Tolkien vs Jackson

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Any Tolkien fans here?

I’ve been thinking about writing on this very matter but have been distracted responding to others’ threads, so I am so glad you brought this up (and you and everyone else will be so disappointed you did)!

As the LOTR was divided into three volumes, I'll divide my response into three posts, the first will answer this question.

I’m not a big fan of sci. fi., and while I would say I like fantasy I’m fairly critical here too. But if there is one thing I can take pride in (and there probably isn’t), it’s that there are few bigger fans of Tolkien then I. A lot of fans will show how “hardcore” they are by their knowledge of details from Christopher Tolkien’s collections of his father’s work and maybe also the secondary works they’ve read on Tolkien and the contexts surrounding his creation, perhaps even their knowledge of Elvish words.


I, however, can brag about a much higher level of possibly clinical obsession, because I haven’t just read his writings on Middle Earth and some secondary literature.


I’ve read pretty much all he wrote excepting that never published, and I don’t just mean stuff like Beowulf: The Monsters and The Critics but the glossary he prepared for and is in the back of one of my Middle English readers, his translations, the translation The Elder Edda: A Selection by Auden & Taylor dedicated to Tolkien, his argument in his paper Chaucer as a Philologist despite the fact that, as Michael D. C. Drout notes (“J.R.R. Tolkien's Medieval Scholarship and Its Significance”), “a large portion of “Chaucer as a Philologist” is difficult reading even for someone with philological training and must be nearly impenetrable for scholars who focus much more strongly on the “lit.” side of the language/literature divide.”, his OED and similar work (a pic from his study of the name “Nodens” is included below), many of the titles covered in Hostetter’s “Tolkienian Linguistics: The First Fifty Years” (rather than name these I’ve provided an extract from one to give an idea of their type), all volumes of the journal Tolkien Studies, the gems of his thoughts on free will hidden in a few notes his notes on the semantic and etymological nature of two Eldarin words and their forms in Quenya and Sindarin (an extract of which I have provided below), and so on. I probably would have studied Middle and Old English anyway, but Finnish was only because of Tolkien.

Extract from The Name Nodens:

Glimpses from A Gateway to Sindarin:

Extracts from Tolkien indirectly addressing free will:

So if there is anybody who can intelligently, cogently, and insightfully comment on these films, it is most DEFINITELY somebody else. I’m not saying the person would have to be completely sane, just not have my levels of various insanities with a few derangements thrown in for good measure.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What do you think to Peter Jackson's film adaptations of the LOTR

I disliked the LOTR films. It’s not just that so much was not in the films; that can be forgiven. It’s what was changed or put in that wasn’t needed, was quite incompatible with what Tolkien wrote, or was needless.

1) The movies repeatedly emphasize the “men are weak” theme, words Elrond says to Gandalf in Fellowship. First, both of Elrond’s parents were part human. Second, it was the Elves who were tricked into helping Sauron to make the rings in the first place.. Finally, Elrond seems to blame Isildur most of all (he tells Gandalf that "It is because of men the ring survives", and we see a flashback to Isildur refusing to cast the ring into the fire). The fact that Isildur is his great, great,....great nephew (his brother's descendant) and that, while Elrond was the herald of Gil-Galad, the battle was won largely thanks to Narsil the sword of Elendil and Isildur who actually defeated Sauron. In the book, he will not take the ring (just like Gandalf) because he knows it would corrupt him, yet in the movie, he tells Gandalf the ring can't stay in Rivendell (so much of the reason for the council is moot), but because it can't be concealed by the Elves not. The fact that he also can't use it because he would be corrupted by it would undermine the whole "men are weak" spiel.

2) Virtually every character was grossly distorted. Jackson apparently was so obsessed with making lumping all "men" into one group that was worst in all of Middle Earth that he decided to twist and mangle some characters beyond recognition to do so. The most completely unfaithful is Faramir. In the book, his character has great depth, noble and humble, not proud but no coward, etc. In the movie, he's a little brother who finally thinks he has a "chance...to show his quality" by NOT doing so. Instead of including the scene from The Window on the West, Jackson has Faramir marching Frodo to his father until a Nazgul attack makes him realize that...the ring is evil? That seems to be the reason finally decides to let Frodo go to Mordor- having watched Frodo just walk into the path of a Nazgul apparently that kind of utter surrender is exactly the kind of trait needed to make it into Mordor and to Orodruin.

