What would Tolkien think of the movies so far?

[Saruman]

One thing I have always wondered is whether Tolkein would like the movies, were he alive today. What do you think?
Could the moderators please change the poll so that the poll is open forever? I can't change it, or delete it, for some reason.

[TheRingBearer]

I think that no matter how astounded he'd be with todays modern special effects and every other amazing part of the films, he is the one who created the stroy and must have the strongest personal image than anyone else, so there is no way they could be perfect.

[Brego]

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder, But i don't think he'd av much 2 squabble about :grin:

[Tar-Ancalimë]

oh come on... Tolkien has been dead for years... how should we know what he thinks... plus the movies are only an adaptation... how hed like em depends on how he likes movie in general... we could argue for hours whether pj kept the 'spirit' of the books... whether you think he did or not, most agree they are awesome movies... viewed like that, sure... but how are we to know how tolkien would have viewed them!

[Rumil]

I like the movies I have a feeling Tolkien would find them awful. Probably he would see some as the changes as fundamentally opposed to his original vision. Just a hunch, no evidence... no matter ... they are great movies and i love 'em

[Windwater Elf]

I guess he would think that they are quite good and that is the reason I voted the second option. This is because although there are quite a number of changes in the storyline of TTT, PJ has kept to the spirit of the books and the depiction of the elven and dwarven races are excellent, not to mention creatures such as the Balrog, orcs and the cave troll. In fact, I think that the role portrayals of Sauron, Gandalf, Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Eomer and Eowyn would please Tolkien as well as the settings and locations filmed in the FOTR and TTT movies.

[Gorsnak]

I'm almost positive that Tolkien would be unhappy with a great deal of the movies. The omissions wouldn't have been an issue, I don't think, but the changes.....oh no. One of the letters published in the collection contains his response to a screenplay treatment of the first part of LOTR, and he is very harshly critical of many minor changes - some of which exist in the existing movie as well. Just for example, Aragorn charges the Ringwraiths at Weathertop swinging his sword, and JRR writes:
Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book. Naturally not: his sword was broken.....Why make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons?

When Aragorn had and used a sword at Weathertop in FOTR, I immediately thought of that letter.

Mind you, given what one can discern about the treatment from Tolkien's comments on it, it was much worse than the one PJ used.

[Little Devil]

I think Tolkien will find them good, though no where near perfect as he knows how everything should be, but if he was alive then he would probably supervise the filming and me telling PJ how he had imagine it and making sure that his trilogy would really come ot life. ;)

[*Teleri*]

I think that Tolkien would apprieciate the movies and think they were fairly decent, if he was alive today. Tolkien's story is so hard to recreate because it is so detailed and has so many ideas that are difficult to portray in the cinema, which is why I think that PJ did such a wonderful job. The movies were PJ's vision of what Tolkien wrote, therefore I think Tolkien would respect that PJ is trying to show people what Middle-earth could possibly be like.

[Nessa]

Of course I don't know the guy, but I can't help thinking he would dissaprove. Its one thing to be a fan of a book and see it adjusted for film, and quite another to have written a book and see what you'd created changed........

[Celebriel_Esgaledhel]

yeah, i think that Tolkien would be impressed. The movies really promoted the books, and now way more ppl are reading them, and Tolkien is much more well known. I, for one, loved the movies, and think that Peter Jackson did an awesome job in making LotR come alive!

[Glarawen]

it was really good somethings could have been better but not many in the movie it wass good but i really didnt like when the elves came to helm's deep but it made it more interesting PJ did a good job on it and i think he is one of the few directors that would have made it as good as it was really the movie and what i really liked was that he stayed to Tolkien 's story line unlike most directors who just get the basic outline a big plus!!!! :) :) :) :) :)

[Aerandir]

Originally posted by Gorsnak
I'm almost positive that Tolkien would be unhappy with a great deal of the movies.

Yeah me too.

I was bummed TOm Bombadil wasn't in FotR:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

-Aera

[Orkybash]

I think Tolkien would have thought that the movies changed too much needlessly. If anyone would go purist on these things, it would be him. Besides, I don't believe Tolkien was ever too keen on movies being made out of his books in the first place...

