and the extended editions and that these will be released just before the copyright extinguishes on those versions.

Apparently there is some controversy over who should be accorded directorial rights, PJ or the video editor, and no confirmed title yet, although both "The NewZeamarillion" and "HoME: History of Many Editions" are both being considered.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Of course the greatest scandal is that this Tolkien person utterly occluded Figwit!

Thanks for that information about the forthcoming material Bb. I look forward to seeing that as it will help me answer some of the more pressing questions that Tolkien simply sidestepped: are there female orcs? why did not the winged Balrog fly out of the chasm? when and how was the highway between Rivendell and Helm's deep constructed (presumably some time after the Fellowship went into Moria and before the Elven army and Elrond arrived in the south with little or no trouble)?

Any news yet on when Jackson's letters are to be published?

[The Saucepan Man]

I also hear that Jackson is contemplating directing a film concerning the adventures of Bilbo when he accompanied Gandalf and 4 Dwarves on a Quest to liberate the Lonely Mountain, once a Dwarven stronghold, from the evil clutches of a Dragon called Smaug. The working title is The Hobbit.

Rumour has it that the climax of the film is a terrific battle, called the Battle of Four Armies, where forces of Elves (led by Orli - er - Legolas' father, Thrandolas), Dwarves and Men are pitted against Hyena-riding Orcs. The highlights apparently, are Legolas shield-skiing down the Lonely Mountain and Arwen's defeat of the potato-headed Orc chieftain in single combat.

However, it is also rumoured that the tale may not be as swashbuckling as the original trilogy of films and that it may not feature the same style of basic humour. If it does not have belching Dwarves and superheroic high-cheekboned Elves, I shall be leading the call for it to be excluded from the Jackson Middle-earth Legendarium.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I also hear that Jackson is contemplating directing a film concerning the adventures of Bilbo when he accompanied Gandalf and 4 Dwarves on a Quest to liberate the Lonely Mountain, once a Dwarven stronghold, from the evil clutches of a Dragon called Smaug. The working title is The Hobbit.

Rumour has it that the climax of the film is a terrific battle, called the Battle of Four Armies, where forces of Elves (led by Orli - er - Legolas' father, Thrandolas), Dwarves and Men are pitted against Hyena-riding Orcs. The highlights apparently, are Legolas shield-skiing down the Lonely Mountain and Arwen's defeat of the potato-headed Orc chieftain in single combat.

However, it is also rumoured that the tale may not be as swashbuckling as the original trilogy of films and that it may not feature the same style of basic humour. If it does not have belching Dwarves and superheroic high-cheekboned Elves, I shall be leading the call for it to be excluded from the Jackson Middle-earth Legendarium.

From the sounds of it, I think we could immediately disqualify such a silly tale from the Legendarium now...although one wonders what that Tolkien fellow is going to do with it and what, if any, role he will see between The Hobbit and the rest of M-E.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I've been plowing my way through Tolkien's book on the film, though I must confess, it's such tedious reading at times that I only manage about a chapter a week! I've made it to the big battle of Gondor, and I can understand that the author gives the characters more background and depth - after all, that's what we look for in a movie book, right? Problem is, he goes way farther than that - he adds so many absolutely useless characters, naming some of them only once or twice. How on earth are we supposed to keep track of them, let alone care enough about them to even remember them?

I mean, names like "Forlong the Fat", "Bergil", "Dúnhere, lord of Harrowdale", and even another prince, "Imrahil" to confuse things even more. And then there's a funny old crone in the hospital called Ioreth, who appears to be the fill-in for Gimli's missing comic relief. Really, couldn't Tolkien have gotten the Dwarf in there somehow instead of muddling things up with more new characters?! (Aside from the fact that if he was going to add another female, he could have made her a better role model for his feminine readers!)

You'd really think the publishers would have taken the time to go through the manuscript with a red pen, eliminating all of the unnecessary names. Weren't they thinking of the readers at all??!!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Actually, Esty, the publishers have used those obscure names as a crass means of generating more revenue. I was in the bookstore the other day and found a whole section devoted to books about M-E, most of which were full of explanatory notes about the things that this Tolkien fellow added to the story.

He was cleary looking for spin-off and cross-over merchandising when he wrote that thing.

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by arcticstorm

Where does Tolkein get off with having Eomer actually attend the entire battle of Helm's Deep? And who is this Erkenbrand fellow? More importantly who gave him the right to add something called the "red arrow" to help summon the Rohirrim to Pellenor instead of the beakons only?

