What Tolkien May Have Thought...

[Aulë]

How is that pronounced, to rhyme with "singing" or like "whin-jing?"

Lotho

The latter (whin-jing).
It fits well in phrases such as "Whinging Pommy bastard!". Which we say all the time when Englishmen start complaining about things.

 

[joxy]

I'm sure that you know what that means.
....you must be more foolish than I thought...

As I said above, I asked you for your definition; I did not say that I did not know what it meant - to me.
It actually means more, to me, than simple complaining; there's more to it than that - it's a particular sort of complaining.
However, whinging, or complaining, or whatever, you said "a lot" of people do it. I called that a wild claim, and I stick by that.
These films are not perfect; very few things are perfect. Some people here point out the areas in which they are not perfect, just as Tolkien pointed out the many areas in which that screen-play was far from perfect. That isn't complaining; it's commenting on the quality of a product that they've paid for - though it's actually quite normal for people to complain about a faulty purchase.

But I DO complain about that final comment of yours - almost strongly enough to register a complaint about it.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

But I DO complain about that final comment of yours - almost strongly enough to register a complaint about it.

Sheesh, you know Joxy. I say this now as a Mod, and as a poster. But atleast I'm getting sick and tired of you whining to the mods every single time someone states a negativism about you, or something that you remotely connect to yourself.

If the person says that in her opinion, you are more foolish than she originally thought you were, then bear with it, it's their opinion and it's not going to chance no matter how much you complain...

sheesh!

 

[Lantarion]

You NPW's should take a look at yourselves, is it so that when you bash PJ's efforts, it should be allowed, because he's only a director, but when we say something about Tolkien,it's harsh and judging by your post, something that offends you.

The thing is that Tolkien created a unique and almost endlessly multi-faceted work of fiction, whereas PJs films are a different visual representation of that. It was Tolkien who did the inventing in the first place, and it is PJ who wanted to 'bring it alive' in the most popular modern medium. And I think it would be important to take into consideration that although you can go on about how the films are PJs 'own version' of the story, it is still a movie-version of the books and therefore also a tribute to them; and what people find annoying is the rather large amount of seemingly completely needless discrepancies in the movie to the book, for the most part. And another thing which personally annoys me a little is the fact that PJ went too far to simplify the story, to try and explain everything. I know that he didn't mean to create the film solely for people who have read the book, but don't you think he should have? If he really just wanted to make the movie into film format, why did he change it so much? WOuldn't it be more 'virtuous' in this case to stick to the book? Of course whatever PJ was going to do would have been different from the conceptions of a lot of poeple, that's inevitable; but to change things stupidly, like replacing Glorfindel with Arwen.
It seems to be the case that PJ made the changes and simplified the movies so that they would be a bigger hit rather than to stay true to the book and story. That may not be the case, but that's what it looks like.

Sorry if I seem confrontational, I don't mean to; please let's keep this civil even though the subject is something that can get to people..

 

[Ol'gaffer]

The thing is that Tolkien created a unique and almost endlessly multi-faceted work of fiction, whereas PJs films are a different visual representation of that. It was Tolkien who did the inventing in the first place, and it is PJ who wanted to 'bring it alive' in the most popular modern medium. And I think it would be important to take into consideration that although you can go on about how the films are PJs 'own version' of the story, it is still a movie-version of the books and therefore also a tribute to them; and what people find annoying is the rather large amount of seemingly completely needless discrepancies in the movie to the book, for the most part. And another thing which personally annoys me a little is the fact that PJ went too far to simplify the story, to try and explain everything. I know that he didn't mean to create the film solely for people who have read the book, but don't you think he should have? If he really just wanted to make the movie into film format, why did he change it so much? WOuldn't it be more 'virtuous' in this case to stick to the book? Of course whatever PJ was going to do would have been different from the conceptions of a lot of poeple, that's inevitable; but to change things stupidly, like replacing Glorfindel with Arwen.
It seems to be the case that PJ made the changes and simplified the movies so that they would be a bigger hit rather than to stay true to the book and story. That may not be the case, but that's what it looks like.

Sorry if I seem confrontational, I don't mean to; please let's keep this civil even though the subject is something that can get to people..

A good example!

Tolkien did a vast and incredible work while Peter Jackson just [insert random babblings and underminements of a decades work here]



it continues.....

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

The latter (whin-jing).
It fits well in phrases such as "Whinging Pommy bastard!". Which we say all the time when Englishmen start complaining about things.

Oh, this gets more juicy by the minute! What's "pommy" mean?

Lotho

 

[Lantarion]

Haha glad you're taking this so well Ol'G..

I didn't mean to undermine Jackson's efforts; and I do admire and even enjoy many, many aspects of the films, so don't get me wrong.
I was trying to show the reasoning behind a lot of the 'bashing' or critisizing of the movies; and as I see it the reason(s) I gave are quite true. If you had actually answered the points in my post instead of the idea of the post in general, this would be a lot smoother.
But did you actually see what I was trying to say?