[Roxanne Elessar]

He'd probably think it's a good impression of his book...Too bad he isn't here to see it. The characters really reflected upon Tolkien's descriptions, they fit well! Especially ARAGORN!!!! :loveyou::loveyou::loveyou::loveyou:

[Aerandir]

I bet he'd be ticked because Arwen...


-Aera

[Gwaihir]

Tolkien would definitely not have liked all the changes made in the movies. I heard Christopher Tolkien didn't like them, either.

[Bard]

Tolkien was a complete perfectionist. I don't even know if he would recognize some of the scenes. I bet he's glad he has moved on. But I think if he were here, he'd get his hands on the original Glamdring, or Sting, or Anduril...I think he'd like that part. Maybe he would don the LOTR apparel made for the movies and go sit in his study and think genius thoughts.
:dragon: :archer:

[Bonos-Girl]

i really doubt he'd like the mpvies.....a lot of people who aern't tolkien are annoyed about the chnages made so i think he'd probably be furious....he'll be turning in his grave at the moment!

[Laleanen]

Well, look at it this way: what would he have thought about the *ominous voice* ANIMATED MOVIES?!?! O_O

[Bonos-Girl]

lol....hmmm....the animated movies...adn tokien?! roflmao!!!

[Cuiel Rilwen]

This really comes down to how much anybody knows about the person Tolkien. Being a perfektionist and probably a purist, he could hardly be all happy about it. I think if he was still alive, PJ would have had a real tough job convincing Tolkien to let him make the movies! But if he really had the ability to see things for what they are, which for one I sense in his writings, I'd like to think that he, after a time of reluctance, would see the movies as extensions of his story, and recognize them as the exeptional works of art that they are, and understand what they do for his work; namely make it even more loved and widely known! I don't think he'd see things as all good or all bad, I think he'd recognize the "gray" stuff as well.

[Bonos-Girl]

wow!! that was a great post cuiel. I completely agree!

[Cuiel Rilwen]

:blush: well thank you, BG!

[Bonos-Girl]

don't be embaressed! it was a compliment! lol

[Evenstar]

I don't think he'd say they were perfect... there are loads of things he'd hate, especially Faramir's character but I think he would be impressed with the films because before Peter Jackson tried, making a non-animated LOTR movie seems impossible!

[Saruman]

I actually think that he would have liked FOTR. The changes in it were minor and did not affect the overall story. In TTT, however, I think he would have been less pleased.

[Lorien]

I don't care if this is already been said its my opinion. Anyways, think of JK Rowling and the Harry Potter Books, they are almost to the book. I think Tolkien would have been upset at some of the changes in the movie. I think any author would be. Bonos_girl you left out the l in tolkien.:grin: lol roflmao

[Miruvor]

I think he would like the movies except for a crushing grief at some of his best passages being truncated or left out. (Like the scene of Frodo and Sam in the rocks below Cirith Ungol talking about the 'old tales' and Gollum coming upon them asleep).
On the other hand, I hope he would have appreciated some of the improvements (such as Weathertop and Helm's Deep) and the character representations, music, and scenery.
But you know, I suppose as he was writing the books, he may have envisioned things even differently than WE envision them when we read them.

[Bonos-Girl]

whoops! :blush:...i thought it looked wrong when i was scrolling down...

[Lord of the Nazgul]

personally i believe he would have been satisfied. they wouldn't be perfect, especially in his mind since he wrote it and there are other meanings to him than the ones we may have, but other than that i see no reason for him to believe they are awful. however, if he still were alive, i don't think he would have agreed to makes the movies.

[Catz]

i think hed have hated them frankly........he didnt like modern technology much at the best of times, and that i think would be his major objection......and he wouldnt have been happy with the need to abridge the book either
however, that said.........the movie made the way he would have wanted it would have been unwatchable........i think he would have appreciated the way that the essence of the story has been kept tho.
i know he wouldnt have liked the way many people want to try to live his world.......he was able to seperate himself from his creation......he loved it, but he knew it was fiction.....i think the way that many people who are into the movie, get so wrapped up in it, would disturb him a little
but, its all speculation since we dont have JRR here to give his opinion lol
And Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien estate have a habit of disliking anything they dont get paid for ;) lol..........dont shoot me !! lol
oh and Lorien........Harry Potter is a paperback of maybe 200 odd pages or less (i dont know exactly, i havent read them)......LOTR is almost 2000 pages long........thats WAY too much stuff to put into even 9 hours of movie......its a totally different situation.......there was NEVER any question that some stuff just HAD to be left out........lol and therell always be argument over what did ;)
:catz:

[Ilmarë]

Cuiel.. well said... I agree with your post.