Denethor is little better. His character is more petty, cruel, vain, and foolish than Denethor is in the book even after he is driven mad and lost all hope. The blood of Westernesse, Gandalf tells Pippin in the book, runs true in Denethor as in Faramir, but in the movie he just has bad table manners and looks like Grima Wormtongue's brother. He refuses to call for aid, so Pippin has to light the beacons of Gondor. In the book, they’re lit before Pippin arrives, and Denethor sends the Red Arrow to Theoden asking for aid.

Aragorn’s character is not as completely inaccurately portrayed, but close. In the book he sets out from the beginning to go to Gondor and, if Sauron is defeated, take-up the throne. In the movie, he is pathetically worried about whether he will be able to resist the power of the ring. Instead of the various, key moments in the book where his power and majesty are revealed, we are told he has “chosen exile” and turned away from his birthright long ago. Boromir, at the now mostly pointless council of Elrond, calls him a “mere ranger”. Legolas for some reason is the one who jumps up to defend him, exclaiming angrily that "this is no mere ranger.” True, because there’s no such thing as a “mere ranger”. The rangers are (as Faramir and Denethor are supposed to be) Men of Westernesse. Also, despite the fact that in the books almost nobody in Middle Earth knows that any heir of Isildur yet lives, Boromir's response to learning (from Legolas) that the man before him is "Aragorn, son of Arathorn" is incredulity that "this is Isildur's heir!?" So apparently basically everybody other than Saruman & Sauron know that there is an heir to the thrown of Gondor, but Gondor has required a steward to rule in the king's stead since Mardil did so almost a thousand years ago. The Arwen story-arch is pointless (I don't care who'd play Glorfindel I still would prefer that person to Liv Tyler), but that doesn't stop it from causing numerous scenes to be thrown in that are nothing like the spirit of Tolkien. Elrond does early on tell Aragorn that the woman he has just fallen in love with has a far greater lineage than he, but that's while he was young and dwelling in Rivendell. There is no hint in the books that Elrond thinks Arwen shouldn't wed Aragorn, but in the film he tricks her into leaving with a very depressing scene of the future that leaves out the fact that she will have a child. Oh, and of course the "light of the Eldar" is somehow fading in her because...well who cares. It gives us more time to watch Liv Tyler and remove important parts of the books.


Elrond's character seems to be loosely based on Agent Smith: a pretentious, pompous, arrogant individual who's practically defined by how little he regards Men. He can't seem to find a time that isn't a good moment to express his disdain. Then, while tricking his daughter in a way that would crush Aragorn (whom she loves and who loves her), he suddenly decides to send aid to Rohan. And who shows up from Rivendell? Haldir, the Elf who was in Lorien in the first movie (and the book), but is nice enough to show up again to ruin any possible development of Eomer's character.

Theoden, despite being saved by Gandalf in a much more dramatic and magical way than in the books, decides not to fight but to go to Helm’s deep for refuge. Apparently this is Peter Jackson's way of saying "screw you" to Tolkien: have the exact same thing happen, but reverse the reasoning. After all, it's another chance to reveal the real essence of the LOTR: Men (humanity, in a less sexist and more archaic expression) have no redeeming qualities and are little better than orcs. Also, even though the journey to Helm's Deep is longer in the movie, Eomer is cut out of it entirely and cut out of the battle, the points in the book where his character is developed.

When not totally distorting Tolkien's characters in various ways using various means (adding scenes and deleting other, changing who does what, and so on), he's content to leave them 1-dimensional for comic relief. Hence Pippin, Merry, and Gimli.

Whether because three characters who are almost entirely for comic relief was enough or for some other reason, Legolas the elf is removed from the films. In his place is Legolas Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon, some ******* offspring of Neo and a Jet Li character.

Sam’s devotion to his master is overplayed while Frodo's gratitude is significantly lessened so that Jackson can insert the "Gollum tricks Frodo" storyline. Also, thanks to the fact that their age difference (Frodo is supposed to be 50) is gone, what would have otherwise seemed nothing more than the fierce loyalty of a hobbit in the service of another hobbit 20 years his senior, their similar ages make the whole dynamic weird.