Yes! Exactly. Eomer...at Helm's Deep? And Haldir, he barely appears in this pesky Tolkien fellow's books. He ommision of the Elves who come to the aid of the Rohirrim is simply disgraceful. My my my...what to do, what to do...

Let us not forget Faramir's role. Tolkien left out Faramir nearly taking the Ring from Frodo and him taking them to Osgiliath. And don't even get my started on this Scouring of the Shire gibberish.

Mark my words, this Tolkien fellow will never make a name for himself.

[Mister Underhill]

Yes, Fordim, the word is that poor PJ had tax troubles or somesuch, and was forced to sell the adaptation rights to his masterworks for a pittance. Now this Tolkien fellow has created a whole unauthorized "Expanded Universe". I was at a convention recently and saw plans for Expanded Universe action figures -- a dude named "Húrin" with "troll-chopping action" and some sort of mechanical dragons ridden by Balrogs (!) are just two examples of the nonsense Tolkien has come up with. He just doesn't get it!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

and some sort of mechanical dragons ridden by Balrogs (!) are just two examples of the nonsense Tolkien has come up with. He just doesn't get it!

Well that's the final evidence I need to completely do away with this character -- if his "balrogs" are riding dragons I can only assume that they are wingless. A wingless balrog!!!!!!!!!!!! I've never heard of anything that so utterly disregards the master vision of PJ.

Excuse me, Mister Tolkien, but if you look very closely at the balrog -- or even just look at him -- you'll see that those aren't shadows but wings!

How can anyone be so stupid???????

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Any news yet on when Jackson's letters are to be published?

Well, of course I am somewhat skeptical of gossip, but I heard that Jackson does not in fact use letters, Fordim. He uses email exclusively, except for legal contracts. What tends to give this story credence as far as I am concerned is the fact that this Tolkien guy has apparently already published his Letters. I know, I know, my argument is a bit convoluted, but let me explain.

Consider this for a sec. Tolkien is getting wind of the kind of thinking that we Downers here are in the forefront of promulgating--that he is just a second rate hack standing on the shoulders of giants to win acclaim and fortune--and he's getting nervous. So he's doing some spin to reposition himself.

What kind of spin? He's trying to present himself as the original, primal source, not some post-movie bandwagon writer. Talk about spin, eh? He is doing this by imitating the habits of communication used in the early twentieth century before movies and the internet provided us with ideas as they happen. Tolkien is going back to the old form of correspondence, letters.

So Tolkien's Letters are part of his attempt to place his work in the past, as a prequel to Jackson's. To show what ends he went to, to create this verisimilitude of a primary world, apparently he even supplied smudged carbon copies of letters he claimed to have sent.

So, that’s the extent to which this sorry interloper will go to create evidence of his primacy.

This of course leads me to wonder if Tolkien would have spread the story himself, a bit of agitprop, that Jackson does not employ letters?

At the same time could be just another old wives' tale of course. Maybe we'll just have to wait until Jackson is dead before we find out if he prefers letters or some other form of posting.

[Mister Underhill]

I heard Tolkien's so-called Letters are just a publication of his Xanga blog. We see through you, "Professor"!

[Bergil]

names like...Bergil...confuse things even more

HEY! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you seem to have missed a Tolkien's most bizzare change yet. The Silmarillion, A slow-moving compilation of prologues has little plot or connection to Lord Of The Rings. is he trying to create a mythology or something?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Lawsuit May Halt Hobbit Adaptation
By Viv Morter
December 15, 2006
www.allnewsallthetime.com

A book adaptation of Peter Jackson's upcoming film The Hobbit has been indefinitely postponed due to a pending lawsuit, and new reports say the book may never see publication.

The novelization was set to be penned by J. R. R. Tolkien, an obscure Oxford professor who had also written the adaptation of Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But while Jackson's film, a prequel to the trilogy, is well into preproduction, Tolkien's book has been sidelined.

Last summer, Tolkien filed suit against Houghton Mifflin Publishers over a dispute concerning profits of the pretentiously-named first book in the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring: Being the First Part of the Lord of the Rings. While the lawsuit, which is still pending, was largely concerned with financial issues, Tolkien also used it to publicly allege that Jackson's movies were in fact an adaptation of his work, and not the other way around.

This incited an uproar of fan controversy across the Internet, with fansites such as thatonething.net becoming involved in a public campaign to discredit Tolkien and prove that Jackson's films were his own original work.

