20 ms·

Christopher Tolkien has died

514 points by deadmetheny 7y ago

kaesar14 7y ago
Interesting to see the low opinion in which he held the movies, considering the revered place in American cinema the trilogy holds. Considering the astounding length and detail with which they were adapted, what more could he have possibly hoped for? What other adaptions have done more to hold true to such a complicated and intricate fantasy universe, especially in the early 2000's and earlier? Many adaptions since, inspired by LOTR, have failed to hold to their source material with such honor and gravity (GoT, etc.).
- ur-whale 7y ago
  They took out bombadil.
  - wufufufu 7y ago
    Thank god
- aerovistae 7y ago
  I for one would have liked to see Frodo & Sam's journey to mordor in the second and third movies abbreviated a bit. It was incredibly drawn out. Otherwise I love the movies and see no room for improvement.
  - ngold 7y ago
    Tom Bombadil, I would have loved to have seen super god and his girlfriend.
    - low_common 7y ago
      Yeah but unless you've read the books, his character is a bit esoteric for the movies.
      - krapp 7y ago
        Tom Bombadil is "a bit esoteric" in the same way that a hurricane is "a bit moist."
    - elric 7y ago
      IIRC I once read a letter from JRRT where he stated that Bombadil was a "deliberate enigma". He had no explanation for the character's apparent powers or origin. Considering the incredible amount of details and origin stories for just about every other character and race in the epos, that struck me as particularly whimsical. Sort of like an easter egg that ended up in a place that was slightly too prominent. An inordinate amount of time has been spent on the internet in debates whether Bombadil was an Elf, one of the Maiar, a human with some other item of power, one of the Valar or even even Eru Iluvatar incarnate.
      - mcguire 7y ago
        That's the beautiful part about him, that I didn't get when I was younger and trying to fit him in to the model. You have living elves that remember them originally going into the west. You have the history after they came back, including several who where there. Some know the Valar personally. You can be reasonably confident of the history. Heck, you have Maiar wandering around. And then you have Bombadil. Who is he? Nobody knows! Not the elves, not the Maiar. What does he want? To sing goofy songs. It's beautiful!
      - n0rbwah 7y ago
        In his afterlife, JRR Tolkien lives in middle earth as Tom.
    - thrower123 7y ago
      The loss of the Barrow-wights was unfortunate, and took something away from the death of the Witch-King as well.
  - petepete 7y ago
    Generally agree, loved the movies (especially the extended editions) but: * Helm's Deep went on way too long, it was like 45 minutes of battle * Legolas's action scenes were a little too over the top for my taste (Oliphaunt tail slide, surfing on a shield). I'm not sure the iffy CGI helped. * Poor Faramir
    - gizmo385 7y ago
      I personally think Helm's Deep was just as long as it needed to be. It's just not 45 minutes of blind, pointless battle. There is storytelling, character growth, and evolution in those 45 minutes. It's one of the most efficient and well created battle scenes in modern cinema. As far as Legolas's action scenes, are you referring to the elephant? That one was CGI, but the scene of him sliding down the stairs on a shield was actually a practical effect done with wire work. The only CGI in that scene was the removal of the wires I believe. Yes, Faramir's story is tragic but I think that's kind of the point of his story; isn't it?
      - jacobush 7y ago
        Legolas' shield stunt was over the top.
        m4r35n357 7y ago
        especially considering there were no elves there at all!
        jacobush 7y ago
        ?
        petepete 7y ago
        In the books the elves didn't come to support the men at Helm's Deep. The battle played a much smaller part in the books than it did the movies - probably because the middle one needed a climax.
- bovermyer 7y ago
  The original works were as much a careful exploration of a world not our own as they were an epic tale. Large sections of the text were devoted to describing that world. The movies gloss over all of that to focus purely on the story.
  - kaesar14 7y ago
    And even with that focus on the story, we get 12 hours in the extended editions, much of it expanding on the characters and their backstories as they relate to the world in which the story takes place. It's hard to have pages and pages of explanation of a world in a movie. The movies do that by exploring that history in the set pieces and characters, and I think most people would agree they do a magnificent job of it.
  - gizmo385 7y ago
    Describing the world visually? I mean that kind of text is naturally going to disappear when you're creating a movie because all of that is just going to be represented in the cinematography.
    - mumblemumble 7y ago
      John Scalzi shared a reasonably thoughtful perspective on this on his blog a few days ago: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2020/01/10/why-yes-in-fact-old-mans-war-could-make-a-very-fine-movie/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2020/01/10/why-yes-in-fact-old-m... "... although I will note ... that a two-hour movie will not cram the entire complexity of the novel I wrote into its 120-minute running time." "And that’s fine, and as it turns out, necessary. Movies are not books. Movies are adaptations of books, for another medium entirely. When filmmakers try to make their movies simply a “faithful” version of the book that runs at 24 frames a second, the results (speaking as a former full-time professional film critic) tend to be dreadful more often than not. I don’t want a movie of Old Man’s War that’s a retread of what I’ve already done in the book. What I want is an adaptation and interpretation of what I’ve written that’s interesting and exciting, and is faithful to the idea and feel of the universe I created." It's been a long time since I saw the LOTR films (and never bothered to see The Hobbit, so I can't comment on those), but, as I recall, that's more or less what Peter Jackson did.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  Perhaps purists aren't so easily won over by lavish production values and jaw-dropping visuals.
  - krapp 7y ago
    As if the film trilogy were nothing but eye candy? The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was as transformative for fantasy as Star Wars was for science fiction - people didn't even think the trilogy could be filmed, much less be successful, as fantasy (like comic books and, ironically, science fiction before Star Wars) was considered cheesy, juvenile schlock forever doomed to box office failure. Peter Jackson not only filmed the unfilmable, but wound up creating what many people would consider one of the greatest motion picture trilogies ever, on many levels, beyond just spectacle. There are probably millions more Tolkein fans across the world just because the trilogy was as good as it was. Given that the canonical onscreen adaptation of the trilogy until that point was a cartoon by Filmation from the 70s, I would hope purists could maybe see the silver lining around the cloud.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      You're not wrong, but I'm just saying even some of most gorgeous and exhaustive work put into a film series isn't enough to satisfy purists. I find it fascinating, and have come to understand it.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      I always enjoyed this sendup of Bakshi’s film http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm
      - laurus 7y ago
        The Bakshi movie's Lothlórien was absolutely beautiful though. I also liked all the voice actors in that movie better than the actors in the Jackson trilogy (except I guess Samwise, who was a little silly in the Bakshi film). It also didn't have much comic relief, which I appreciated.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Ralfp 7y ago
  I would assume not being paid for those movies had something to do with it? In February 2008, the Tolkien Trust sued New Line Cinema, the studio behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for £75 million claiming they had not received "even one penny" from the films. A request for punitive damages was denied in September 2008. (In March 2008, New Line Cinema became a unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment.) The case was resolved out of court on 8 September 2009 with the terms not made public. In a press release, Christopher Tolkien stated, "The Trustees regret that legal action was necessary, but are glad that this dispute has been settled on satisfactory terms that will allow the Tolkien Trust properly to pursue its charitable objectives. The Trustees acknowledge that New Line may now proceed with its proposed films of 'The Hobbit.'" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578442/JRR-Tolkiens-estate-to-sue-Lord-of-the-Rings-filmmakers-New-Line-Cinema-over-profits.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578442/JRR-Tolki...
  - Pigo 7y ago
    That sounds like Hollywood's famous accounting practices. They claim movies that makes 100's of millions have lost money by inflating costs that are paid to production companies and such. I'm sure someone can explain how they get away with it. But it's astounding how they claim these movies lose money, in order to shaft whomever they want.
    - Relys 7y ago
      Honestly, I don't understand how this isn't the same thing as tax fraud.
- nck4222 7y ago