Treebeard, the oldest living thing remaining on Middle Earth is tricked by Pippin of all people into going to war. He's immeasurably wise, the forest is named for him, he travels all around it, but he somehow failed to notice massive portions being cut down. So when the Ents meet up, they decide not to go to war. However, apparently they follow Treebeard to make sure he gets the two hobbits safely home, because as soon as Treebeard notices the destruction to his forest, they're all right there, ready to go to war.

Gandalf comes out relatively well, thanks mainly to Ian McKellen's tremendous acting ability (his voice is based on Tolkien's, as during his preparation for the film he obtained a recording of Tolkien reading from his works). However, the drastic change between Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White is in part due to the limited development of both, as the best actor can only do so much with a poorly written character (and it's not like there was some book the script could have relied on).


Basically, nothing of the nature of the books is portrayed in the films, and the only characters done well are Bilbo, Galadriel, and Gollum.

 

[Willamena]

Any Tolkien fans here?

What do you think to Peter Jackson's film adaptations of the LOTR and the Hobbit? Do you think he has staid true to Tolkien's vision?

From what I've heard of Tolkien fans, not.

But then, I haven't heard from Anne McCaffery fans, so who's to say.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What do you think to Peter Jackson's film adaptations of…the Hobbit?

I’m just going to say SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That should be sufficient warning.


So far, The Hobbit movies have been fantastic. The LOTR is 3 volumes and 6 books, each book more or less the length of The Hobbit. Now, while the LOTR movies could have better done, there’s simply no way to capture the kind of descriptions, character depth, cultures, glimpses of history, and all the complexities that has made Tolkien’s work the masterpiece it is.


The Hobbit, however, is shorter, less serious, written in a literary style as far from the archaic artistry of the LOTR as the LOTR is from The SIlmarillion. Had Peter Jackson remained faithful to it, he’d have done little more than remake the 1977 cartoon with live actors. Instead, he turned it into the LOTR. Instead of taking out key aspects of the story, details that Tolkien did write but not in other works are put in.


Yes, certain things are added or altered. Azog was killed by Dain in a battle because Azog had beheaded Thror and sent his head back to the dwarves. The female Elf character is made-up, the Dwarves are put barrels with apples not fish, and are welcomed into Laketown, etc.


However, the additions this time are much in the spirit of Tolkien almost all the time. Not necessarily (and indeed often not) in the spirit of The Hobbit, but you have to remember that the beginning work on Middle earth was on things found mostly in works like The Silmarillion starting in 1914. By the time The Hobbit was written Tolkien already understood much more of Middle Earth and its history. Thus the love interest between Kili and Tauriel, while not in any of Tolkien’s writings, is very much like the Beren & Luthien story.


Because so much of what we later learn happened while Bilbo’s adventure takes place we learn elsewhere (in the Appendices to the LOTR, Unfinished Tales, etc.), additions like Azog are necessary. Had the story unfolded as written but including the added information, we’d have the beginning clues that Saruman had fallen, Gandalf’s entry into Dol Guldor and discovery that the Necromancer is Sauron, the meeting of the White Council, and so forth all as random inserts breaking the over-arching story of Thorin and company. By introducing Azog & Tauriel especially, the film ties together the LOTR-like epic that was in many ways going on in Middle Earth during the Erebor quest.


Far more time is spent exploring Middle Earth and its history, even when that history is altered. Instead of taking complex, multi-layered characters and turning them into jesters, an under-developed character like Bard becomes a real character. The same is true of some of the Dwarves: Balin (probably most of all), Dwalin, Fili, Kili, & Bofur all are brought to life in ways that Tolkien didn’t. Balin’s role as the oldest, the only one who remembers and whom Thorin regards as something of an equal (and as a counselor) was very well done, particularly in that it allows us to see Thorin’s character’s changes. In the first movie, when Thorin becomes angry at Fili & Kili for joking around about orc raids, Balin doesn’t confront Thorin but explains him. In the second movie, this changes, as Balin sees Thorin alter (and thereby draws our attention to what might otherwise be missed).