Sean Johns, president of the prominent "Peter Jackson is the real Lord of the Rings" fan club, voiced his outrage over Tolkien's declarations. "The gall this man possesses is extraordinary. Not only does he write a long and boring book that takes far too many liberties from Jackson's myth, he now claims to have had the original idea in the first place. It amazes me how either Mr. Jackson or Houghton Mifflin can put up with this megalomaniac's lies."

According to news sources, Jackson and Houghton Mifflin may have just stopped putting up with it. An insider at Jackson's Wingnut Films, who declined to be named, reported yesterday that Tolkien has been "axed" as the novelist for The Hobbit's book adaptation.

In a brief phone interview, Tolkien contended that Houghton Mifflin had attempted to coerce him into dropping the lawsuit in exchange for a spring 2007 publication of his book. "On principle," he said, "I cannot and will not accept any such deal."

While Jackson declined to comment on either the financial issue or the larger issue of who originally conceived The Lord of the Rings, the controversy continued online among LOTR fans.

An unnamed source at Houghton Mifflin, posting on theonething.com, claimed to have read Tolkien's draft of the book, which was delivered to the publisher several months ago. "Suffice it to say," the source said, "that Tolkien's work is once again far from Peter Jackson's vision. The book adopts a childish tone, features arguing cockney trolls and ridiculous singing Elves, and contains no mention of either Legolas or Arwen. The content of this book, as well as Tolkien's previous work on LOTR, played a role in Houghton Mifflin's decision to drop the book from publication."

Neither Wingnut Films nor Houghton Mifflin Publishers have released an official statement regarding the book, though one is expected within the next 48 hours. There is no word on whether Houghton Mifflin will attempt to pursue a book adaptation of The Hobbit with a different author.

Tolkien's book was tentatively titled The Hobbit, or, There and Back Again, and was scheduled to be released in fall 2008. Jackson's film The Hobbit, starring Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, Liv Tyler and Orlando Bloom, is scheduled to be released in summer 2009 by New Line Cinema.

[Neurion]

This is all so wrong...

Having seen Jackson's masterwork--a stunning, staggering trilogy of epic proportions--I can only shake my head at the folly of this Tolkien fellow in trying to claim ownership of the idea for the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien seems to think that he can invent new characters and gloss over others at will--where, as many of you cried, is that sexy blond elf-prince? surely not the singing, hair-color-unknown pansy that accompanies the fellowship and squeals like a little girl at the sight of a wingless Balrog! I can only hope that Tolkien recognises his astounding folly in setting himself against PJ before he makes a complete and utter chump of himself.
Rumormongering, I have heard that PJ's idea for the name of that sexy blond elf came from a phrase said elf said often to admirers: "Let go, lass!" shortened to "Leggo, lass!" until it became "Legolas!" This Tolkien fellow's names could use such brilliant sources of inspiration. I mean, "Gamling"! Honestly! The man seems to think he's invented new languages or something!

People have to understand the vast differences of PJ's and Tolkien's media of choice: the movie and the book. Movies don't have nearly the complexity of books--there go the many more minor characters of the book, the many subplots that Tolkien was able to explore in depth. Movies need to introduce distinct main characters that the audience can quickly grasp and identify (that blond sexy elf; that old guy in a hat; the guy with the round shield and a chip on his shoulder; et cetera). The pacing must be relatively quick to get through the whole book (there go even more subplots, along with various favorite scenes, some of which make it into the extended edition). Books, on the other hand, have much more space to them (especially books for an adult audience; until relatively recently, young adult books were pretty much capped at about 220 pages; thanks to Harry Potter and others, that cap has been blown off and authors have much more freedom). Books, by their very nature, don't really have 'previews' that readers can look at (especially with new authors; where would you put a preview? in someone else's book?); they draw their target audience in a much different way than movies do. A person might flip through a book for a taster, or rely on previous works by the author, or read the reviews of the book (movie watchers can do this, too, of course). The worlds are vastly different.

In the writer/producer commentary for LotR, PJ explains why he cut some scenes and put others in different order than they were in the book (Shelob's Lair, for example, is in Book IV (tTT) but appears in RotK because, chronologically, that is when it happens). The huge change in Faramir's character was written because if he just ferried Frodo and Sam straight into Mordor, Shelob's lair would be in tTT, leaving pretty much nothing for RotK but Sam and Frodo trekking across the Plains of Gorgoroth (which would likely bore most audiences to tears).

While I don't particularly like some of PJ's decisions, I can at least try to understand why he made them.