Lorien.. if you mean that the Harry Potter movies are almost exactly the same as the books... there's no real surprise in that. J.K.Rowling was on set while they were being made... she could draw plans of Hogwarts... give detailed character description.. everything. Imagine if PJ had had access to all that!! Imagine having access to Tolkien during the making of the films.

It will be interesting to see if the Harry Potter books - all 7 of them - can withstand the test of time as the 3 books which make up LOTR.... and here's a thought... IF they make all of the HP books into films... its likely there will be 8 or more... considering they will almost definitely have to make the Goblet of Fire (over 600 pages) into 2 movies, or leave a ton of stuff out!!!

[Cuiel Rilwen]

...and I read somewhere, (think it was at Leaky), that Steve Kloves has started writing the manus for GoF, and that they're aiming at making it one movie, but keeping options open for two, that is if they see one will be to stuffed...woooooa we're off topic! Shut mouth!

[Ilmarë]

lol ..lol... back to the Prof, then!!

[Lintefaniel]

Though it's not on the poll, I think the Professor would consider them for what they are...another artist interpretation of his work. Whether he thinks they are good or bad is irrelevant because his opinion isn't why he wrote the books!! And Ilmarë....I still like Biting people...;)

[Ilmarë]

:thumbs: That's my girl!! ;) lol

[Ludibunda]

Tolkien seems to have been a fairly particular person, paying close attention to detail. He wasn't fond of the changes his editors wanted to make with his books. I assume he wouldn't have liked the changes to the story in the movies.

That is not to say the movies aren't terrific. The desires of a dead man are not the greatest concern in the making of a modern blockbuster. Although I think Tolkien would probably have been impossible to please, I feel the movies do a wonderful job of preserving the plot with a Tolkien flavor.

[HobbitFriend]

Yah, you're probably right, Ludibunda. Tolkien probably wouldn't want any movie version of the book if it were his choice. He'd probably find every little detail wrong with it, but then again, who can blam him :huh: because The Lord of the Rings, was afterall one of his greatest works... and he wouldn't want it altered :p

[Periantari Andruil]

Even in the in "Note on the Text" in the Fellowship, the editor/publisher(?), Douglas A. Anderson emphasized the fact that some of his words have been altered through the different editions of the book; like dwarves, elvish, further, and other words like that...
It is evident that Tolkien was a perfectionist because he had several editions published, each with alteration...
I do not think that he would have liked the way the movies were altered so that it would go faster (by omitting much from the journey from the Shire to Rivendell) and also the drastic alterations done in TTT. (not to mention character changes...)

[HobbitFriend]

I think he would have been very annoyed at Faramir's change in attitude and the omitting of Tom Bombadil

[Hobbitlad]

I Think He Think It Would Be Good Because They Changed Some Stuff

Like Lurtz Who Killed Boromir Was A Made Up Character

[HobbitFriend]

Welcome to WotR HobbitLad! entdraught And just to let you know, instead of double posting, you may edit your post up to 15 minutes after posting :thumbs:

And i'm not sure i understand what you're saying... you think that Tolkien would actually like the movies because they're different from his book?? :huh:

[Steve the Great]

Let's ask the Professor about films! lol
I've read one of Tolkien's letter in an another forum. He responded in it to a screenplay-draft of LOTR (thanks to
amanibhavam for the letter)
It's a bit long (sorry for this) but very edifying (I have to post it in 2 parts):