This time even the comic relief, Bofur, is more complicated a character than is Jackson’s Gimli. The scene in which he catches Bilbo trying to sneak off is doubly important, because it is one instance in which we see another side of Bofur, but it is perhaps the most touching and poignant (by way of contrast to Bilbo’s situation) scene in which something hardly covered in The Hobbit is “brought home” : that not having a home because it was taken has very much defined not only the dwarves but how others regard them.


There is much in the extended version that reveals just how masterfully Jackson created these films, because certain lines or actions by a character in the non-extended version are in the extended, but in a slightly different place and time. In other words, rather than just cut out scenes and then put them back in (as was done in the LOTR movies) Jackson shot some of the same scenes in two different ways, preparing in advance for the longer version.


When Thranduil firsts plays nice with Thorin, he mentions white gems. In the extended version of the first film, during the opening scenes where Bilbo is narrating, those gems are mentioned and are in the context of the initial strife between the dwarves and elves. Like Tauriel, this isn’t anywhere in Tolkien, but it is in spirit: in The Silmarillion, the dwarves slay Thingol over jewelry. Thingol is the only Elf who is equal to the Calaquendi (the High Elves who have been to the Undying Lands and are as far above the Silvan/wood elves as these elves are from mortal men). This because he weds Melian (which is why Elrond has the blood of the Maia in him, not just that of Elf and Man). In the second hobbit film, Tauriel is surprised to here Thranduil talk about Legolas’ feelings for her and says “I do not think you would allow your son to pledge himself to a lowly Silvan elf.” In reality, they are ALL Silvan elves, but Jackson has merged Thranduil with Thingol.



Jackson took the masterpiece that is the LOTR and turned into something like The Hobbit: simplify the characters, remove the connections that reveal the intricacies of thousands of years of history of different peoples that Tolkien created, skew the central themes, twist the spirit/essence of the epic, and otherwise crap all over it.


Here, he had a lesser work (intended to be so; it was a children’s story) which had as its impetus (at least according to one account from Tolkien) the first line in the book that Tolkien wrote written on a blank page of a manuscript submission he was going over as a professor at Oxford. Jackson took this story and with it much more from Tolkien’s far more sophisticated works (either in truth, like the White Council or Gandalf’s entrance into Dol Guldur, or in spirit, such as Tauriel) and wrought something faithful to Tolkien. Was it faithful to The Hobbit? No, of course not. But that’s far less important. If you want something faithful to The Hobbit, the cartoon is exactly that.

 

[Willamena]

I’m just going to say SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That should be sufficient warning.

You're actually giving fair warning for people to not read your post.[/QUOTE]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're actually giving fair warning for people to not read your post.

Only because nobody was going to read it anyway.

Alexander Dumas (author of Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask, Count of Monte Christo, and many more) had a reputation for churning out pages (book after book, novel after novel, even non-fiction). He happened to meet up with his son one day, and so asked him "Have you read my new novel?" His son replied "No. Have you?"

I'm like that with posts.

 

[Willamena]

Only because nobody was going to read it anyway.

Alexander Dumas (author of Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask, Count of Monte Christo, and many more) had a reputation for churning out pages (book after book, novel after novel, even non-fiction). He happened to meet up with his son one day, and so asked him "Have you read my new novel?" His son replied "No. Have you?"

I'm like that with posts.

ooh! I love Dumas.

 

[Quagmire]

I felt a little ripped off by the movies. I kept waiting for them to suck me in and make me care about what was going to happen next like the books always did and it never quite happened.

 

[Riverwolf]

From what I've heard of Tolkien fans, not.

I think they're true to their interpretation of Tolkien. In the documentary that accompanied the extended edition of Fellowship, Jackson says at one point that they tried to stay as true to Tolkien as they could, and that, and I quote: "This should ultimately be Tolkien's film, it shouldn't be ours." While I did sense honesty in that statement, it's just simple fact that no LOTR film can ever be Tolkien's film; if he wanted to make a film, he would have made a film. All adaptations of Tolkien's work is naturally going to follow the interpretations of those doing the adapting.

Thing is, if I recall what they were saying about what Tolkien was doing, he was trying to create a "Mythology" that he could start, and then other people could come in and adapt. While I think I can be pretty certain that he wouldn't be too happy with how his work is being adapted (content creator Spoony once commented that if Tolkien knew that there was an MMORPG based on his work, that he'd roll so much in his grave that he'd drill to China), the truth is that stories are immortalized through adaptation and reinterpretation. I don't consider Jackson's films to be definitive, I consider them to be fan-adaptations. Perhaps I sympathize with that a bit, because one of my favorite things to do while I was in adolescence was to retell various stories of games and anime I loved, with my own spin on them. But when I go back to the books, there's enough of a distinction that I don't typically "hear" the movie actors when I read the books.