  I think it's hard for many people who are emotionally and/or deeply connected to something, see it changed, modified, and reinterpreted by someone else. Even in the world of software, how many of us have worked on a project for a long time only to hand it off to someone else, and find it hard not to have strong opinions about how they work with it, when it's no longer our responsibility?
- lordleft 7y ago
  He probably felt a degree of ownership and protectiveness over the franchise that few of us could understand. It may have been impossible to match his expectations.
- scop 7y ago
  I have a love/hate relationship with the movies. While the trilogy brought to life Middle-Earth to a degree I never thought imaginable, there were some elements that just fell incredibly flat. If I had to pin it on one thing, it was that Peter Jackson and team were extremely good at portraying evil in all of its ugliness but failed to portray "goodness" with equal skill (which admittedly is not an easy thing to do!). While the honest goodness of the Hobbits was wonderful, the portrayals of "good" characters such as Aragorn and Galadriel fell very flat. This is not to blame on the actors at all as I thought Viggo did an awesome job; but the screenplay needlessly muddled the character. Also, where was the damn poetry?
  - low_common 7y ago
    Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by the portrayal of Aragorn "falling a bit flat"? Perhaps he was a bit too gruff or something, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring? I could possibly see that because in the book he was definitely clear-cut 'rough and ready good-guy'.
    - scop 7y ago
      No problems with his "gruffness" as you term it; that indeed very much captured his Ranger walkings in Fellowship etc. What was a tough pill to swallow was the self-doubt infused into the character. I know I know, character development, relatability, etc etc. But, c'mon, Aragorn is the damned KING and a leader with unflinching will (a contrast to many around him). ... Also, where was the damn standard w/ the White Tree, Elendil when Aragorn arrived at the boat?!
      - Pigo 7y ago
        As someone who had not read the books before seeing the movies (I know, I know) it added a lot of context when I found out why the elves were leaving at the end. I remember wondering why everyone was leaving if they had won. I know it was already long, but I wish they'd explained the ring's connection to magic better. It also would have explained why everyone was so willing to take the rings of power in the first place, and given more weight to the somber tone at the end.
- linksnapzz 7y ago
  The adaptation is always going to suffer in comparison to a book like that. It's not like you can just rotate the story through 360-degrees of the audio-video dimension and have it pop out at you. Lots of more modern fiction, written by people who think of stories first in the cinematic sense even as they are writing them, you can almost derive the film from the book. Say, Jurassic Park, for example. The departures from the novel were incidental, and the film could've been made even more faithful to the text but for the desires of the producers.
  - adrian_b 7y ago
    In my opinion the departures from the Jurassic Park novel were not just incidental. I enjoyed very much the Jurassic Park visual effects, but I despised the script as one of the most disappointing adaptations of novels, because it completely failed to convey the message of the book. The central idea of the book was that there are things so complex, i.e. chaotic systems, that regardless how good you are and how great are your efforts to control them, unpredictable failure is unavoidable. I did not see anything of that in the movie, where the failure of the park was just the consequence of stupid mistakes made by a bunch of morons, not the consequence of objective laws, as in the book.
    - linksnapzz 7y ago
      Perhaps incidental is the wrong word; my point being that Spielberg absolutely could've made the script more faithful to the book without having to invent characters, dialog or settings not in the text.
- mjw1007 7y ago
  I don't think he was at all surprised at how bad the films were, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't complain about them. I think it's easy for many people who are used to a diet of truly terrible adaptations to mistake one which is merely bad for something excellent. (I think pretty much everything about those films was very good, except for the script, which was poor on both a large and small scale.)
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  The films are not bad for visuals and casting/acting, but changed the story and characters and motivations far too much for fans of the books. And left out the actual ending!
- lordnacho 7y ago
  I wonder if Netflix or other streaming services would have produced something vastly different. Tolkien wrote so much it really could do with more exploration. Also if you're selling it in a movie format, you have to be able to bring in the general masses. That means cutting down a lot of the intricacies.
  - cm2012 7y ago
    Amazon is making a lotr universe TV show for prime.
    - corn_dog 7y ago
      I am really hoping they film it with similar production values to The Man in the High Castle. I think the pacing, and the mix of reality and fantasy, in that would suit LOTR really well.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    These days, LotR would be made as a multi-season epic, like GoT.
- cpr 7y ago
  There's simply no way, no matter how technically wizardly the movies might be, that they could convey the "spirit" of the trilogy. And, further, the movies fall far, far short of the images your own imagination can create from these classics. And they even pollute your imagination with the limitations of the director's choices.
  - oska 7y ago
    > And they even pollute your imagination with the limitations of the director's choices. Exactly why I never watched the films, despite being a huge Tolkien fan from about age 9 to 16. The thought of how Hollywood would depict elves was particularly off-putting for me. I've never regretted not watching them, even when the hype was at its greatest, and any glimpses of screenshots that I've chanced upon have only confirmed that I made the right choice.
    - amatecha 7y ago
      Dang, I'm almost jealous. I couldn't resist the temptation and hope that the movies could maybe possibly vaguely live up to the legacy. Unfortunately I didn't quite anticipate how those images would forever alter my vision of the story/world. Though, I've purposely waited a long time and ignored everything about it, letting the memories fade, so I can re-read the trilogy and hopefully rediscover the greatness. :)
- nfc 7y ago
  Perhaps it's natural to be very critical of the adaptation of something your are very emotionally attached to?. I for one loved reading the books as a kid and I felt that some scenes (Legolas shield surfing and flying between elephants) were a bit too "cheap" and unnecessary. I enjoyed the films by telling myself that there was a lot of good that offset those bads but perhaps that's easier to do when you are young than when you are on your 70s
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > Legolas shield surfing and flying between elephants The latter was bad but the former was incredibly out of place. It's the one scene I'd cut.
- gwd 7y ago
  > Considering the astounding length and detail with which they were adapted, what more could he have possibly hoped for? Not changing complex and interesting characters with boring Hollywood tropes (Denethor, Treebeard, Faramir)? Following Tolkein's carefully thought-out timeline of how and when and why things would have happened, rather than making every action scene a hollywood trope, where the bad guys can't hit anything and the good guys can't miss? The best film adaptation of a book I've ever seen is the Sense and Sensibility adapted by Emma Thompson. You can't make a movie identical to a book; it doesn't work -- they're different art forms. Emma Thompson cut out big scenes, chopped out characters, and made a load of changes to make the situation more accessible to a modern audience -- but the heart of the story, and the character of the people in it, are true to the novel. The movies jumped the shark for me when Faramir said he was going to "arrest" Frodo and bring him to Denethor. I watched the third film, but I'd emotionally checked out at that point.
- jfengel 7y ago
  One of the things that Game of Thrones got right is to realize that a novel corresponds to a dozen hours of screen time, not three. The Lord of the Rings trilogy misses a lot of the epic scope of the book, focusing a lot more heavily on battles and missing out on the sheer weight of time. I don't know if any film could really capture that, especially to Christoper's satisfaction. But the movies are action-adventure blockbusters, and the books really aren't. It's notable that the Battle of the Hornburg was only about a page of text, but close to an hour of screen time. That kind of shift of focus recurs throughout the adaptation. Tolkien was creating an alien world; Jackson gave us a familiar Sort Of Middle Ages Or Something. The films did manage to capture the age of the world better than anybody could possibly have imagined. Jackson hired the best artists, famed for producing images that were better than Tolkien's own, and capturing a lot of what Christopher would treasure in the book. As a series of still images, Christopher should have found a lot to admire in the films. But the dialogue doesn't achieve the same.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    > Tolkien was creating an alien world; Jackson gave us a familiar Sort Of Middle Ages Or Something. This is pretty debatable c.f. endless scholarship on the connections between LOTR and (a) Tolkein's feelings about England post-WWI and (b) Tolkein's deep connections with actual existing mythology and legend. "Different world", perhaps, but "alien world" seems a bit much.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Tolkien was creating an alien world; Jackson gave us a familiar Sort Of Middle Ages Or Something. As I understand it, Tolkien was trying to create a national mythology for England, so he wouldn't have intended the setting to be completely alien, as he wanted its archetypes to resonate with his own culture. Also the main reason the films seem like a familiar medieval fantasy setting is that Tolkien basically invented the high fantasy genre and its tropes. I think one movie reviewer even panned the Lord of the Rings as being too generic and derivative, when in fact everyone else has been copying Tolkien for decades.