210 From a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman [Not dated; June 1958]
[Tolkien's comments on the film 'treatment' of The Lord of the Rings.]
I have at last finished my commentary on the Story-line. Its length and detail will, I hope, give evidence of my interest in the matter. Some at least of the things that I have said or suggested may be acceptable, even useful, or at least interesting. The commentary goes along page by page, according to the copy of Mr Zimmerman's work, which was left with me, and which I now return. I earnestly hope that someone will take the trouble to read it.
If Z and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about. ....
The canons of narrative an in any medium cannot be wholly different ; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.
Z .... has intruded a 'fairy castle' and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Faramir). He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important pan of this has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered.
[Some extracts from Tolkien's lengthy commentary on the Story Line:]
Z is used as an abbreviation for (the writer of) the synopsis. References to this are by page (and line where required); references to the original story are by Volume and page.
2. Why should the firework display include flags and hobbits? They are not in the book. 'Flags' of what? I prefer my own choice of fireworks.
Gandalf, please, should not 'splutter'. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity. The description on I p. 2391 should never be forgotten.
4. Here we meet the first intrusion of the Eagles. I think they are a major mistake of Z, and without warrant.
The Eagles are a dangerous 'machine'. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is absurd; it also makes the later capture of G. by Saruman incredible, and spoils the account of his escape. (One of Z's chief faults is his tendency to anticipate scenes or devices used later, thereby flattening the tale out.) Radagast is not an Eagle-name, but a wizard's name; several eagle-names are supplied in the book. These points are to me important.
Here I may say that I fail to see why the time-scheme should be deliberately contracted. It is already rather packed in the original, the main action occurring between Sept. 22 and March 25 of the following year. The many impossibilities and absurdities which further hurrying produces might, I suppose, be unobserved by an uncritical viewer; but I do not see why they should be unnecessarily introduced. Time must naturally be left vaguer in a picture than in a book; but I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to the book and to probability, should be made. ....
Seasons are carefully regarded in the original. They are pictorial, and should be, and easily could be, made the main means by which the artists indicate time-passage. The main action begins in autumn and passes through winter to a brilliant spring: this is basic to the purport and tone of the tale. The contraction of time and space in 2 destroys that. His arrangements would, for instance, land us in a snowstorm while summer was still in. The Lord of the Rings may be a 'fairy-story', but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.
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.
7. The first paragraph misrepresents Tom Bombadil. He is not the owner of the woods; and he would never make any such threat.
'Old scamp!' This is a good example of the general tendency that I find in Z to reduce and lower the tone towards that of a more childish fairy-tale. The expression does not agree with the tone of Bombadil's long later talk; and though that is cut, there is no need for its indications to be disregarded.
I am sorry, but I think the manner of the introduction of Goldberry is silly, and on a par with 'old scamp'. It also has no warrant in my tale. We are not in 'fairy-land', but in real river-lands in autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands. Personally I think she had far better disappear than make a meaningless appearance.
8 line 24. The landlord does not ask Frodo to 'register'!2 Why should he? There are no police and no government. (Neither do I make him number his rooms.) If details are to be added to an already crowded picture, they should at least fit the world described.
9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.3
10. Rivendell was not 'a shimmering forest'. This is an unhappy anticination of Lórien (which it in no way resembled). It could not be seen from Weathertop : it was 200 miles away and hidden in a ravine. I can see no pictorial or story-making gain in needlessly contracting the geography.
Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book. Naturally not: his sword was broken. (Its elvish light is another false anticipation of the reforged Anduril. Anticipation is one of Z's chief faults.) Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons?
11. Aragorn did not 'sing the song of Gil-galad'. Naturally: it was quite inappropriate, since it told of the defeat of the Elven-king by the Enemy. The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not 'spur'. There is no fight. Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20:4 the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)
Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows � until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed � would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.....
I have spent some time on this passage, as an example of what I find too frequent to give me 'pleasure or satisfaction': deliberate alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have.
15. Time is again contracted and hurried, with the effect of reducing the importance of the Quest. Gandalf does not say they will leave as soon as they can pack! Two months elapse. There is no need to say anything with a time-purport. The lapse of time should be indicated, if by no more than the change to winter in the scenery and trees.
At the bottom of the page, the Eagles are again introduced. I feel this to be a wholly unacceptable tampering with the tale. 'Nine Walkers' and they immediately go up in the air! The intrusion achieves nothing but incredibility, and the staling of the device of the Eagles when at last they are really needed. It is well within the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and arduous journey, in secrecy, on foot, with the three ominous mountains getting nearer.
Z does not seem much interested in seasons or scenery, though from what I saw I should say that in the representation of these the chief virtue and attraction of the film is likely to be found. But would Z think that he had improved the effect of a film of, say, the ascent of Everest by introducing helicopters to take the climbers half way up (in defiance of probability)? It would be far better to cut the Snow-storm and the Wolves than to make a farce of the arduous journey.