Basically... whether it's "faithful" or not isn't really important to me. What's important to me is that the spirit is intact (and I feel that it is, for the most part), and that the originals are intact (they are).

 

[sun rise]

From what I've heard of Tolkien fans, not.

But then, I haven't heard from Anne McCaffery fans, so who's to say.

I love Anne McCaffrey's dragon stories (most of the anyway) as well as #1 and #3 of the Crystal Singer books. Some of her other books are pretty good.

LegionOnomaMoi, perhaps a member of the minority, I did read your posts. Yes, the LoTR movies are not faithful to the books but I never expected them to be. In the process of adaptation, I expect characters to be changed and so forth. On that basis, I really liked the LoTR movies.

About the Hobbit, Jackson introduced a plot idiocy for drama sake - when the company is approaching Beorn's place in the book, the introduction takes place outside as one might expect. In the movie, after Beorn chases the company into his place and tries to chow down on them. The next day he's peacefully chopping wood when they come out of his house. Why did he not notice that his house had been invaded?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi, perhaps a member of the minority, I did read your posts.

My apologies then.

Yes, the LoTR movies are not faithful to the books but I never expected them to be.

Neither did I. Nor do alterations, even dramatic one, necessarily both me (my fondness for the hobbit movies is one example). In fact there is at least one case where the major alterations proved more faithful, somehow, than the original. I don't know if you've seen the BBCs Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch & Martin Freeman). It's Sherlock Holmes set in modern England. I started a thread about it here, but as you've suffered enough here's the headline and relevant point:

Perhaps the best way to begin a review of the either of the two BBC miniseries Sherlock is to say that their depiction of Sherlock Holmes is a truer portrait of the character himself than is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s. I don'’t simply mean that the series is better than any given (or all) of Doyle’s stories. Somehow, the Holmes portrayed in the BBC series seems more like “Sherlock Holmes” than we find in the works by the man who created the character.

The complexity of the world Tolkien created, and by that I refer not to geography or even flora and fauna and the like, but languages, peoples with cultural heritages as realistic as those that exist, a model of magic that is among the subtlest in fantasy (there's little to know spells, deliberate ambiguity as when Galadriel responds to Sam's desire to see "Elf magic" that she isn't sure what that means, and in particular that the same word is used for the deceits of the enemy), and I could go on forever. Instead, I'll give one small example, easily over-looked, which I think demonstrates the kind of nuances present in the books.

When Gandalf finds the door into Moria and reveals the moon reveals the runes and images wrought of ithildin, he translates the important part (needed to get in) with "speak, friend, and enter." If I were to translate that first word into Greek I might use λέγε, the imperative of λέγω. Someone I came across that line in Greek I might translate it as "speak" or "say". It can mean both. Gandalf (along with Gimli) that you have to speak the password to enter, interprets a word that can mean mean speak, say, utter, etc., depending upon context. He mistook the context, but realizes that he had and that a better translation would be "say "friend" and enter".

Since Tolkien a lot of fantasy writers have included phrases and so forth of fantasy languages in their writings: Lloyd Alexander, Ursula K. Le Guin, David Eddings, Robert Jordon, Patrick Rothfuss, Susan Cooper, theoretical physicists, etc.

The problem is that it is not that much of an oversimplification and inaccurate to say that Tolkien's middle earth was the realization of a scholar steeped in knowledge of cultures, languages, and stories realizing that one cannot have a language without a culture, and if one speaks a language, one has a culture. There are few if any scholars today who understand language like the best of the philologists and related scholars in and around Tolkien's time, and there are academic works of Tolkien that few are capable even of evaluating (if they can understand them) because he combined a laser-like approach to language, targeting the tiniest aspects of it, with a broad but deeply informed understanding of literature and the effects culture and language had on it. Few alive have that skill, for a reasons that aren't important. And he worked on the construction of middle earth from ~1914 until his death.

