Adaptations

[Ramfast Hamshaft]

Good evening all,

Just saw this article on Google News. https://www.cbr.com/christopher-tolkien-disliked-peter-jackson-lord-of-the-rings-movies/

Apparently Christopher Tolkien was not a fan of the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy. I was not aware of this but perhaps I'm just out of the loop.

Rings of Power, whatever your thoughts on it, was an ambitious project, and at the very least provides the opportunity to reflect on adaptations of Tolkien's creation. I considered claiming it obligates us, but that would be a feeble attempt at persuasive rhetoric. There's no reason one should feel obligated.

My first exposure to Tolkien was PJ's LOTR trilogy. These are imperfect films (of course), but is Lord of the Rings a "perfect" book? Tolkien readily admits he edited it for the second edition, and it's "common" knowledge The Hobbit was edited.

I suppose what I'm asking is something like this - for those who read these works before seeing adaptations, could any adaptation do them justice?

I'm not trying to advocate for any one adaptation, but I will share my thoughts as briefly as I can. I have no desire to rewatch Rings of Power or PJ's The Hobbit. But I hope to have the means to rewatch PJ's LOTR for the remainder of my life. I watched LOTR and Hobbit prior to reading them and have not yet read The Silmarillion, though I own it and intend to. Currently about to start Return for the third time (in about 15 years).

I'm fairly certain Return was the first movie that ever made me shed tears. There have been movies since then, but never before did "art" do that. I only put art in quotes because I feel this story transcends mere "art", not because I questions its artistic value.

Its sad that the world is such that someone benefits from feeding me such articles, which only serve to make me feel inadequate for appreciating the things that I do. It's sad that I click on such articles. And it's sad that I have to feel wary about posting such things on an internet forum, where if any soul on earth feels the same way I do, we're bound to connect, but I do.

At any rate, I apologize if this post is sprawling, or off-topic, or redundant, and if so I hope the mods remove it. That's how a forum should work.

Do any of these adaptations do Tolkien justice? Would he like any of them? If you think he would, present your reasons. If you think he wouldn't, present your reasons. If you're not sure, present your opinion.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Welcome to the forum, thanks_chief.

The interview has been known-- and frequently discussed here -- since, well, 2012. Why CBR published it as "news" is beyond me.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movies, and I assume that they brought you, like so many, to the books. As one who read them decades before the movies came out, I can say only that I was disappointed with the changes PJ&Co. made. But these have been hashed over at length, and argued about, since the premier of Fellowship. You can read some of the relevant threads, if you like.

The reason for the Second Edition of LOTR was that Ace Books published a paperback of the original, and a "new" edition was necessary to create a competing version, published in paperback in the US by Ballantine Books. Aside from correcting some minor errors that had crept in over the years, as far as I recall offhand, the only major change was in the Introduction.

The second edition of The Hobbit was made in order to try to bring it in line with the later story -- the greatest difference being in the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter, given the drastic change from a "magic ring" to the One Ring.

As for Tolkien's possible reaction to the films, I'd recommend reading his comments on the proposed film of the 1950s; which you'll find in the Letters.

BTW -- if you'd like to introduce yourself "formally", and say something about yourself and your particular interests, don't forget our New Members forum:

https://thetolkien.forum/forums/new-members.58/

 

[Sons of the Woodland King]

Hello and welcome, @thanks_chief ! I'm on the same boat as you in watching the PJ movies first before reading the books, but I hope you don't mind me sharing my perspectives on this.

The LOTR books were not required or typical reading in schools where I grew up, so my first exposure to Tolkien's works were Peter Jackson's movies. Even back then, the stories as told in the trilogy were so complex that I couldn't fully grasp all the intricacies until I later on read the books and other sources to educate myself on Middle-earth lore. But the PJ movies were magnificent masterpieces who inspired the storyteller in me and drove me to pursue the world of LOTR further. I absolutely loved them, love them still, and will be grateful to them for my late introduction to Tolkien. And yes, I include the Hobbit trilogy in that. I mean...just look at my username.