[Steve the Great]

Part 2:

19. Why does Z put beaks and feathers on Orcs!? (Orcs is not a form of Auks.) The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
20. The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.
21 ff. 'A splendid sight. It is the home of Galadriel. . . an Elvenqueen.' (She is not in fact one.) 'Delicate spires and tiny minarets of Elven-color are cleverly woven into a beautiful[ly] designed castle.' I think this deplorable in itself, and in places impertinent. Will Z please pay my text some respect, at least in descriptions that are obviously central to the general tone and style of the book! I will in no circumstances accept this treatment of Lórien, even if Z personally prefers 'tiny' fairies and the gimcrack of conventional modern fairy-tales.
The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis.
22. Lembas, 'waybread', is called a 'food concentrate'. As I have shown I dislike strongly any pulling of my tale towards the style and feature of 'contes des fees', or French fairy-stories. I dislike equally any pull towards 'scientification', of which this expression is an example. Both modes are alien to my story.
We are not exploring the Moon or any other more improbable region. No analysis in any laboratory would discover chemical properties of lembas that made it superior to other cakes of wheat-meal.
I only comment on the expression here as an indication of attitude. It is no doubt casual; and nothing of this kind or style will (I hope) escape into the actual dialogue.
In the book lembas has two functions. It is a 'machine' or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world in which as I have said 'miles are miles'. But that is relatively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a 'religious' kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter 'Mount Doom' (III 2135 and subsequently). I cannot find that Z has made any particular use of lembas even as a device; and the whole of 'Mount Doom' has disappeared in the distorted confusion that Z has made of the ending. As far as I can see lembas might as well disappear altogether.
I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.
Parts II & III. I have spent much space on criticizing even details in Part I. It has been easier, because Part I in general respects the line of narrative in the book, and retains some of its original coherence. Pan II exemplifies all the faults of Pan I ; but it is far more unsatisfactory, & still more so Pan III, in more serious respects. It almost seems as if 2, having spent much time and work on Pan I, now found himself short not only of space but of patience to deal with the two more difficult volumes in which the action becomes more fast and complicated. He has in any case elected to treat them in a way that produces a confusion that mounts at last almost to a delirium. ....
The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Company leading to the 'heroic' matter. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things.
31. I deeply regret this handling of the 'Treebeard' chapter, whether necessary or not. I have already suspected Z of not being interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a quite unintelligible glimpse? What are Ents?
31 to 32. We pass now to a dwelling of Men in an 'heroic age'. Z does not seem to appreciate this. I hope the artists do. But he and they have really only to follow what is said, and not alter it to suit their fancy (out of place).
In such a time private 'chambers' played no pan. Théoden probably had none, unless he had a sleeping 'bower' in a separate small 'outhouse'. He received guests or emissaries, seated on the dais in his royal hall. This is quite clear in the book; and the scene should be much more effective to illustrate.
31 to 32. Why do not Théoden and Gandalf go into the open before the doors, as I have told? Though I have somewhat enriched the culture of the 'heroic' Rohirrim, it did not run to glass windows that could be thrown open ! ! We might be in a hotel. (The 'east windows' of the hall, II 116, 119,6 were slits under the eaves, unglazed.)
Even if the king of such a people had a 'bower', it could not become 'a beehive of bustling activity'!! The bustle takes place outside and in the town. What is showable of it should occur on the wide pavement before the great doors.
33. I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the 'defence of the Homburg' � this would be a better title, since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown � entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out, if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.
34. Why on earth should Z say that the hobbits 'were munching ridiculously long sandwiches'? Ridiculous indeed. I do not see how any author could be expected to be 'pleased' by such silly alterations. One hobbit was sleeping, the other smoking.
The spiral staircase 'weaving' round the Tower [Orthanc] comes from Z's fancy not my tale. I prefer the latter. The tower was 500 feet high. There was a flight of 27 steps leading to the great door; above which was a window and a balcony.
Z is altogether too fond of the words hypnosis and hypnotic. Neither genuine hypnosis, nor scienrifictitious variants, occur in my tale. Saruman's voice was not hypnotic but persuasive. Those who listened to him were not in danger of falling into a trance, but of agreeing with his arguments, while fully awake. It was always open to one to reject, by free will and reason, both his voice while speaking and its after-impressions. Saruman corrupted the reasoning powers.
Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. Saruman would never have committed suicide: to cling to life to its basest dregs is the way of the son of person he had become. If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: 'Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!'
Pan III.... is totally unacceptable to me, as a whole and in detail. If it is meant as notes only for a section of something like the pictorial length of I and II, then in the filling out it must be brought into relation with the book, and its gross alterations of that corrected. If it is meant to represent only a kind of short finale, then all I can say is : The Lord of the Rings cannot be garbled like that.