There's no way to capture that on-screen. That's part of the problem. But it's one thing to realize limitations, and another thing to fundamentally change the work. Peter Jackson's LOTR is as close to the LOTR as is West Side Story and Romeo & Juliet.

I expect characters to be changed and so forth.

Why? Sure, some changes are inevitable. To me, when you change all the characters, change much of the story, change the major themes, and throw in a lot of messages that are incompatible with what you are adapting, you aren't adapting any more. You're just borrowing a bunch of names and a sketch of a plot.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

About the Hobbit, Jackson introduced a plot idiocy for drama sake - when the company is approaching Beorn's place in the book, the introduction takes place outside as one might expect. In the movie, after Beorn chases the company into his place and tries to chow down on them. The next day he's peacefully chopping wood when they come out of his house. Why did he not notice that his house had been invaded?

He did. Not only that, but the scene alike to that in the book is in the extended, when the dwarves meet him two at a time. In the book, there really isn't any indication that the bear thinks differently or is "unpredictable, but the man can be reasoned with" as in the movie. Quite the contrary, as Gandalf says "some say he is a bear, descended from the great and ancient bears..."

Tolkien and Jackson faced the same problem in reverse, but Tolkien had a significant advantage. The Hobbit was published in the 30s. While much in it alludes to things Tolkien had already thought of, and he made use of more, much of the book doesn't fit well within the wider context starting with the LOTR. Take Beorn, who says of Radagast that he "not a bad fellow as wizards go." But the Isatari, whom Men callled wizards, numbered only 5, and of the Blue Wizards Tolkien wrote "in a letter in 1958...that he knew nothing clearly about 'the other two'...'I think,' he wrote, 'they went as emissaries to distant regions, East and South, far out of Numenorean range...What success they had I do not know; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.'" (Unfinished Tales).
If Tolkien didn't know anything about them other than that they were unknown in the regions of Middle Earth any character ever traveled, how could Beorn? In 1937, Tolkien didn't know the wizards were an order of 5 sent by Manwe, nor that he would do away with his notion that "goblin" was a translation of "orc" and use orcs, and the one obvious mistake Peter Jackson made in the first hobbit film was to include the stone giants. These we find in Tolkien's friend and fellow Inkling C. S. Lewis, and in The Hobbit as is they are fine; just another strange part of a self-contained story. Within the wider context, they too do not fit.

Tolkien, though, could create more and have The Hobbit remain what it is: a children's story that one can fairly easily rationalize into the fuller narrative unless one looks again and thinks on it. Jackson, however, was going in the opposite direction, and with all the books written and more besides. Beorn as a random character introduced by word-play, connected with nothing in the Middle Earth that was to be, and who knows of wizards that don't exist can't very well mesh with either Tolkien's LOTR or Jackson's. Beorn as a bear who they must wait to change shape does so much better (particularly in the extended version).

 

[DayRaven]

A lot of fans will show how “hardcore” they are by their knowledge of details from Christopher Tolkien’s collections of his father’s work and maybe also the secondary works they’ve read on Tolkien and the contexts surrounding his creation, perhaps even their knowledge of Elvish words.

I think Tolkien may have preferred people to study Old English and Middle English rather than Elvish. He was once criticised (I can't recall the lady's name) for putting his talent into his "fantasy" writing, she claimed that Old English studies had lost a great scholar. But I think Tolkien made those fields more widely known through his writings.

As it is I will leave my penis in my pants....I think yours may be bigger.

I’ve read pretty much all he wrote excepting that never published,

I can't claim to have read all that you have (some of those works I've never found). I do enjoy reading certain of his published letters. Of The History of Middle Earth I have read (mostly that related to the Silmarillion) I find the Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth to be among his finest writings and, probably, the closest Tolkien came to an outright philosophical tract.

Aragorn’s character is not as completely inaccurately portrayed, but close.

I once toyed with the idea of writing an essay on the Aragorn of Jackson's films: something like "Too Christian for the Ring?"

Theoden, despite being saved by Gandalf in a much more dramatic and magical way than in the books, decides not to fight but to go to Helm’s deep for refuge.

The "Horse and Rider" scene was the closest that Jackson came to the theme of "Northerness" that is, otherwise, absent in the films. I recall that Tolkien attacked Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse writing that he "knew nothing of the North". I wonder what he would have made of Jackson's Rohirrim?