It's almost universally agreed upon that "the books are better than the movies" in cases when the book came first. (But have you ever read novelizations of movies? They're quite terrible, so funnily enough, it works both ways.) Novels are birthed out of the blood, sweat, tears, heart, and soul of their writers. No one, not even their biggest fans or scholars, are going to know the work as well as they do, or care as much about it, so it's quite unfair to expect even the most earnest movie adaptations to completely live up to the source material. Granted, now and then a movie will pop up that surpasses its source material, but that's probably because the books were subpar to begin with. (Twilight, anyone?) For works as massive, complex, and downright magnificent as LOTR, the task of doing it justice becomes even more daunting and onerous. If filmmakers allowed themselves to be intimidated by the best and most beloved of novels/comics/plays/games/etc., especially in the genres of high fantasy and sci-fi, then we would be missing out on the chance to see such beloved characters, locations, and scenes onscreen. Personally, I'm a sucker for box office movies, so I would mourn such a loss. I was so sad that they never made it through all the Narnia books and am waiting for the reboot.

I haven't finished all of RoP yet, but I am fully aware of the spoilers and the weird turns the plot took. I was baffled and irritated (though not wholly outraged like some), until I learned about the limited licensing the Amazon showrunners had to work with. I'm not gonna say this was the best they could have come up with, but it puts things in a whole new perspective knowing that they were essentially asked to paint a nature landscape without using one of the primary colors. It's disappointing that we don't get to enjoy the "real" story we wished we could have, but it's hard to put all the blame of that on the writers/showrunners. I guess you could choose to be angry that Amazon is using Tolkien's work to make money, but that's just the reality of how movie adaptations get made. And again-- I love movies. And I don't think RoP is disastrous or disrespectful enough to take away my joy of seeing at least some of Tolkein's world come to life onscreen.

And look at that... I rambled on even longer than you have! 🤣 I guess I do have strong opinions on this.

 

[Ent]

Its sad that the world is such that someone benefits from feeding me such articles, which only serve to make me feel inadequate for appreciating the things that I do. It's sad that I click on such articles. And it's sad that I have to feel wary about posting such things on an internet forum, where if any soul on earth feels the same way I do, we're bound to connect, but I do

My dear @thanks_chief. Yes, it’s sad. The whole issue has been thoroughly discussed here on many threads.
We try very hard to remember that things people speak are Opinions. Not truths for anyone but ourselves. We do not seek or insist on conformity. In fact there is at least one member that won’t shut up about this. 😁

everyone can feel free to hold and share their views. We can disagree but not be discourteous. We can discuss differences but not demand compliance with our own. We’re a bit of a family looking out for each other’s growth, security and acceptance.

Hopefully you find a pleasant place to settle among us.

 

[Elthir]

Well, long before the Le Monde article was published, in 2002, Carl Hostetter revealed that Christopher Tolkien hated Peter Jackson's Fellowship film.

"And yes, Christopher Tolkien _has_ seen the movie, and he hated it. I cannot and will not give any more details (though his criticisms were quite detailed and lengthy); so don't bother asking, I will ignore all such requests."

August 02, Carl Hostetter, rec.arts.books.tolkien (google group archives) thread "Christopher Tolkien and family"

If that makes anyone sad, I'm sorry; but hey, my wife doesn't think My Cousin Vinny is nearly as good as I think it is, but we still love each other, and are happy.

I once had a friend who hated My Cousin Vinny! Admittedly we are no longer friends, but that's
because, one time, he made me a turkey sandwich and put too much mayonnaise on it . . . I hate too much mayonnaise on my turkey sandwich . . . I also hate too little mayonnaise on my turkey sandwich, but that's another discussion.

By the way: two Ns in mayonnaise? "Mayonaise" seems perfectly fine to me. But whatevver.

My first exposure to Tolkien was PJ's LOTR trilogy. These are imperfect films (of course), but is Lord of the Rings a "perfect" book? Tolkien readily admits he edited it for the second edition, and it's "common" knowledge The Hobbit was edited.

Aha! Thus, the second edition of The Lord of the Rings is perfect, as well as the third edition Hobbbit!