[HobbitFriend]

well, i just read his whole letter over, and really, even though Tolkien seemed very upset with Z's alterations of the story, Tolkien seems pretty reasonable.... seriously! I mean, from the sounds of it, Z totally massacred Tolkien's work, and it sounds like not even us, as fans, would have liked the movie. And as I was reading the letter, I actually now think that he would have liked PJ's interpretation. From reading it, it seems like PJ did a very good job of keeping with what Tolkien would have wanted. The one thing that i think Tolkien would have had a problem with, was Faramir. Tolkien would not have liked it that Faramir decided to take the Ring to Gondor when Tolkien explicitly had him let Frodo go. But Tolkien mentioned something about not even changing part of his story even for an "artistic" purpose or something like that... meaning that he wouldn't mind if the director made a few alterations but kept in line with the story. ie. only making changes that needed to be made in order to translate the book onto the screen. So, that's what i think now :) Thanks, STG!

[Steve the Great]

Thank you, that read this long and - in some aspects - uninteresting letter :)
I maninly agree with you, but there are 2 scenes which Tolkien disliked in Zimmermann's work and seemed me strangely ... khm... familiar from PJ's films :naughty:
They are:
- the action on Weathertop ("the Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not 'spur'. There is no fight. Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life")
- the Battel of Helm's Deep ("...It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story;... ")

However, I think also that Tolkien would have liked most of the FOTR, but some of the changes in TTT would have made him a bit "nervous" lol

[RavenWingsofDarkness]

I think he would be inpressed with the technolagy.
But not to impressed with leaving and killing the characters
that he made up that he did not intead to die so soon.
Of corse I picked Awfull because I don't agree what he does
with some of the characters.

Raven

[Striderfan]

Hmmmm :idea:...a really, really good question, and a hard one to figure out ;)...I think that any author who spends over a decade of their life writing a work as complex and detailed as Lotr would be a bit preturbed at virtually any changes made to their book in a movie. Also, an author who has created those types of in-depth characters would probably be really personally attached to them, and even if he did not write it down in his books, would know in his HEAD what thier voices sounded like, exactly what they looked like, exactly what they would have said in certain situtuations. Since we can't know every little thing that Tolkien was thinking when he wrote Lotr, I think it's safe to assume that none of the characters in the movies are exactly right, and he would have critical things to say about each of them...however, at the same time, although PJ did change a lot of the specifics of LOTR, he also kept the same "Tolkien-ness" alive in it, I think. Also, just the fact that PJ went into making the movies with such seriousness and dedication would certainly make Tolkien proud. :grin:

[Periantari Andruil]

Good points, Striderfan and Raven :thumbs:
great find, Steve =) ::still has to read through those letters:: ;) hehe
I think Tolkien would be most impressed by the scenery and the places in which Middle-Earth was filmed. Alan Lee and John Howe are great conceptual artists and really helped PJ a lot in the design of Hobbiton, Rivendell, Lothlorien, etc....
I think what Tolkien would not have liked the changes in character though... Character changes in Frodo, Aragorn and especially Faramir would bother him most i think.
The action at Weathertop bothered me and perhaps the whole changing of the Flight ot the Ford would be bothersome to him as well...
(these views also colored by my own point of view) ;)

[Striderfan]

I think aragorn was a pretty darn acurate portrayal :grin:, but I agree that even I was a bit dissapointed with Faramir :(...but PJ HAD to put some conflict in the Frodo/Sam story if he wasn't gonna put Shelob's Lair in TTT....just a thought...:huh:

[Periantari Andruil]

There was a thread once about "Aragorn being a Disgrace as King" or something like that and the author of the thread basically said that Aragorn was too reluctant to be King and shouldn't have bowed to Theoden in Edoras... there is a slight difference in that between book and movie because Aragorn seemed to want to be claim his destiny in the book than in the movie...i get the feeling that he was more reluctant in the movies...