Sam’s devotion to his master is overplayed

I think the Frodo-Sam relationship was always going to suffer misunderstanding to a 21st century audience. It really is an upper middle class Victorian phenomenon that dies a death in 1914. That kind of male relationship today is usually going to be seen as homo-sexual and I think Jackson failed to understand it and made the assumption more likely.

Gandalf comes out relatively well, thanks mainly to Ian McKellen's tremendous acting ability

Have you seen his King Lear?

What did you think to Christopher Lee's portrayal of Saruman?

 

[DayRaven]

Christmas morning, my niece asked me

Damn it, I knew I had over slept.......

I agree. LOTR was one thing - I love Tom too, but there was just no way that everything could go in, and I agree that his part was ultimately non-essential.

It is a shame, though. I think Jackson didn't want to compromise the theme of the nature of power: tyranny vs voluntary surrender to authority. Tom, oblivious to power, would have deflated that.

The best movie ever made will be a top notch Silmarillion.

I don't think it could be handled. I would pay good money to see Christopher Tolkien's edited version of the Children of Hurin made but there is no stomach for genuine tragedy in most cinema goers.

I'm just upset we won't be getting a Silmarilion movie.

Not until 2041 (I believe) anyway.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think Tolkien may have preferred people to study Old English and Middle English rather than Elvish.

I’d be willing to bet you are dead right. However, I think he’d prefer the study of Finnish over these, and I gained a basic grasp before I decided that it might be better to pretend I had a life rather than learn one of the most obscure languages spoken because I am overly obsessed with an author’s works. Learning Old and Middle English was much easier.

He was once criticised (I can't recall the lady's name) for putting his talent into his "fantasy" writing, she claimed that Old English studies had lost a great scholar. But I think Tolkien made those fields more widely known through his writings.

You repeat precisely the sentiments of Professor Michael D. C. Drout, editor of Tolkien Studies and author of “J.R.R. Tolkien's Medieval Scholarship and Its Significance”, who points out that there are many ways in which one’s influence as a scholar can manifest, and a central one was how many professors line the halls of some academic institution because they grew to love the study of words and language through the world Tolkien created for them. Except that it was many of his peers who regarded his time spent on fantasy a sad waste of great mind.

As it is I will leave my penis in my pants....I think yours may be bigger.

You know how it is sometimes said that a guy who drives an expensive sports car is compensating? What about a guy who brags about being the best loser? I’m pretty sure whatever I have over you here isn’t something anybody would want or envy.

the closest Tolkien came to an outright philosophical tract.

Among the many ironies involved in Tolkien’s friendship with C. S. Lewis is that Lewis seems to have published everything his pen touched to paper, while Tolkien labored years over draft after draft after draft. There is much philosophy in what he wrote, but most is hard to come by, and only two have read his diaries/journals.

The "Horse and Rider" scene was the closest that Jackson came to the theme of "Northerness" that is, otherwise, absent in the films. I recall that Tolkien attacked Chesterton's Ballad of the White Horse writing that he "knew nothing of the North". I wonder what he would have made of Jackson's Rohirrim?

Chesterton was built like C. S. Lewis, and wrote like him (not plagued with doubt). I don’t know if he would have understood Tolkien’s work enough to appreciate it, but I imagine that none of them would have been particularly pleased to know that many of the rider’s were women with pasted on beards. It’s one thing to find extras, but horse-riding is a skill, and there weren’t enough men to play the riders of Rohan, so they put beards on women. C. S. Lewis once praised Tolkien in Old English, the language that is very close to that of the Rohirrim, but messed up his grammar. That said, I think appreciation of Rohan requires a bit of Chesterton and Lewis, or rather aspects of both.

I think the Frodo-Sam relationship was always going to suffer misunderstanding to a 21st century audience. It really is an upper middle class Victorian phenomenon that dies a death in 1914. That kind of male relationship today is usually going to be seen as homo-sexual and I think Jackson failed to understand it and made the assumption more likely.

That’s very true. I do think, though, that had the age differences been more faithful the homoerotic subtext that was really non-existent wouldn’t have appeared so.

Have you seen his King Lear?