  - microtherion 7y ago
    > One of the things that Game of Thrones got right is to realize that a novel corresponds to a dozen hours of screen time, not three. But if LoTR hadn't accomplished what it did in its three hours, I don't think GoT would have GOTTEN its dozen hours. I think people underestimate how massively speculative fiction movies (especially fantasy and comic book adaptations) have improved in the last 20 years. If you compare Jackson's LoTR to Ralph Bakshi's 1978 adaptation, they simply don't play in the same league at all.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  There are many, many examples of places where depth of character especially was lost in the translation. Some of this was obviously a matter of limited screentime, but other things were done badly that would have taken very little or no extra time to do right. One big example is Eowyn's showdown with the witch king, see this article: https://www.themarysue.com/the-story-of-eowyn/ https://www.themarysue.com/the-story-of-eowyn/ But even apart from that, when such huge chunks of screentime were devoted to these epic battle scenes, you do get the sense that the priorities at the top level were not quite aligned to what was in the book. Even compared to the 1981 BBC radio play (13 hours total), you feel like the movies missed a lot of good stuff.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  IMO, to whatever extent the reverence exists, it is unjustified. The films are about as good as one can reasonably expect from big budget blockbusters, but to me they are somewhere between mediocre and merely decent cinema, with bombastic manipulative music, jarringly incongruent moments of lowbrow humor, lots of very fake-looking CGI, over-the-top almost comedically grotesque orcs, cheaply emptionally manipulative scenes like the Gondorian charge against Osgiliath, etc. They also have many good moments and many good filming decisions, but I wouldn't hold them up anywhere near the pinnacle of cinema. Don't get me wrong, I think that the books have many flaws too, although I like them a lot. I wouldn't say the books, good as they are, are at the pinnacle of literature either, although they may certainy be near the pinnacle of worldbuilding and are, I think, much much better than the films.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    Aw, c'mon. New Zealand is beautiful.
bovermyer 7y ago
Well . I'm going to start reading the Silmarillion again tonight. Maybe this time I can finish it.
- rwilson4 7y ago
  Skip the first 50 pages or so. The rest is golden.
  - defen 7y ago
    I've tried to read it 3 times and have always given up after about 30 pages. Gonna give this a shot tonight, thanks for the advice.
    - jfengel 7y ago
      If I can offer some advice and plug my own work, I did a blog that breaks it into tiny pieces, helping put them into the Lord of the Rings context, and clarifying what you actually need to remember and what you can just let wash over you. The book is a slog for everybody the first try, and I was trying to help people through that. https://www.quora.com/q/cowpyhwvlbspffvw?sort=top https://www.quora.com/q/cowpyhwvlbspffvw?sort=top The blog is a rough draft of what I'd hoped would some day be a completed work, so it's not everything I'd like it to be. But I do think people will find it helpful nonetheless.
    - em500 7y ago
      Don't try to read it in book order/chronological order. Instead, start with "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" (which has a brilliant short retelling of LOTR), then "Akallabêth", then "Quenta Silmarillion" and only then "Ainulindalë". They are all largely self contained, and it's much easier to go through in quasi-reverse order. Just use the Wikipedia synopsis to get up to speed on the chronologically preceding section first. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion#Synopsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion#Synopsis)
  - ReidZB 7y ago
    Oh man, I have to disagree. I love the Ainulindalë. Plus, without it, I imagine you'd have a difficult time figuring out who exactly the Valar are or what their role is. That said, my advice would be to not get too caught up on the names and places and details — just let the story sort of wash over you. Many, many, many names are only said exactly once in The Silmarillion; if you try to remember them all, you'll go crazy. If you see a name 3+ times, that's when it's time to track them down on the family tree, probably. I'd also recommend making sure you reference the map when a place keeps being mentioned. It's helpful to know the vague locations of Doriath, Nargothrond, Gondolin, etc.
scop 7y ago
RIP Christopher Tolkien. His labors have given the world a great gift. And, given the subject, I just have to drop what I believe to be one of the greatest lines of literature: Elrond: “The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”
- gordon_freeman 7y ago
  Wow! these lines encourage me to read the LotR books. Thanks for sharing.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    There are so many wonderful lines to be found... "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
    - scop 7y ago
      The Shadow of the Past,The Fellowship of the Ring. [Frodo expresses his disgust for Gollum to Gandalf having just learned that Gollum likely informed Sauron that the ring is with Bilbo in the Shire] [Frodo] “What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that bile creature, when he had the chance!” [Gandalf] “Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.” “I am sorry,” said Frodo. “But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum” “ You have not seen him,” Gandalf broke in. “No, and I don’t want to,” said Frodo. “I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.” “Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.“
AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
While primarily an editor for his father's work, he was a scholar in his own right. He released his own translation of a Norse epic, "The Saga Of King Heidrek The Wise": http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/The%20Saga%20Of%20King%20Heidrek%20The%20Wise.pdf http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/The%20Saga%20Of%20King%20...
_bxg1 7y ago
For those who don't know, Christopher Tolkien played a key role of editing and compiling his father's drafts and notes into several complete books published after his death, including The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and Unfinished Tales. Basically everything that came after The Lord of the Rings.
- jfengel 7y ago
  Indeed: while practically everything in The Silmarillion was his father's words, it did not appear until after JRR Tolkien's death. Only his father's name appears on it, but Christopher's editing was absolutely essential. It represents neither Tolkien's last thoughts nor his best writing, but the ones that Christopher felt were most consistent with the published Lord of the Rings. Christopher doesn't get enough credit for the monumental task of piecing something vaguely coherent from Tolkien's numerous drafts. He basically devoted his life to understanding his father's work. And that is effort should be appreciated: Tolkien was one of the most creative literary thinkers of the past century, and having so much insight into his process is almost unique among authors.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    And that was the most complete one of the bunch, from my understanding. Children of Hurin was only scraps before Christopher turned it into something cohesive. He still described his role as "editorial", but his father did not even have a draft of a standalone Hurin book.
  - ska 7y ago
    As I understand it a lot of the heavy lifting on that (the Silmarillion) was done by a young Guy Gavriel Kay. But neither of them have been very forthcoming about the collaboration.
    - Andrex 7y ago
      Christopher has also publicly expressed regret at how quickly he assembled the published Silmarillion, I wonder if that's related.
saalweachter 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family That's a nice hearty family tree. It always makes me a little sad when there's a historical figure I liked and their family tree just kind of peters out after a bit. May be a bit silly, since I liked them for their intellectual output or creativity or political impact.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- erezyehuda 7y ago
  I was literally just looking at this for the same reason. I'm sure it's a bit silly and sentimental, but the notion of there still being a living connection to them in the world makes me feel they're not entirely gone.
- jacobush 7y ago
  But what about Nicholas and Anna Tolkien?!
- Razengan 7y ago
  Same. Like with Nikola Tesla or H. P. Lovecraft, who died more or less impoverished and were nowhere as cherished in their lifetime as they are now, and many others like them who only received posthumous appreciated, it's like they were cheated by fate. It makes me angry at how the world treated people like them.
  - prirun 7y ago
    It's the same for many now-revered classical composers. I think sometimes the world is just not ready to receive and understand true genius. Their creativity takes decades to truly appreciate.
vbtemp 7y ago
What sad terrible news. I finished reading the Silmarillion just last week, and was impressed by how he turned loosely associated stories and myths into a single, cohesive narrative that even had full continuity with LoTR. Just this week again I was marveling that he was still around.
- quadrangle 7y ago
  I don't see a person dying after 95 years of a well-lived productive life as terrible. That's a pretty pathological view. Celebrate his life. And maybe read some other things about the many much more healthy perspectives cultures around the world have developed around death. Sadness is fine, that's part of processing a loss. But neither this loss nor the appropriate sadness are terrible things.
  - luspr 7y ago
    Why are suffering, illness, and death not terrible things - especially if we have the happiness of a life well lived as a contrast?
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      He definitely suffered some personal tragedies - there were allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of some passing Oxford acquaintances of his father IIRC
    - analbumcover 7y ago
      If you read Tolkien (John, not Christopher) death is a gift given to Men that even the Valar (essentially the pantheon of Arda) do not understand. It is certainly not viewed as a negative.
      - labster 7y ago
        The Valar and Maiar are explicitly not a pantheon, just as the House of Stewards are explicitly not kings. The Gift of Men is terribly obvious in that light: they get to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, then go directly to join Ea Illúvatar. The Valar cannot hold them, they go to join the heavenly chorus. The message is not as direct as in his friend C.S. Lewis’ tales, but it’s there.
StarlaAtNight 7y ago
I read that as Christopher Walken has died
twodave 7y ago
Last year, I finished reading The Lord of the Rings to my girls. Before that I read them The Hobbit. It took about three years to finish it all, but it was a great for them as an opportunity to learn about a variety of topics (language arts in general primarily, but especially vocabulary). The experience was also good to me because, while I'm typically prone to skim through less interesting passages, it forced me to read every word. I adopted voices for the different characters to keep them interested, and to give them something to look forward to, I would not let them watch the movies until we finished reading the corresponding volume of the series. We had so much fun with this! I'm extremely thankful for Christopher's work because the movies (which were released when I was a teenager) were my first introduction to his father's work.
- brianwawok 7y ago
  What ages did you do? Were they able to keep up with the story OK at those ages?
  - flatiron 7y ago
    My daughter is about to turn 6 and I think that the hobbit would be too much for her. I too would like to hear what age he started and if they had any resistance at first. My big problem now is the only Barbie book they had at the library was in Italian and google translate makes me seem like I’m having a stroke when I read it to her but she loves it anyway.
    - twodave 7y ago
      I probably wouldn’t have attempted it when the oldest was that young, but my girls were 7 and 5 when we started.
    - edgarvaldes 7y ago
      I started reading The Hobbit to my son (5 years old). We read half a chapter every night, or even less before he falls sleep. He loves it, and asks me to read to him when I almost forgot to do so. He asks A LOT of questions about new words and differences with the movies (he is a big fan of them). Our pace is quite slow, but it is a great time together.
quentinms 7y ago
If you find yourself in Paris, the National Library has a great exhibit on JRR Tolkien [0] until February 16. Christopher Tolkien's work is heavily featured. It's fully translated in English (for once). [0] https://www.bnf.fr/en/agenda/tolkien-journey-middle-earth https://www.bnf.fr/en/agenda/tolkien-journey-middle-earth
fsckboy 7y ago
on hacker news, we STEM lords (of ring 0?) like to examine both sides of every issue, right guys? Guys? I'm sure he was a nice man, and I'm sure you've all derived a lot of pleasure from time spent with his work, much like so many engineers over the years have spent so much time and earned so much of their livings from FORTRAN and COBOL. Because, it must be said, FORTRAN and COBOL are to Computer Science as Lord of the Rings is to English Literature. So I hope this man rests in blissful peace as earnestly as I could wish it of any good man. But let me go even further and say, if it turns out that if after we pass instead of sleep we are instead subjected to involuntary cage-fighting in our area of expertise, I earnestly hope that this nice man is not put in the cage with the recently departed literary critic and scholar Harold Bloom, may he also rest in peace having left us a cultural hole that's more than 6 feet in every dimension, but not as big as the "new ones" he and his friends tore in Lord of the Rings. [and lest you think I'm just being snarky, there's plenty of trash genre porn that I enjoy, I just don't exalt it. Quick quiz: who was the only credible protagonist in Lord of the Rings? answer after the jump]
- mcguire 7y ago
  Sam.
  - fsckboy 7y ago
    Thank you! no. The answer is Gollum. He's the only character who undergoes character development. It's a tragedy, where early he is confronted with choice and he is blind to the mistake he makes due to his personal weakness, and suffers the consequences and realizes, but too late, the error of his ways. Compare him (favorably) to King Lear, or Hamlet, or Oedipus, etc. The other characters are essentially finger puppets, they have "a nature", a personality, but they don't change, it's just "and then this happens (but I don't actually change) and then this happens (and I don't actually change) and this happened (don't worry, I'm still the same old me you are comfortable with)". These are sidekicks, these are comic book characters. The richer human qualities of character development are what we can identify with as we look back at our lives and recognize our own growth, our own change, and the importance of setting aside our weaknesses in favor of larger themes of living up to our better selves. What makes Lord of the Rings weak as literature is that it wasn't written centered around its most interesting character, Gollum.
richardwhiuk 7y ago
Son who traded off more famous, successful and talented father dies.
agumonkey 7y ago
I just read that he was quite critical of Jackson's adaptation. I'm not a huge fan of the franchise (not too critical either since it's not the easiest adaptation to make) and I'd love to read if Christopher made detailed comments on what he felt was wrong. Le Monde (french newspaper) interviewed him but he only said one line "they turned it into an action movie for teenagers".. I'd hope he had more to say elsewhere :) Or maybe I should just read the silmarillion
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mikro2nd 7y ago
  And now Amazon or somebody is going to make some sort of LoTR prequel TV series!? Travesty, I say! Sheer, naked greed.
  - flyinghamster 7y ago
    Yuck. I've refused to see any of the LoTR movies, so this looks like another thing I'll refuse to watch.
- mdiesel 7y ago
  It's a fascinating read the complete Le Monde article [0], but there's an extended quote in the second to last paragraph. Google translate gives me: "The gap that has widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become, all of this is beyond me. Such a degree of commercialization reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical scope of this creation. I only have one solution left: turn my head. " [0] https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-anneau-de-la-discorde_1729858_3246.html https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-...
z3t4 7y ago
The commercialization screwed it for me too. I remember that at the time the first movie was released, the web was scorched of fan material. Fans where threatened and insane amount of fan arts where removed and replaced by commercialized material, especially cartography.
martinpw 7y ago
A long time ago I was working at an observatory searching for new asteroids. For cloudy nights, they had a large library of paperbacks and I read LOTR twice through. Because of this, when I got to name a newly discovered asteroid, I wanted to call it Tolkien. I wrote to the publisher and got a wonderful short letter back from Rayner Unwin, who talked to Christopher Tolkien about it - here is the letter: https://imgur.com/a/XDGwOl6 https://imgur.com/a/XDGwOl6?
- skunkworker 7y ago
  That's an awesome first-hand story, and made me read up on 2675 just now.
hyperion2010 7y ago
I have so many things to say here, but I think that the kernel of it is as follows. The Children of Húrin, Beren and Lúthien, and The Fall of Gondolin are a gift, unlooked for and unexpected. They are the best founding mythology one could ask for, three Silmarils in the crown of a lifetime sorting through the mind of his father. We can wish that JRR had lived another lifetime, we are blessed to have gotten Christopher in his stead. If you have not read the forward to The Fall of Gondolin it is a timely and poignant reflection. All I can say is thank you.
- sifar 7y ago
  The verses are so vivid, so poignant. They talk of great deeds, vows (e.g sons of Feanor),the powers people had, the nobility they showed when faced with terrible evil. It makes one really sad for a lost world.
TheDesolate0 7y ago
At only 95! So young for an Elf.

514 points by deadmetheny 7y ago

Interesting to see the low opinion in which he held the movies, considering the revered place in American cinema the trilogy holds. Considering the astounding length and detail with which they were adapted, what more could he have possibly hoped for? What other adaptions have done more to hold true to such a complicated and intricate fantasy universe, especially in the early 2000's and earlier? Many adaptions since, inspired by LOTR, have failed to hold to their source material with such honor and gravity (GoT, etc.).

ur-whale 7y ago
They took out bombadil.
- wufufufu 7y ago
  Thank god
aerovistae 7y ago
I for one would have liked to see Frodo & Sam's journey to mordor in the second and third movies abbreviated a bit. It was incredibly drawn out. Otherwise I love the movies and see no room for improvement.
- ngold 7y ago
  Tom Bombadil, I would have loved to have seen super god and his girlfriend.
  - low_common 7y ago
    Yeah but unless you've read the books, his character is a bit esoteric for the movies.
    - krapp 7y ago
      Tom Bombadil is "a bit esoteric" in the same way that a hurricane is "a bit moist."
  - elric 7y ago
    IIRC I once read a letter from JRRT where he stated that Bombadil was a "deliberate enigma". He had no explanation for the character's apparent powers or origin. Considering the incredible amount of details and origin stories for just about every other character and race in the epos, that struck me as particularly whimsical. Sort of like an easter egg that ended up in a place that was slightly too prominent. An inordinate amount of time has been spent on the internet in debates whether Bombadil was an Elf, one of the Maiar, a human with some other item of power, one of the Valar or even even Eru Iluvatar incarnate.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      That's the beautiful part about him, that I didn't get when I was younger and trying to fit him in to the model. You have living elves that remember them originally going into the west. You have the history after they came back, including several who where there. Some know the Valar personally. You can be reasonably confident of the history. Heck, you have Maiar wandering around. And then you have Bombadil. Who is he? Nobody knows! Not the elves, not the Maiar. What does he want? To sing goofy songs. It's beautiful!
    - n0rbwah 7y ago
      In his afterlife, JRR Tolkien lives in middle earth as Tom.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    The loss of the Barrow-wights was unfortunate, and took something away from the death of the Witch-King as well.
- petepete 7y ago
  Generally agree, loved the movies (especially the extended editions) but: * Helm's Deep went on way too long, it was like 45 minutes of battle * Legolas's action scenes were a little too over the top for my taste (Oliphaunt tail slide, surfing on a shield). I'm not sure the iffy CGI helped. * Poor Faramir
  - gizmo385 7y ago
    I personally think Helm's Deep was just as long as it needed to be. It's just not 45 minutes of blind, pointless battle. There is storytelling, character growth, and evolution in those 45 minutes. It's one of the most efficient and well created battle scenes in modern cinema. As far as Legolas's action scenes, are you referring to the elephant? That one was CGI, but the scene of him sliding down the stairs on a shield was actually a practical effect done with wire work. The only CGI in that scene was the removal of the wires I believe. Yes, Faramir's story is tragic but I think that's kind of the point of his story; isn't it?
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Legolas' shield stunt was over the top.
      - m4r35n357 7y ago
        especially considering there were no elves there at all!
        jacobush 7y ago
        ?
        petepete 7y ago
        In the books the elves didn't come to support the men at Helm's Deep. The battle played a much smaller part in the books than it did the movies - probably because the middle one needed a climax.
bovermyer 7y ago
The original works were as much a careful exploration of a world not our own as they were an epic tale. Large sections of the text were devoted to describing that world. The movies gloss over all of that to focus purely on the story.
- kaesar14 7y ago
  And even with that focus on the story, we get 12 hours in the extended editions, much of it expanding on the characters and their backstories as they relate to the world in which the story takes place. It's hard to have pages and pages of explanation of a world in a movie. The movies do that by exploring that history in the set pieces and characters, and I think most people would agree they do a magnificent job of it.
- gizmo385 7y ago
  Describing the world visually? I mean that kind of text is naturally going to disappear when you're creating a movie because all of that is just going to be represented in the cinematography.
  - mumblemumble 7y ago
    John Scalzi shared a reasonably thoughtful perspective on this on his blog a few days ago: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2020/01/10/why-yes-in-fact-old-mans-war-could-make-a-very-fine-movie/ https://whatever.scalzi.com/2020/01/10/why-yes-in-fact-old-m... "... although I will note ... that a two-hour movie will not cram the entire complexity of the novel I wrote into its 120-minute running time." "And that’s fine, and as it turns out, necessary. Movies are not books. Movies are adaptations of books, for another medium entirely. When filmmakers try to make their movies simply a “faithful” version of the book that runs at 24 frames a second, the results (speaking as a former full-time professional film critic) tend to be dreadful more often than not. I don’t want a movie of Old Man’s War that’s a retread of what I’ve already done in the book. What I want is an adaptation and interpretation of what I’ve written that’s interesting and exciting, and is faithful to the idea and feel of the universe I created." It's been a long time since I saw the LOTR films (and never bothered to see The Hobbit, so I can't comment on those), but, as I recall, that's more or less what Peter Jackson did.
Apocryphon 7y ago
Perhaps purists aren't so easily won over by lavish production values and jaw-dropping visuals.
- krapp 7y ago
  As if the film trilogy were nothing but eye candy? The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy was as transformative for fantasy as Star Wars was for science fiction - people didn't even think the trilogy could be filmed, much less be successful, as fantasy (like comic books and, ironically, science fiction before Star Wars) was considered cheesy, juvenile schlock forever doomed to box office failure. Peter Jackson not only filmed the unfilmable, but wound up creating what many people would consider one of the greatest motion picture trilogies ever, on many levels, beyond just spectacle. There are probably millions more Tolkein fans across the world just because the trilogy was as good as it was. Given that the canonical onscreen adaptation of the trilogy until that point was a cartoon by Filmation from the 70s, I would hope purists could maybe see the silver lining around the cloud.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    You're not wrong, but I'm just saying even some of most gorgeous and exhaustive work put into a film series isn't enough to satisfy purists. I find it fascinating, and have come to understand it.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    I always enjoyed this sendup of Bakshi’s film http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm
    - laurus 7y ago
      The Bakshi movie's Lothlórien was absolutely beautiful though. I also liked all the voice actors in that movie better than the actors in the Jackson trilogy (except I guess Samwise, who was a little silly in the Bakshi film). It also didn't have much comic relief, which I appreciated.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Ralfp 7y ago
I would assume not being paid for those movies had something to do with it? In February 2008, the Tolkien Trust sued New Line Cinema, the studio behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for £75 million claiming they had not received "even one penny" from the films. A request for punitive damages was denied in September 2008. (In March 2008, New Line Cinema became a unit of Warner Bros. Entertainment.) The case was resolved out of court on 8 September 2009 with the terms not made public. In a press release, Christopher Tolkien stated, "The Trustees regret that legal action was necessary, but are glad that this dispute has been settled on satisfactory terms that will allow the Tolkien Trust properly to pursue its charitable objectives. The Trustees acknowledge that New Line may now proceed with its proposed films of 'The Hobbit.'" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578442/JRR-Tolkiens-estate-to-sue-Lord-of-the-Rings-filmmakers-New-Line-Cinema-over-profits.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578442/JRR-Tolki...
- Pigo 7y ago
  That sounds like Hollywood's famous accounting practices. They claim movies that makes 100's of millions have lost money by inflating costs that are paid to production companies and such. I'm sure someone can explain how they get away with it. But it's astounding how they claim these movies lose money, in order to shaft whomever they want.
  - Relys 7y ago
    Honestly, I don't understand how this isn't the same thing as tax fraud.
nck4222 7y ago
I think it's hard for many people who are emotionally and/or deeply connected to something, see it changed, modified, and reinterpreted by someone else. Even in the world of software, how many of us have worked on a project for a long time only to hand it off to someone else, and find it hard not to have strong opinions about how they work with it, when it's no longer our responsibility?
lordleft 7y ago
He probably felt a degree of ownership and protectiveness over the franchise that few of us could understand. It may have been impossible to match his expectations.
scop 7y ago
I have a love/hate relationship with the movies. While the trilogy brought to life Middle-Earth to a degree I never thought imaginable, there were some elements that just fell incredibly flat. If I had to pin it on one thing, it was that Peter Jackson and team were extremely good at portraying evil in all of its ugliness but failed to portray "goodness" with equal skill (which admittedly is not an easy thing to do!). While the honest goodness of the Hobbits was wonderful, the portrayals of "good" characters such as Aragorn and Galadriel fell very flat. This is not to blame on the actors at all as I thought Viggo did an awesome job; but the screenplay needlessly muddled the character. Also, where was the damn poetry?
- low_common 7y ago
  Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by the portrayal of Aragorn "falling a bit flat"? Perhaps he was a bit too gruff or something, especially in the Fellowship of the Ring? I could possibly see that because in the book he was definitely clear-cut 'rough and ready good-guy'.
  - scop 7y ago
    No problems with his "gruffness" as you term it; that indeed very much captured his Ranger walkings in Fellowship etc. What was a tough pill to swallow was the self-doubt infused into the character. I know I know, character development, relatability, etc etc. But, c'mon, Aragorn is the damned KING and a leader with unflinching will (a contrast to many around him). ... Also, where was the damn standard w/ the White Tree, Elendil when Aragorn arrived at the boat?!
    - Pigo 7y ago
      As someone who had not read the books before seeing the movies (I know, I know) it added a lot of context when I found out why the elves were leaving at the end. I remember wondering why everyone was leaving if they had won. I know it was already long, but I wish they'd explained the ring's connection to magic better. It also would have explained why everyone was so willing to take the rings of power in the first place, and given more weight to the somber tone at the end.
linksnapzz 7y ago
The adaptation is always going to suffer in comparison to a book like that. It's not like you can just rotate the story through 360-degrees of the audio-video dimension and have it pop out at you. Lots of more modern fiction, written by people who think of stories first in the cinematic sense even as they are writing them, you can almost derive the film from the book. Say, Jurassic Park, for example. The departures from the novel were incidental, and the film could've been made even more faithful to the text but for the desires of the producers.
- adrian_b 7y ago
  In my opinion the departures from the Jurassic Park novel were not just incidental. I enjoyed very much the Jurassic Park visual effects, but I despised the script as one of the most disappointing adaptations of novels, because it completely failed to convey the message of the book. The central idea of the book was that there are things so complex, i.e. chaotic systems, that regardless how good you are and how great are your efforts to control them, unpredictable failure is unavoidable. I did not see anything of that in the movie, where the failure of the park was just the consequence of stupid mistakes made by a bunch of morons, not the consequence of objective laws, as in the book.
  - linksnapzz 7y ago
    Perhaps incidental is the wrong word; my point being that Spielberg absolutely could've made the script more faithful to the book without having to invent characters, dialog or settings not in the text.
mjw1007 7y ago
I don't think he was at all surprised at how bad the films were, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't complain about them. I think it's easy for many people who are used to a diet of truly terrible adaptations to mistake one which is merely bad for something excellent. (I think pretty much everything about those films was very good, except for the script, which was poor on both a large and small scale.)
m4r35n357 7y ago
The films are not bad for visuals and casting/acting, but changed the story and characters and motivations far too much for fans of the books. And left out the actual ending!
lordnacho 7y ago
I wonder if Netflix or other streaming services would have produced something vastly different. Tolkien wrote so much it really could do with more exploration. Also if you're selling it in a movie format, you have to be able to bring in the general masses. That means cutting down a lot of the intricacies.
- cm2012 7y ago
  Amazon is making a lotr universe TV show for prime.
  - corn_dog 7y ago
    I am really hoping they film it with similar production values to The Man in the High Castle. I think the pacing, and the mix of reality and fantasy, in that would suit LOTR really well.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  These days, LotR would be made as a multi-season epic, like GoT.
cpr 7y ago