And yes, PJ had to put some type of conflict for Frodo and Sam, but not Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul! :huh: what happened to secrecy? What happened to Frodo's will? Did that all come apart so quickly??? I have issues with PJ's portrayal of weak Frodo as well... i know my friends were turned off tby that... (but then again they're crazy Legolas fans so...they just like the elf) :rolleyes:

Yeah, i have issues with that... and i think Tolkien wouldn't have liked that either... but then again i'm not sure what he would have liked instead of Shelob lol :rolleyes:
(I wonder what he thinks about the order of TTT as well.) =) (surely i i do not think he woudl have approved though)

this part of the letter that Steve provided is interesting:

Seasons are carefully regarded in the original. They are pictorial, and should be, and easily could be, made the main means by which the artists indicate time-passage. The main action begins in autumn and passes through winter to a brilliant spring: this is basic to the purport and tone of the tale. The contraction of time and space in 2 destroys that. His arrangements would, for instance, land us in a snowstorm while summer was still in. The Lord of the Rings may be a 'fairy-story', but it takes place in the Northern hemisphere of this earth: miles are miles, days are days, and weather is weather.

PJ condensed a lot of that time ...i wonder if the movie would've been more effective had there been a subtitle at the bottom of the screen SAYING that is 17 years later or something? Or would that just kill momentum?

(sorry for the long post..i finally had a little time to skim the letter more thorougly and picked up on something interesting) hehe :grin: :p

[Striderfan]

True...another thing I was thinking of is that Tolkien always hated the hype about his books when he was alive...so one can only guess what would he think of all the publicity and frenzy surronding the films!!! :elfeek: probably a good thing that they were made after his death...I don't think he would have appreciated all us rabid fans camping out at his doorstep and asking for autographs...lol

[Friend of Maglor]

lol........well has anyone read the Letter of Tolkien? and what he thought LAST time someone tried to make a movie out of it? true, I dont think he would have despised them as much as the older attempts..........but he would have been breathing fire if he had seen the animated wouldn't he??

lol

I think he would have appriciated the attention and care given to detail and his personal preferences, and as he specified that he would rather see the plot altered than characters changed, I think he would have actually enjoyed Fellowship, but loathed TTT (ents is the biggest= shapless plot, and Faramir, dear Faramir)

[Steve the Great]

Ahem... if you go to the previous page of this topic, you can find this letter of JRRT... :naughty:

[Friend of Maglor]

lollollol **bows to Steve** excuse me

it is my personal favorite letter.......I always laugh.........

[Steve the Great]

Yeah, it's quite interesting to read how hard to measure up to the Professor's expectations... lol (and how big the difference between written literature and movies)

[Friend of Maglor]

yes, .......wel one must remember that they are trying to measure up to a fantasy that has been growing for a man's entire life........not to mention that said man was a professor at Oxford!!

[Periantari Andruil]

Hard to match up to that... but PJ does a good job i must admit...
but Tolkien certainly would not have approved the removal of Saruman from RotK or the removal of the Scouring... it think the Scouring chapter relates close to his feelings about industrialization .... and no theatrical showing of that will definitely generate ill feelings by him about the movie... :mmmm:

[Radagast]

I think Tolkien would have been pleased to see how much care and dedication that went into the movies... and then I think he would be astonished by the special effects... remember his time was before star wars... lol

[Lady Luthien]

Even though Tolkien probably would have been disappointed about the strengthening of Arwen's role, the weakening of Frodo's role, and the opposite portrayal of Faramir's true character, i think he would be intellignet enough to also realize that these changes were made not because his work was misinterpreted, but because it was eesential to making the film more attractive to movie-goers. Most of Tolkien's main themes are carried through in the movies, and PJ and crew put so much hard work in trying to portray his film as accurately as possible without making the film flop(you cant do a page by page imitation in film of a book), and I think Tolkien would have admired that persistance, and I think he would have been pleased that it made his books about twice as popular as they were before the films were released. Though some changes he would be furious about...he would also realize PJ's film and his book are two different things...in the begging of the movie it does not say...film version of LoTR...it says BASED on Tolkien's novel, LoTR. That is imporant in considering the changes that were made in the film from the book. Some things cannot be portrayed on film the same ways they are in books.