No. But I have seen his Macbeth and more importantly a clip from a seminar he ran analyzing Macbeth’s famous soliloquy. I’d read the play dozens of times and had long since memorized the speech, but never realized how much I did not understand of it until I saw that clip (than you YouTube). Nor am I alone: Patrick Stewart likewise claimed that McKellen’s advice on how to perform/interpret that speech was his “ah ha!” moment of understanding and the basis for Stewart’s rendition.


But I have been meaning to see his King Lear. And they say the road to riches and pure happiness is paved with good intentions. Wait…

What did you think to Christopher Lee's portrayal of Saruman?

I though pretty highly of it, considering that again there was a limit given what he had to work with in terms of his script. But he did well, and more than well, and I think part of that is because so far as I know there is no other actor who worked with Jackson in any of the films who is as big a fan of Tolkien as is Lee. Also, he did manage to “direct” at least one scene (it may only be in the extended version of the LOTR). He was in the military and supposedly attached to or part of some special ops group, so when he was told how to react (physically, for the most part) when stabbed in the back by Grima he told Jackson that this isn’t how people stabbed like that are able to react, and proceeded to describe the actual physiological effects to such sentry removal techniques.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm just upset we won't be getting a Silmarilion movie. But on the bright side, we did get some references to it in the Hobbit films.

I too was hoping for a Silmarilion movie. Oh well, maybe in 10 more years we'll get them.

 

[Drolefille]

On the whole issue of a Silmarilion movie - Jackson doesn't have the rights, everything in the Hobbit and LotR had to come from those books and the appendices. Luckily the appendices have a lot of information in them, or perhaps unluckily when it comes to the Hobbit.

I don't believe that the estate has any desire to sell the rights to the Silmarillion.

 

[DayRaven]

Learning Old and Middle English was much easier.

Old English was the first language I studied, partly because of Tolkien. I'm currently working on translating the Exeter eulogies; my unfinished Beowulf is somewhere....

I’m pretty sure whatever I have over you here isn’t something anybody would want or envy.

Well I have swords.....if I could get away with it I would wear chain mail all day.

Among the many ironies involved in Tolkien’s friendship with C. S. Lewis is that Lewis seems to have published everything his pen touched to paper, while Tolkien labored years over draft after draft after draft.

Yes his output was low (even for an academic at his time). I believe that it caused some jealousy on "Tollers" part when Lewis became famous for his writings. Neither did he approve of Lewis' "apologetics": but I've always suspected Lewis' books on Christianity were more to persuade himself than others. Charles Williams (who cast a shadow over Lewis and Tolkien's friendship) I have never read. Owen Barfield's work I have found influential. One of my projects is comparing Barfield's thought to that of Nietzsche and Heidegger.

C. S. Lewis once praised Tolkien in Old English, the language that is very close to that of the Rohirrim, but messed up his grammar.

Wasn't that early in their friendship? Rohirric I took to be, essentially, the Mercian dialect of OE.

I do think, though, that had the age differences been more faithful the homoerotic subtext that was really non-existent wouldn’t have appeared so.

Probably, but I find annoying Frodo's odd wink at the end of Return of the King. What was that about?

 

[DayRaven]

I don't believe that the estate has any desire to sell the rights to the Silmarillion.

Christopher Tolkien did an interview with Le Monde in (I think) 2012. To, say the least, he is not a fan of Jackson's work . I believe the film rights for anything on the Silmarillion don't come up for grabs until 2041ish.

 

[Drolefille]

Christopher Tolkien did an interview with Le Monde in (I think) 2012. To, say the least, he is not a fan of Jackson's work . I believe the film rights for anything on the Silmarillion don't come up for grabs until 2041ish.

My guess would be that's when it enters public domain. Like Alice in Wonderland and Baum's Oz that could be a horrible thing or a great thing. The Silmarillion is such a history book though -despite some great stories in it - that it's possible it would be overlooked, or alternatively we'll have dozens of adaptations - again like the Oz and Wonderland movies and books that popped up.

Here's a question for fans - would you want to see reimaginings/rewritings of Middle Earth the way I've seen with many books about Oz? (Wicked being the most prominent, but certainly not the only one.) I really like the alternate Oz books - dystopian Oz or post-Dorothy oz, and so on, there's a collection of short stories where everyone is a different reimagining. But the idea of someone else's Middle Earth is less comforting.