There's simply no way, no matter how technically wizardly the movies might be, that they could convey the "spirit" of the trilogy. And, further, the movies fall far, far short of the images your own imagination can create from these classics. And they even pollute your imagination with the limitations of the director's choices.
- oska 7y ago
  > And they even pollute your imagination with the limitations of the director's choices. Exactly why I never watched the films, despite being a huge Tolkien fan from about age 9 to 16. The thought of how Hollywood would depict elves was particularly off-putting for me. I've never regretted not watching them, even when the hype was at its greatest, and any glimpses of screenshots that I've chanced upon have only confirmed that I made the right choice.
  - amatecha 7y ago
    Dang, I'm almost jealous. I couldn't resist the temptation and hope that the movies could maybe possibly vaguely live up to the legacy. Unfortunately I didn't quite anticipate how those images would forever alter my vision of the story/world. Though, I've purposely waited a long time and ignored everything about it, letting the memories fade, so I can re-read the trilogy and hopefully rediscover the greatness. :)
nfc 7y ago
Perhaps it's natural to be very critical of the adaptation of something your are very emotionally attached to?. I for one loved reading the books as a kid and I felt that some scenes (Legolas shield surfing and flying between elephants) were a bit too "cheap" and unnecessary. I enjoyed the films by telling myself that there was a lot of good that offset those bads but perhaps that's easier to do when you are young than when you are on your 70s
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > Legolas shield surfing and flying between elephants The latter was bad but the former was incredibly out of place. It's the one scene I'd cut.
gwd 7y ago
> Considering the astounding length and detail with which they were adapted, what more could he have possibly hoped for? Not changing complex and interesting characters with boring Hollywood tropes (Denethor, Treebeard, Faramir)? Following Tolkein's carefully thought-out timeline of how and when and why things would have happened, rather than making every action scene a hollywood trope, where the bad guys can't hit anything and the good guys can't miss? The best film adaptation of a book I've ever seen is the Sense and Sensibility adapted by Emma Thompson. You can't make a movie identical to a book; it doesn't work -- they're different art forms. Emma Thompson cut out big scenes, chopped out characters, and made a load of changes to make the situation more accessible to a modern audience -- but the heart of the story, and the character of the people in it, are true to the novel. The movies jumped the shark for me when Faramir said he was going to "arrest" Frodo and bring him to Denethor. I watched the third film, but I'd emotionally checked out at that point.
jfengel 7y ago
One of the things that Game of Thrones got right is to realize that a novel corresponds to a dozen hours of screen time, not three. The Lord of the Rings trilogy misses a lot of the epic scope of the book, focusing a lot more heavily on battles and missing out on the sheer weight of time. I don't know if any film could really capture that, especially to Christoper's satisfaction. But the movies are action-adventure blockbusters, and the books really aren't. It's notable that the Battle of the Hornburg was only about a page of text, but close to an hour of screen time. That kind of shift of focus recurs throughout the adaptation. Tolkien was creating an alien world; Jackson gave us a familiar Sort Of Middle Ages Or Something. The films did manage to capture the age of the world better than anybody could possibly have imagined. Jackson hired the best artists, famed for producing images that were better than Tolkien's own, and capturing a lot of what Christopher would treasure in the book. As a series of still images, Christopher should have found a lot to admire in the films. But the dialogue doesn't achieve the same.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  > Tolkien was creating an alien world; Jackson gave us a familiar Sort Of Middle Ages Or Something. This is pretty debatable c.f. endless scholarship on the connections between LOTR and (a) Tolkein's feelings about England post-WWI and (b) Tolkein's deep connections with actual existing mythology and legend. "Different world", perhaps, but "alien world" seems a bit much.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Tolkien was creating an alien world; Jackson gave us a familiar Sort Of Middle Ages Or Something. As I understand it, Tolkien was trying to create a national mythology for England, so he wouldn't have intended the setting to be completely alien, as he wanted its archetypes to resonate with his own culture. Also the main reason the films seem like a familiar medieval fantasy setting is that Tolkien basically invented the high fantasy genre and its tropes. I think one movie reviewer even panned the Lord of the Rings as being too generic and derivative, when in fact everyone else has been copying Tolkien for decades.
- microtherion 7y ago
  > One of the things that Game of Thrones got right is to realize that a novel corresponds to a dozen hours of screen time, not three. But if LoTR hadn't accomplished what it did in its three hours, I don't think GoT would have GOTTEN its dozen hours. I think people underestimate how massively speculative fiction movies (especially fantasy and comic book adaptations) have improved in the last 20 years. If you compare Jackson's LoTR to Ralph Bakshi's 1978 adaptation, they simply don't play in the same league at all.
mikepurvis 7y ago
There are many, many examples of places where depth of character especially was lost in the translation. Some of this was obviously a matter of limited screentime, but other things were done badly that would have taken very little or no extra time to do right. One big example is Eowyn's showdown with the witch king, see this article: https://www.themarysue.com/the-story-of-eowyn/ https://www.themarysue.com/the-story-of-eowyn/ But even apart from that, when such huge chunks of screentime were devoted to these epic battle scenes, you do get the sense that the priorities at the top level were not quite aligned to what was in the book. Even compared to the 1981 BBC radio play (13 hours total), you feel like the movies missed a lot of good stuff.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
axguscbklp 7y ago
IMO, to whatever extent the reverence exists, it is unjustified. The films are about as good as one can reasonably expect from big budget blockbusters, but to me they are somewhere between mediocre and merely decent cinema, with bombastic manipulative music, jarringly incongruent moments of lowbrow humor, lots of very fake-looking CGI, over-the-top almost comedically grotesque orcs, cheaply emptionally manipulative scenes like the Gondorian charge against Osgiliath, etc. They also have many good moments and many good filming decisions, but I wouldn't hold them up anywhere near the pinnacle of cinema. Don't get me wrong, I think that the books have many flaws too, although I like them a lot. I wouldn't say the books, good as they are, are at the pinnacle of literature either, although they may certainy be near the pinnacle of worldbuilding and are, I think, much much better than the films.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Aw, c'mon. New Zealand is beautiful.