[Periantari Andruil]

Even though he would have admired the persistence, some things just weren't part of his vision of MIddle-Earth, like that Orc general in RotK.. probably won't be pleased with the portrayal of Denethor and his modified death.Tolkien would admire persistence, but in terms of staying loyal to his books especially in TT and RotK... i would say nay, he would not like them. Too many elements, characters, 3D dimensionality were missing... especially in RotK. Movie-goers who havent' read the books will have a blast and think very highly of it, but Tolkien... nope, he would be angry/upset probably.

[Radagast]

I also think that especially in ROTK and TTT he would not be satisfied with the Non-presency of Legolas and Gimli and the racial issue that is there binding story.. Also I think he would'nt have been thrilled that they didn't get an ending.....

Some critics call it a sexist and racist movie/book..... I think Tolkien would have been outraged by this... as he was in the 60's...

The story is suppose to have happened 7000 years ago... in england... there were no black people in england 7000 years ago.. neither did the women have any influence what so ever...

[Periantari Andruil]

Of course Tolkien was never pleased with those comments and i dont' blame him... to Tolkien, he wanted to craft a story that will hold the reader enthralled... (it entranced me indeed) ;)
But would you think that Tolkien would be at least pleased with the effort that was put forth by PJ and crew to these amazing movies? Does anyone know what Christopher Tolkien thinks?

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Only second hand info on that...tho I read in a LotR-special Night&Day mag that some members of the family have distanced themselves from the movies...whatever that means lol! Christopher is mentioned among those, and it said he does not believe that the book can be properly depicted on screen. I suppose that means that he'd rather noone touched them at all. Supposedly Tolkien himself would have felt the same way, even if I would like to think he'd see the value of the films, as separate entities, and as leading more readers to the wonderful world of Middle Earth!

His younger relative Royd is very fascinated by PJ's work tho, and he visited the set of RotK, even was given a part as an extra, a gondorian ranger! He also visited Abbey Road Studios, while they ere recording the score. so the younger generation seems to have a different view on this.

[Radagast]

Yes I met Royd Tolkien at the Danish Galla Premiere..

I will say... I hope that he would have liked the movies.. John Tolkien.

[Saruman]

Tolkien's grandson is very supportive of the movies. I seem to remember reading that he even had a cameo in ROTK.
But I seem to remember that Christopher Tolkien has been negative about them.

[Cuiel Rilwen]

Originally posted by Radagast
Yes I met Royd Tolkien at the Danish Galla Premiere..
I

So what was Royd doing in Denmark????

[Radagast]

It was at the galla premiere... he was invited... he is a "Tolkien" you know? lol

[Cuiel Rilwen]

:grin: seems he's the only one from the family attending! Or at least the only one attending AND enjoying himself!:p

[Radagast]

lol lol lol you are probably right ;)

[Cuiel Rilwen]

They seem so...what's the word I'm looking for...restrained...hope their approach to life in general isn't like that!:mmmm:

[Periantari Andruil]

I would wonder what he would think of the technology that is used in making his story... would he be appalled or amused? Since he didn't like what the Industrial Revolution and technology did to England, I doubt that he would like the excess hobbit feet that had to be rid of in addition to other excess waste because of the movies. (just one undesirable effects of having to make so many extra props) Since none of his descendents other than Royd seem to be interested in PJ's version of his classic, it's a clear bet that Tolkien wouldn't want to watch the movies either if he were alive. I mean Tolkien himself was a perfectionist... perhaps with any little deviation from the book would upset him...
(just my opinion...i'm just speculating after all) ;) :p (it would be sooo cool to talk to him though) hehe :grin: