What Tolkien May Have Thought...

[Radagast]

[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.

I think we are arguing over semantics.

He experienced someone altering his work (via the treatment) for the "intention" of making it into some sort of film for profit. Someone actually took his work and "reworked" it. (The fact that it was never made into a film here is irrelevant to the argument.) And Tolkien was clearly irritated by this person's alterations. Now, that is not to say this is evidence he would have been just as irritated with PJ. The points he addresses in his letter seem to be handled alright in my opinion by PJ.

It is simply the existence of this letter that leave many of us "purists" wondering how Tolkien would have reacted to some of PJ's other (completely subjective here) stupidities.

Thus the reason for this thread.

 

[joxy]

....a moth....managed to be around to lead the eagles again in RotK.

Oh, no!: someone please tell me we don't get that ludicrous moth AGAIN?!?!

 

[joxy]

It is simply the existence of this letter that leave many of us "purists" wondering how Tolkien would have reacted to some of PJ's other (completely subjective here) stupidities.

The letter has always made it quite clear, first, that Tolkien was concerned about the integrity of his work, and second, that he DID have some knowledge of the mechanics of film-making.
I don't recall ever hearing P Jackson refer to those two points, or to the letter, and his product forces the question of the extent to which he was aware of T's thoughts about his works being rendered for the cinema, and if he was aware of them whether he was interested in them.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

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).

Whatever makes you think that the movie moth represents Radagast???

Lotho

 

[rs691919]

I don't recall ever hearing P Jackson refer to those two points, or to the letter, and his product forces the question of the extent to which he was aware of T's thoughts about his works being rendered for the cinema, and if he was aware of them whether he was interested in them.

Interestingly enough, in the commentary to FotR this is briefly touched upon by Jackson and the other writers. When discussing the Eagles, and why they could not be used as a "plot device" to take Frodo and the Ring directly to Mordor, Jackson states something to the effect of "Tolkien never really said why Eagles couldn't do that". Boyens, if I remember correctly, corrects him and references this very letter.

This is paralleled later in the commentary, during the scene in which Frodo is found by Aragorn on Amon Hen after Boromir has tried to take the Ring. Jackson comments that this scene is "almost straight out of Tolkien." Boyens and Walsh have to correct him that, "no, in fact we made it up."

 

[joxy]

Whatever makes you think that the movie moth represents Radagast???

Whatever made Jackson think that the moth was a good idea, or even that it was a rational idea?
If anyone has come across any reference from him in answer to that I'll be interested to know it.
Tolkien says the eagles themselves organised the contact with and rescue of Gandalf, but there can be little doubt that Radagast was involved in the matter.
Jackson can't be blamed any more for leaving out Radagast then for leaving out Bombadil and any number of other characters, but by what weird thought process did he decide to hand over an indirect part of his role to a moth?!

Jackson comments that this scene is "almost straight out of Tolkien." Boyens and Walsh have to correct him that, "no, in fact we made it up."

Well, it was nice of him to admit, by letting that through to the DVD, his lack of knowledge of his source material.

 

[Gandalf White]

Don't bash the moth!

a moth?!

What else would you suggest? A squirrel?

 

[Eledhwen]

Whatever makes you think that the movie moth represents Radagast???

Lotho

Gandalf sent Radagast to "Send out messages to all the beasts and birds that are your friends. ... Let messages be sent to Orthanc." but "That was the undoing of Saruman's plot. For Radagast ... rode away towards Mirkwood where he had many friends of old. And the Eagles of the Mountains ... sent a messenger to bring tidings to me."

Therefore, I conclude that PJ replaced Radagast with a moth.

A squirrel might have done when Celeborn was young, but alas, the forests are now sundered one from another, and only a moth now has the stamina and fortitude to tackle the wide open spaces of Middle-earth

 

[Aulë]

"198 From a letter to Rayner Unwin 19 June 1957

[An American film-maker had enquired about the possibility of making a cartoon film of The Lord of the Rings.]

As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money, though on the brink of retirement that is not an unpleasant possibility. I think I should find vulgarization less painful than the sillification achieved by the B.B.C."

Hmmmmm.......... Thankyou BBC....

"207 From a letter to Rayner Unwin 8 April 1958
[Negotiations were proceeding with the American film company. The synopsis of the proposed film of The Lord of the Rings was the work of Morton Grady Zimmerrnan.]

Zimmerman – 'Story-Line'

Of course, I will get busy on this at once, now that Easter is over, and the Dutch incense is dissipated. Thank you for the copy of the Story-line, which I will go through again.

I am entirely ignorant of the process of producing an 'animated picture' from a book, and of the jargon connected with it. Could you let me know exactly what is a 'story-line', and its function in the process?

It is not necessary (or advisable) for me to waste time on mere expressions if these are simply directions to picture-producers. But this document, as it stands, is sufficient to give me grave anxiety about the actual dialogue that (I suppose) will be used. I should say Zimmerman, the constructor of this s-l, is quite incapable of excerpting or adapting the 'spoken words' of the book. He is hasty, insensitive, and impertinent.

He does not read books. It seems to me evident that he has skimmed through the L.R. at a great pace, and then constructed his s.l. from partly confused memories, and with the minimum of references back to the original. Thus he gets most of the names wrong in form – not occasionally by casual error but fixedly (always Borimor for Boromir); or he misapplies them: Radagast becomes an Eagle. The introduction of characters and the indications of what they are to say have little or no reference to the book. Bombadil comes in with 'a gentle laugh'! ....

I feel very unhappy about the extreme silliness and incompetence of Z and his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without discernible technical reasons at nearly every point). But I need, and shall soon need very much indeed, money, and I am conscious of your rights and interests; so that I shall endeavour to restrain myself, and avoid all avoidable offence. I will send you my remarks, particular and general, as soon as I can; and of course nothing will go to Ackerman1 except through you and with at least your assent."

The more I read about Tolkien's views on a possible portrayal of LotR on another medium, the more I feel like he may have been quite happy with the way PJ handled things. He seemed open to the possiblilty of a movie, and only Zimmerman's extremely horrible version turned him off.
Anyway, it was probably a good thing that a movie of LotR was held off thins long. Only just recently has technology allowed such a realistic version to be made, which is probably why only an animated film was put forward at the time.

 

[joxy]

The more I read about Tolkien's views on a possible portrayal of LotR on another medium, the more I feel like he may have been quite happy with the way PJ handled things. He seemed open to the possiblilty of a movie....

More than just open to it, he was obviously quite keen on the idea, to raise some extra money for his retirement!
What is there in the letters to encourage your feeling that he might have been happy with the present films?

 

[Aulë]

More than just open to it, he was obviously quite keen on the idea, to raise some extra money for his retirement!
What is there in the letters to encourage your feeling that he might have been happy with the present films?

Well as it says here:
"198 From a letter to Rayner Unwin 19 June 1957

[An American film-maker had enquired about the possibility of making a cartoon film of The Lord of the Rings.]

As far as I am concerned personally, I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money, though on the brink of retirement that is not an unpleasant possibility. I think I should find vulgarization less painful than the sillification achieved by the B.B.C."

Tolkien says that he would welcome a film, even though there was the very real risk of vulgarization. PJ's film was brilliant in comparison with Zimmerman's proposal, and there were very few major contradictions of Tolkien's text. Tolkien knew that changes needed to be made for a film-version, and although I'm sure that he would have had a grumble at a few unnessessary changes by Tolkien, he would have been most impressed at the work of the screenwriters in capturing the essense of LotR. Yes, there were vast amounts of vulgarization in PJ's movie (Legolas' nanciness, Gimli's comedy, etc.), and PJ did indeed want to appeal to the general audience: that would have be the prime reason behind pretty much all the alterations. If PJ wanted to appeal to the fans of Tolkien, he would have done it Harry Potter-style and go word-for-word. Notice how Harry Potter isn't attracted as wide an audience as LotR?
And with the amount of money that Tolkien would have received from PJ's version (the figures would have been unheard of in Tolkien's day), and pretty sure that he would have been overjoyed.
None of us can be certain what he would have thought. We can only assume from the few hints that he gave us on the topic.

 

[joxy]

....there were vast amounts of vulgarization in PJ's movie....and PJ did indeed want to appeal to the general audience: that would have be the prime reason behind pretty much all the alterations.

This question has been asked before: Is there any reason to believe that cinema viewers are totally different from book readers?
To put it another way: What is there about the books, that have satisfied millions of readers, that would not satisfy film viewers?
And again: Don't the film viewers actually include a high proportion, even a majority, of book readers?
Then, from your comment above: Is "vulgarisation" something that particularly attracts film viewers, rather than book readers?
A final question: What alterations, and inventions, as opposed to omissions, were due to the need to appeal to the general audience, as opposed - if such opposition actually exists - to the audience who were book readers?

 

[joxy]

Come on you people, especially those who have delved deep into the recesses of the DVD extras, let's hear what Jackson has had to say about that moth!
I'm not clear as to how the alternative squirrel would have made it to the top of Orthanc, and the moth certainly couldn't have done so - it would have been attracted to the lights on the way up! - but some of you may recall a suggestion from Mrs M that
a raven would have been a more efficient choice, not least because it could talk out loud, rather than through the curious communication method that Gandalf practises with PJ's moth....

 

[aragil]

What's the problem with the moth? I've seen very ardent purists say that the moth was one of the few aspects of the movie which they appreciated. That it in fact perfectly captured Saruman's undoing: his preoccupation with mechanical devices allowed him to overlook the natural world, and that natural world eventually came back to haunt him. What could be more innocuous-looking than a moth? Personally I think it was quite appropriate as the mechanism allowing Gandalf to escape. I've never seen PJ explain it, but then again, until now I'd never seen a reason for him to do so- I didn't know there was any real objection to it!

 

[joxy]

What's the problem with the moth?....I didn't know there was any real objection to it!

Who was it who had the catch-phrase: "You can't be serious"?!
I didn't know there was anything except objection to it!
A moth, at the top of a tower, communicating, carrying a message, a message to an eagle?!
As wild stretches of the imagination go I can't see anything wilder without the elastic snapping.
Your explanation is fascinating though, and I'd love to see how it matches with PJ's.
I suppose the point that attracts ""You can't be serious" the most, is the idea that "ardent purists" actually "appreciate" this thing - I'll have to restrain myself from saying here what I think about it, though I have done so elsewhere - and I'm not even a smouldering purist!

 

[Eledhwen]

I notice from the Zimmerman storyline notes above, that Tolkien was unhappy that Radagast was an eagle:

he gets most of the names wrong in form – not occasionally by casual error but fixedly (always Borimor for Boromir); or he misapplies them: Radagast becomes an Eagle.

What would Tolkien think of Radagast being replaced by a swatworthy moth?

 

[Aulë]

This question has been asked before: Is there any reason to believe that cinema viewers are totally different from book readers?
To put it another way: What is there about the books, that have satisfied millions of readers, that would not satisfy film viewers?
And again: Don't the film viewers actually include a high proportion, even a majority, of book readers?
Then, from your comment above: Is "vulgarisation" something that particularly attracts film viewers, rather than book readers?
A final question: What alterations, and inventions, as opposed to omissions, were due to the need to appeal to the general audience, as opposed - if such opposition actually exists - to the audience who were book readers?

Vulgarisation is something that is done to the something to make it appeal to the general public. I don't feel that the general public have all read the text: Tolkien-readers would be the minority.
And come now, you must be kidding yourself if you think that book-readers make up the majority of the movie viewers. Sure, there may be have been a fair amount that had read the book once or twice; but they wouldn't be as critical towards the changes as some of us Tolkien-obsessives are. The Tolkien-obsessives would make up a small percentage of the viewers. Now I don't have any figures to back this up, but I'm basing this on from the people that I know have seen the movie.
These people don't care if certain things are changed, and in some cases it simplifies the storyline for them. Take for example my girlfriend: she does not like the book because of the amount of names that have to be memorized. PJ solved this problem for the non-book people by reducing the amount of names in the storyline (eg, substituting Arwen for Glorfindel, Eomer for Erkenbrand, etc). Things are much harder to remember in a visual media than in a written media: when in a lecture, do you pick up more detail by listening to the lecturer once, or reading (and rereading) the text a few times? Well that would be a case of PJ vulgarizing the storyline- making the movie more accessable to the general public.
Another example would be the history behind LotR: A very small amount of the viewers would have read The Silmarillion, and an even fewer amount would have gone through Tolkien's other minor texts, so how could they be expected to understand things such as the mistrust between Man and Elves, and the reasons for the Elves leaving Middle Earth. As a Tolkien-reader, I have been asked many times by non Tolkien-readers why the Elrond & co. were leaving Middle Earth. By having Elves come to Helms Deep, it simplifies the story for the viewers. PJ does then not have to explain why the Elves aren't helping Men, and going into the history of the two. A mistake that PJ made was not explaining the reason for the Elves leaving, and Frodo going too. Sure, he could have saved himself that trouble by not having Frodo leave- but I guess PJ knew there were some limits to vulgarizing the text...
Another thing: the general public have changed since Tolkien's day, and some things just seemed plain awkard in the book. Tom Bombadil for example- he would have been a joke in the movie. By PJ taking out TB, he adapted the movie to the changing views of the public. Frodo and Sam's relationship appeared rather homosexual to the current day public- but in Tolkien's time, it seemed like more of a deep friendship.

Tolkien said that he would not mind these sorts of changes. So would he accept the movie as it turned out to be?

What would Tolkien think of Radagast being replaced by a swatworthy moth?

I think that was a tad more subtle than what Zimmerman did. I believe that the Eagle was actually called Radagast in his version. In PJ's version, the moth was more symbolic of Tolkien's Radagast than Radagast himself.
Once again, that was an example of vulgarization. PJ removed the complexities of an extra Wizard by substituting it with a small insect.

 

[Ireth Telrúnya]

Perhaps Tolkien would have been against the movies from the beginning, since he once said that his creation should always remain as a piece of literature.

 

[Aulë]

Perhaps Tolkien would have been against the movies from the beginning, since he once said that his creation should always remain as a piece of literature.

But in Letter 198, Tolkien welcomed the possibilty of a movie. Obviously he changed his mind as he got older (and the possibilty of a profit coming from it increased). I've always thought that Tolkien never thought that LotR would get as popular as it did; perhaps he was hesitant about a movie because of the possibility of it being a flop...?

 

[joxy]

Vulgarisation is something that is done to the something to make it appeal to the general public.
And come now, you must be kidding yourself if you think that book-readers make up the majority of the movie viewers.
These people don't care if certain things are changed, and in some cases it simplifies the storyline for them.
Another example would be the history behind LotR....A mistake that PJ made was not explaining the reason for the Elves leaving....
Another thing: the general public have changed since Tolkien's day, and some things just seemed plain awkard in the book. Tom Bombadil for example- he would have been a joke in the movie.
Frodo and Sam's relationship appeared rather homosexual to the current day public.
I think that was a tad more subtle than what Zimmerman did. I believe that the Eagle was actually called Radagast in his version.

First, I hadn't realised that you were using the word "vulgarisation" with its older, more literal meaning. Its more current usages are considerably cruder than that.
I meant that most people who view films read books, not that they specifically read Tolkien's books!
Of course, as Tolkien's books are among the most popular in the last fifty years, it still seems likely that many film viewers have specifically read them.
The question remains: if people are quite happy with reading books, of any kind, why do they suddenly become more difficult to please and satisfy when they become film viewers?
How do you know what people don't care about?
That the story has to be simplified for the screen is perfectly obvious; it's the way it's done that's the problem.
I'm not concerned at all about delving deep into Tolkien's history. As long as the essential parts of the LOTR story are presented on the screen, a few bits of dialogue in explanation inserted from time to time - as with the departure of the elves - would solve any problems in that area, without any need for whole invented scenes to explain the points!
As far as I know the general public of today has much the same feelings about the books as that of fifty years ago had. Tom B may be awkward or a joke to some now; he probably was fifty years ago, but to others he is just one of the many fascinating characters in T's sub-creation. Also as far as I know, no-one has objected to him and his scenes being omitted from the films; obviously some things had to be left out, and Tom B was one of the easiest to dispose of.
If the general public thought that PJ's F&S showed some aspects of homosexuality, then either they had looked at the films very superficially, or they are woefully ignorant of what homosexuality really involves. As a gay man, I'd be delighted to think that F&S, either in the books or in the films, are gay - but they're not!
T's cartoon man called an eagle by a wizard's name; that was a blunder.
PJ had a moth fly up a tower - passing by lights but not being attracted by them, somehow communicate with a wizard,
and take a message to an eagle - avoiding being eaten in the process; that's weird!
Now let's look for some subtlety.....