And I haven't reada lot of your movie-related posts, as I don't visit the movie sections often, but have you even admitted that the films have a lot of large discrepancies and/or unnecessary alterations from the books?
_________________________________

And Lotho please stop posting off-topic posts all of the time, it's cluttering the thread up and is spam.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

And I haven't reada lot of your movie-related posts, as I don't visit the movie sections often, but have you even admitted that the films have a lot of large discrepancies and/or unnecessary alterations from the books?

Yes. not large, but there are some.

But this is not the issue at hand.

We have pointed on numerous occasions mistakes the Tolkien made, and everytime we are bashed by NPW's with the same comments, "Tolkien spent years making up languages and stuff!" True, but while making up ooji-booji, he forgot to clear up issues that are considered as mistakes. But ofcourse, when we defend Peter Jackson with the same thing that the Tolkien NPWs use for Tolkien, all we get in return "THAT DOESN'T COUNT! IT'S ONLY TEN YEARS!!" or in Joxys case: "BUT THE BARRELS DISSAPPEAR!"

 

[Lantarion]

First of all I would ask you to express even a little respect to the lifetime of work Tolkien put into his Elven languages which formed the basis for his universe, including Middle-earth (not called Ooji-Booji, but Sindarin and Quenya, among other unfinished languages); I gave the deserved respect to PJ, who are you to mock Tolkien's work in reply? And if you are speaking out against people doing the same towards PJ, it doesn't look very good that you do it towards Tolkien.
And novel-writing is not an easy process, especially on the scale that Tolkien always did (with Arda-connected fiction), and difficulties or 'errors' are bound to exist. Show me one fictional novel that doesn't! But they were accidental and not significant to the actual work (in most cases that is), whereas PJ intentionally changed the whole plot and storyline when he was in fact remaking the book. We could go into all the errors in the LotR (like why gandalf didn't realize that the Ring was the One until it was so late, etc.) as opposed to the ones in the movie (like Legolas' very much amplified performances); but unless somebody knows a way to discuss this without arguments, it will not happen here.

I just ask you to see what I propose to be the reason behind the Tolkien-over-PJ attitude in a lot of members.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

First of all I would ask you to express even a little respect to the lifetime of work Tolkien put into his Elven languages which formed the basis for his universe, including Middle-earth (not called Ooji-Booji, but Sindarin and Quenya, among other unfinished languages); I gave the deserved respect to PJ, who are you to mock Tolkien's work in reply? And if you are speaking out against people doing the same towards PJ, it doesn't look very good that you do it towards Tolkien.

I don't see any respect in your previous post. All I see is you pointing out things that you see as faults. Nothing else. And I do have respect for Tolkiens work, but I don't see a reason to worship him because he invented a fake language.

And novel-writing is not an easy process, especially on the scale that Tolkien always did (with Arda-connected fiction), and difficulties or 'errors' are bound to exist.

You're absolutely right, but most of the purists fail to see this. They are simply blinded by their 'fact' that Tolkien is allways right.

Show me one fictional novel that doesn't!

..The bible?

But they were accidental and not significant to the actual work (in most cases that is), whereas PJ intentionally changed the whole plot and storyline when he was in fact remaking the book. We could go into all the errors in the LotR (like why gandalf didn't realize that the Ring was the One until it was so late, etc.) as opposed to the ones in the movie (like Legolas' very much amplified performances); but unless somebody knows a way to discuss this without arguments, it will not happen here.

But the point, again is not to discuss the mistakes anyone has made! it's to discuss that NPW's and Purists cannot discuss them because they are blind to Tolkiens mistakes!

 

[Greenwood]

It seems to be the case that PJ made the changes and simplified the movies so that they would be a bigger hit rather than to stay true to the book and story. That may not be the case, but that's what it looks like.

I don't understand the point here. Of course PJ made changes with the aim of making a bigger hit movie. That is what filmmakers do. He would have been guilty of defrauding his backers if he had made decisions based on the idea of minimizing the audience appeal of the films. It is a balancing act between respecting the material, which I think he largely did, and making films that would be understandable and have appeal to the largest possible audience. Anyone who thought that PJ's job was to make films that would only appeal to the people who have read the books repeatedly does not live in the real world. I think PJ could have done better in places, but overall I think he did a remarkable job.

 

[Eledhwen]

Oh, this gets more juicy by the minute! What's "pommy" mean?

Lotho

I am a Pommy. It's what Aussies call the native British (or maybe just the English). I think it is because when the new immigrants got off the boat, their faces were red like pomegranates.

And guys, can we get back to discussing the thread title, and not turn it into another PJ-bashing exercise

 

[Radagast]

*looks up from his studies*
yes?

Good attempt at being condisending and snobbish--it made you look like both.

well, since that hasn't happened yet, I wouldn't know. and it didn't happen in Tolkiens lifetime, and it hasn't happened yet. So I don't see what point you're trying to make.

It did happen in Tolkiens lifetime- He just chose not to let it continue. And the fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean you couldn't understand how you would feel in such circumstances. I think you just choose to look the other way and say you couldn't so you don't have to look deeper at the question.

honostly, if one day my script is made into a movie, I'll let you know.

I won't hold my breath.



Really? then what are you saying?

I'm saying it appears that you are uncomfortable with the idea that Tolkien might not have approved of PJ's films so you came out swinging at Tolkien. Hey, if you loved the movies more power to you. We are all discussing our opinions of what Tolkien might have thought of the films, not whether he was perfect or not.

Of Topic: I think it's only natural that one would side with Tolkien when it comes to the story in that he created something where there was nothing. PJ while having a tremedous amount on his plate had a well detailed map in his hand, and chose to wander in many places.





So when I critizice your great Tolkien, you tell me to do the same for PJ. But, all that I see when I look at the rest of the forums, are threads about how PJ screwed up this and how he didn't do that, even threads that started as threads of praise for PJ have been invaded by NPW's who bash every aspect of the movie,

I think you prove that you are irritated by film bashers and so strike back by attacking Tolkien to get even.

You NPW's should take a look at yourselves, is it so that when you bash PJ's efforts, it should be allowed, because he's only a director, but when we say something about Tolkien,it's harsh and judging by your post, something that offends you.

I'm not offended, I think you are being offensive though.

Think things through before posting.

I think I have. Maybe you should take you own advice.

 

[Ol'gaffer]

Good attempt at being condisending and snobbish--it made you look like both.

Really? hmm, I'm starting to think that my sarcasm goes to waste here. Maybe I should add smilies to make things a bit more obvious for you.

It did happen in Tolkiens lifetime- He just chose not to let it continue. And the fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean you couldn't understand how you would feel in such circumstances. I think you just choose to look the other way and say you couldn't so you don't have to look deeper at the question.

oh, a deeper meaning? really? Well, let's see what you asked:

How would you react if you had spent the bulk of your life creating something of such intense beauty and imagination of which details and language are what gives it it's meaning, and someone comes along in total disregard for your efforts and turns it into "their" version for profit

And I answered that since this hasn't happened to me, nor Tolkien for that matter, he was only handed a early script, which admittedly was horrible, and he dismissed it, but with a arrogant hand in my opinion. So this never happened in his lifetime either, and in my opinion, it still hasn't happened.

I'm saying it appears that you are uncomfortable with the idea that Tolkien might not have approved of PJ's films so you came out swinging at Tolkien. Hey, if you loved the movies more power to you. We are all discussing our opinions of what Tolkien might have thought of the films, not whether he was perfect or not.

To answer your statement. No, I don't feel uncomfortable with what Tolkien might have said, because I couldn't care less. From what I've read of him, the image I've got is a grumpy old man who didn't like anything unless it was done by him. So I wouldn't care what he'd say because he would say the same thing unless it was done by him. And true, I'm here also to discuss what he would have said, and I stated my opinion, now we are discussing that opinion.

Of Topic: I think it's only natural that one would side with Tolkien when it comes to the story in that he created something where there was nothing. PJ while having a tremedous amount on his plate had a well detailed map in his hand, and chose to wander in many places.

or, he decided to make the movie accessible for everyone. A movie that made money. There's no point in losing all your money just to stay true so that some Purists will be happy. Because, let's face it, no matter what he would have done, he still couldn't have pleased everyone.

I think you prove that you are irritated by film bashers and so strike back by attacking Tolkien to get even.

nope, I just stated that what goes on here. I've stated also before that I think that Tolkien made many mistakes with the books and that it's hippocritical for some purists to call Tolkien perfect.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I am a Pommy. It's what Aussies call the native British (or maybe just the English). I think it is because when the new immigrants got off the boat, their faces were red like pomegranates.

And guys, can we get back to discussing the thread title, and not turn it into another PJ-bashing exercise

Good Lord! There's no end to one person calling another something or other...

And I fully agree: can't we put an end to this dreary mindless bashing. I wonder what this board would be like if the mods put a final end to the discussion of religion, politics and PJ...

Lotho

 

[Radagast]

A more reasoned response. Thank you

Really? hmm, I'm starting to think that my sarcasm goes to waste here. Maybe I should add smilies to make things a bit more obvious for you.



oh, a deeper meaning? really? Well, let's see what you asked:



And I answered that since this hasn't happened to me, nor Tolkien for that matter, he was only handed a early script, which admittedly was horrible, and he dismissed it, but with a arrogant hand in my opinion. So this never happened in his lifetime either, and in my opinion, it still hasn't happened.



Good, breathing is much more fun.



Really? I hadn't noticed. You'd think the title of the thread said something...

But to answer your statement. No, I don't feel uncomfortable with what Tolkien might have said, because I couldn't care less. From what I've read of him, the image I've got is a grumpy old man who didn't like anything unless it was done by him. So I wouldn't care what he'd say because he would say the same thing unless it was done by him. And true, I'm here also to discuss what he would have said, and I stated my opinion, now we are discussing that opinion.



or, he decided to make the movie accessible for everyone. A movie that made money. There's no point in losing all your money just to stay true so that some Purists will be happy. Because, let's face it, no matter what he would have done, he still couldn't have pleased everyone.



nope, I just stated that what goes on here. I've stated also before that I think that Tolkien made many mistakes with the books and that it's hippocritical for some purists to call Tolkien perfect.



And it is your given right to be. Have fun

I think it is safe to say that the only thing we can probably agree upon is that breathing is more fun.

Tolkien did experience someone terribly altering his work for profit, for precisely the reason of making it into some formula for success (ie profit). He chose to shoot it down. Just because the project was stopped doesn't mean someone didn't alter the story for their own attempted gain. We are also reading the criticisms without reading the submitted script so of course it extremely critical. Over the top?? Perhaps, we don't know what was discussed before hand and we don't know what was written to know whether it was over the top.

I also don't agree with every critique of PJ made by purists, some things have to made simpler and shorter for a film, so like you stated not everyone was going to be pleased. What was obnoxious to many of us was where Jackson wasted time and messed around with his own wanderings and then was forced to hurry things along to finish up. So what we got was 65% Lord of the Rings and 35% crap in my opinion. So it's reasonable to discuss what our opinions are of what Tolkien would have thought of what I call subjectively 35% crap.

I think also the "image" you got of Tolkien as a grump might not be accurate, and if it is not, your comments are unmerrited. If you could show evidence otherwise then maybe they are merrited, but from the biography I read of him they seem misplaced.

 

[Gandalf The Grey]

Good Lord! There's no end to one person calling another something or other...

Lotho

May I point out, my friend,

That you have just done that which you describe. You have called the Lord "Good!" .....

... Now then * clears throat in an attempt to bring to mind the topic of this thread via this roundabout segway * ... I wonder "WHAT TOLKIEN MAY HAVE THOUGHT..." ?

* conspiratorial wink at his fellow good sport Lotho *

 

[Greenwood]

Tolkien did experience someone terribly altering his work for profit, for precisely the reason of making it into some formula for success (ie profit). He chose to shoot it down. Just because the project was stopped doesn't mean someone didn't alter the story for their own attempted gain. We are also reading the criticisms without reading the submitted script so of course it extremely critical. Over the top?? Perhaps, we don't know what was discussed before hand and we don't know what was written to know whether it was over the top.

I also don't agree with every critique of PJ made by purists, some things have to made simpler and shorter for a film, so like you stated not everyone was going to be pleased. What was obnoxious to many of us was where Jackson wasted time and messed around with his own wanderings and then was forced to hurry things along to finish up. So what we got was 65% Lord of the Rings and 35% crap in my opinion. So it's reasonable to discuss what our opinions are of what Tolkien would have thought of what I call subjectively 35% crap.

I think also the "image" you got of Tolkien as a grump might not be accurate, and if it is not, your comments are unmerrited. If you could show evidence otherwise then maybe they are merrited, but from the biography I read of him they seem misplaced.

Some corrections to history here. The letter that is the basis of this thread was written in June 1958. Tolkien did not sell the movie rights to LOTR until 1969, eleven years later. Thus Tolkien did not "experience someone terribly altering his work for profit, for precisely the reason of making it into some formula for success", at least not in regard to this projected animated version. The treatment Tolkien commented on was written as part of the negotiations in trying to secure the movie rights for LOTR from Tolkien. Obviously, it failed miserably in that regard.

As for Tolkien being a "grump" I think I agree with you. I don't know that I would consider him a grump as much as a perfectionist. I don't mean this in any sort of negative way. Being a perfectionist is not necessarily a bad thing and he seems to have held himself to that standard also.

 

[Gandalf The Grey]

Now that our foray into name-calling has extended even unto Tolkien's very self, let me just say that if he's a grump, then I can't help but aspire to be just such a grump myself. * good-natured grin *

 

[Eledhwen]

I wonder what Tolkien would have thought of Radagast being depicted as a moth? This creature lives for hours only, yet managed to be around to lead the eagles again in RotK. This can be possible for one of two reasons: 1. It was a maia in disguise (a kind of mini-eagle), and therefore longer lived, or 2. It was a stand-in for the expired moth, with an extremely good sense of direction (and maps).