Tolkien himself made them so

But slightly more seriously [I'm rarely serious about anything], one could say The Rings of Power isn't perfect either. Okay. But I'm not sure what I'm meant to do with such a statement.

I suppose what I'm asking is something like this - for those who read these works before seeing adaptations, could any adaptation do them justice?

The question "could any adaptation do them justice?" seems a rather vast door to open. I must
say yes in that case -- but then again, "doing justice" seem itself fairly vague and subjective.

I'm not trying to advocate for any one adaptation, but I will share my thoughts as briefly as I can. I have no desire to rewatch Rings of Power or PJ's The Hobbit. But I hope to have the means to rewatch PJ's LOTR for the remainder of my life.

Fair enough. But why do you have no desire to watch the first two? I must assume that you don't like them, and have a critical list of why [even if it's not a written list]. Rings of Power fans might not enjoy
reading your opinion, but there it is.

Of course, there are zillions of ways to give opinions.

And also, it appears that all opinions are not equal -- for example -- most people don't go to their car mechanics for medical opinions, and verse vica.

I'm fairly certain Return was the first movie that ever made me shed tears. There have been movies since then, but never before did "art" do that.

But My Cousin Vinny came out before The Return of the King. And if you did see it at the time, did you not at least tear up when [deleted spoiler]?

Anyway, the article is simply Christopher Tolkien's opinion. And no doubt many will be interested in it, whether they agree with it or not. And naturally, we want his true opinion, and I can't fault him for giving it, nor Le Monde for printing it. Not that you are faulting him, or Le Monde, or other articles that pick up the story . . . but anyway . . .

. . . all I can say is that people have been disagreeing about art (and everything else) as far back as the release of My Cousin Vinny. And probably before!

Do any of these adaptations do Tolkien justice?

No, not in my opinion.

Would he like any of them? If you think he would, present your reasons. If you think he wouldn't, present your reasons. If you're not sure, present your opinion.

Would Tolkien like Jackson's Lord of the Rings for example? I don't think so; and part of my "evidence" would be the letter JRRT wrote in reaction to a film treatment proposed in his day . . .

. . . but that said, I've seen Jackson fans use the very same letter in effort to support their opinions that Tolkien would have liked Jackson's films. So, does the response depend upon what Tolkien wrote, or what his words "say" through the lens of a Jackson fan -- or through the lens of a Jackson Unfan?


Want an anecdote? Assuming you said yes: a friend of mine just travelled a far, far distance, which included a visit to the Vatican [Rome] . . . and he didn't even attempt to see Michelangelo's Pietà!

I said what? And without waiting I said what again [in a different colour]!

He said he wasn't into sculpture!

I fell off my horse (I forgot to mention I was on a horse) and lit my hair on fire (well, it felt that way). But we are still friends, and will always be friends, unless I find out that he hates My Cousin Vinny -- if so, we might have to reevaluate our relationship.

 

[Ent]

I'm rarely serious about anything

@thanks_chief, if this is your first introduction to a display of expressive power by Elthir, welcome..!

Though he says he's never serious about anything, he only means that when it's true, sometimes when it's not true, and often during everything else of any level of truth and falsehood.

But if you read him carefully, well... you'll find...
.........
....................
................................... I don't know. Can't be hasty. Need to think about it a bit longer.

But you can be sure he knows a bunch, though he tries to hide behind the cardboard boxes in the back room (when he's not playing in them instead).

I'm glad you got a chance to meet him.

 

[Elthir]

O I do love a cardboard box, good Sir Enting!

Especially if there's scrunched up tissue paper lining the interior . . . I see that and I'm all in! Literally!

🐾

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Sounds aggressive.

 

[Sons of the Woodland King]

Want an anecdote? Assuming you said yes: a friend of mine just travelled a far, far distance, which included a visit to the Vatican [Rome] . . . and he didn't even attempt to see Michelangelo's Pietà!

I said what? And without waiting I said what again [in a different colour]!

He said he wasn't into sculpture!

I fell off my horse (I forgot to mention I was on a horse) and lit my hair on fire (well, it felt that way). But we are still friends, and will always be friends, unless I find out that he hates My Cousin Vinny -- if so, we might have to reevaluate our relationship.

As someone who wishes I could spend an entire week just staring at the sculptures in St. Peter's Basilica alone, and perhaps half a day staring solely at David in Florence, I must respectfully say your friend is a savage.

The Pieta was wonderful, but the sculpture around The Chair of St. Peter was actually my favorite. I'm sorry for your friend that he missed out, even if he doesn't seem to care. LOL.

But I agree--we all have our definitions of beauty, and different things give different people joy. That's what the phrase, "respectfully disagree" was made for.

 

[Ent]

That's what the phrase, "respectfully disagree" was made for.

Or what? followed by what?

 

[Sons of the Woodland King]

Or what? followed by what?

My style is more saying "WHAT?!" repeatedly in increasing levels of pitch until only the dogs can hear.

 

[Elthir]

As someone who wishes I could spend an entire week just staring at the sculptures in St. Peter's Basilica alone, and perhaps half a day staring solely at David in Florence, I must respectfully say your friend is a savage.

LOL! And as he would no doubt chuckle to hear this, I just might tell him so!

 

[Starbrow]

I can hear this cat meowing, "Exterminate! Exterminate!"

And in my defense, I am attempting to return this thread to its topic of Adaptations, and conveniently ignoring the OP meant adaptations of Tolkien's works.

 

[Ealdwyn]

Its sad that the world is such that someone benefits from feeding me such articles, which only serve to make me feel inadequate for appreciating the things that I do.

This sentence stood out for me. You shouldn't be made to feel bad for liking the movies or for discovering that CJRT didn't like them.

There are far too many people - not just in Tolkien fandom, but fandom in general - who want to gatekeep and look down on anyone who is less of a purist than they are.

It's possible to be a fan of the movies, or a fan of the books, or a fan of both. If someone loves the movies but doesn't want to read the books then that's ok, let them enjoy the movies. Some people like to know every obscure fact associated with the writing of the books, while some people just take the books at face value, but that doesn't make them any less of a fan. Fans of the books shouldn't be gatekeeping Tolkien and looking down on fans of the movies as not "real" fans. Tolkien is for everyone!

The books will always be #1 for me, and I am hugely critical of the movies when compared to the books. However, while the movies are far from perfect, I still enjoy them in their own right. But in a different way to the books, if that makes any sense.

 

[Ent]

It's possible to be a fan of the movies, or a fan of the books, or a fan of both

You speak Truth, good Ealdwyn.
Would that all could see and be on this track..!
And would that all could learn to express both their pleasures, and their displeasures, in ways that do not come across as sharp and critical to others.

It feels SO good to 'vent' without engaging any 'filter'.
Yet words have power, and little do we realize their impact as they smite the recipient. (And yes, they do..!)
Nor the power they may have for building up, rather than tearing down.

"Every Word We Speak Should Be Carefully Chosen, and Each One Should Be Handled With Care." (A statement I keep framed by my desk.)

Your words above are such as that 'build up'. I thank you for them.

@thanks_chief - hear what Ealdwyn says.
It is for the reason your post cited that I left every other Facebook page I was party to, and settled here once I found it.
I trust things can be found to be handled in a somewhat better way here, than elsewhere for you.

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

It's an interesting point about Amazon being in it for the money. I only recently learned that Powell/Pressburger (The Archers) philosophy was just that - to provide a return for their backers. Yet they produced some of the most artistically accomplished films ever made. That's my opinion of course, but one that is shared by many film critics. So, there's nothing wrong about wanting to make a profit. The key is how you do it.

 

[Elthir]

There are far too many people

Agreed.

It's possible to be a fan of the movies,

Well, a lot of things are possible.

The books will always be (. . .) in a different way to the books, if that makes any sense.

Makes sense to me.

Anyway, I agree with whatever is the right thing to say.

In context, of course.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

the Le Monde article was published, in 2002

Did you get an advanced copy? 😳

 

[Elthir]

Did you get an advanced copy? 😳

I think it was written in advanced French, but back then I only knew that Le Monde meant "the" Monde.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

A world of difference.