bovermyer 7y ago

Well . I'm going to start reading the Silmarillion again tonight. Maybe this time I can finish it.

rwilson4 7y ago
Skip the first 50 pages or so. The rest is golden.
- defen 7y ago
  I've tried to read it 3 times and have always given up after about 30 pages. Gonna give this a shot tonight, thanks for the advice.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    If I can offer some advice and plug my own work, I did a blog that breaks it into tiny pieces, helping put them into the Lord of the Rings context, and clarifying what you actually need to remember and what you can just let wash over you. The book is a slog for everybody the first try, and I was trying to help people through that. https://www.quora.com/q/cowpyhwvlbspffvw?sort=top https://www.quora.com/q/cowpyhwvlbspffvw?sort=top The blog is a rough draft of what I'd hoped would some day be a completed work, so it's not everything I'd like it to be. But I do think people will find it helpful nonetheless.
  - em500 7y ago
    Don't try to read it in book order/chronological order. Instead, start with "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" (which has a brilliant short retelling of LOTR), then "Akallabêth", then "Quenta Silmarillion" and only then "Ainulindalë". They are all largely self contained, and it's much easier to go through in quasi-reverse order. Just use the Wikipedia synopsis to get up to speed on the chronologically preceding section first. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion#Synopsis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion#Synopsis)
- ReidZB 7y ago
  Oh man, I have to disagree. I love the Ainulindalë. Plus, without it, I imagine you'd have a difficult time figuring out who exactly the Valar are or what their role is. That said, my advice would be to not get too caught up on the names and places and details — just let the story sort of wash over you. Many, many, many names are only said exactly once in The Silmarillion; if you try to remember them all, you'll go crazy. If you see a name 3+ times, that's when it's time to track them down on the family tree, probably. I'd also recommend making sure you reference the map when a place keeps being mentioned. It's helpful to know the vague locations of Doriath, Nargothrond, Gondolin, etc.

scop 7y ago

RIP Christopher Tolkien. His labors have given the world a great gift. And, given the subject, I just have to drop what I believe to be one of the greatest lines of literature: Elrond: “The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”

gordon_freeman 7y ago
Wow! these lines encourage me to read the LotR books. Thanks for sharing.
- jfk13 7y ago
  There are so many wonderful lines to be found... "It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
  - scop 7y ago
    The Shadow of the Past,The Fellowship of the Ring. [Frodo expresses his disgust for Gollum to Gandalf having just learned that Gollum likely informed Sauron that the ring is with Bilbo in the Shire] [Frodo] “What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that bile creature, when he had the chance!” [Gandalf] “Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.” “I am sorry,” said Frodo. “But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum” “ You have not seen him,” Gandalf broke in. “No, and I don’t want to,” said Frodo. “I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.” “Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.“

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago

While primarily an editor for his father's work, he was a scholar in his own right. He released his own translation of a Norse epic, "The Saga Of King Heidrek The Wise": http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/The%20Saga%20Of%20King%20Heidrek%20The%20Wise.pdf http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/The%20Saga%20Of%20King%20...

_bxg1 7y ago

For those who don't know, Christopher Tolkien played a key role of editing and compiling his father's drafts and notes into several complete books published after his death, including The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, and Unfinished Tales. Basically everything that came after The Lord of the Rings.

jfengel 7y ago
Indeed: while practically everything in The Silmarillion was his father's words, it did not appear until after JRR Tolkien's death. Only his father's name appears on it, but Christopher's editing was absolutely essential. It represents neither Tolkien's last thoughts nor his best writing, but the ones that Christopher felt were most consistent with the published Lord of the Rings. Christopher doesn't get enough credit for the monumental task of piecing something vaguely coherent from Tolkien's numerous drafts. He basically devoted his life to understanding his father's work. And that is effort should be appreciated: Tolkien was one of the most creative literary thinkers of the past century, and having so much insight into his process is almost unique among authors.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  And that was the most complete one of the bunch, from my understanding. Children of Hurin was only scraps before Christopher turned it into something cohesive. He still described his role as "editorial", but his father did not even have a draft of a standalone Hurin book.
- ska 7y ago
  As I understand it a lot of the heavy lifting on that (the Silmarillion) was done by a young Guy Gavriel Kay. But neither of them have been very forthcoming about the collaboration.
  - Andrex 7y ago
    Christopher has also publicly expressed regret at how quickly he assembled the published Silmarillion, I wonder if that's related.

saalweachter 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family That's a nice hearty family tree. It always makes me a little sad when there's a historical figure I liked and their family tree just kind of peters out after a bit. May be a bit silly, since I liked them for their intellectual output or creativity or political impact.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
erezyehuda 7y ago
I was literally just looking at this for the same reason. I'm sure it's a bit silly and sentimental, but the notion of there still being a living connection to them in the world makes me feel they're not entirely gone.
jacobush 7y ago
But what about Nicholas and Anna Tolkien?!
Razengan 7y ago
Same. Like with Nikola Tesla or H. P. Lovecraft, who died more or less impoverished and were nowhere as cherished in their lifetime as they are now, and many others like them who only received posthumous appreciated, it's like they were cheated by fate. It makes me angry at how the world treated people like them.
- prirun 7y ago
  It's the same for many now-revered classical composers. I think sometimes the world is just not ready to receive and understand true genius. Their creativity takes decades to truly appreciate.

vbtemp 7y ago

What sad terrible news. I finished reading the Silmarillion just last week, and was impressed by how he turned loosely associated stories and myths into a single, cohesive narrative that even had full continuity with LoTR. Just this week again I was marveling that he was still around.

quadrangle 7y ago
I don't see a person dying after 95 years of a well-lived productive life as terrible. That's a pretty pathological view. Celebrate his life. And maybe read some other things about the many much more healthy perspectives cultures around the world have developed around death. Sadness is fine, that's part of processing a loss. But neither this loss nor the appropriate sadness are terrible things.
- luspr 7y ago
  Why are suffering, illness, and death not terrible things - especially if we have the happiness of a life well lived as a contrast?
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    He definitely suffered some personal tragedies - there were allegations of sexual abuse at the hands of some passing Oxford acquaintances of his father IIRC
  - analbumcover 7y ago
    If you read Tolkien (John, not Christopher) death is a gift given to Men that even the Valar (essentially the pantheon of Arda) do not understand. It is certainly not viewed as a negative.
    - labster 7y ago
      The Valar and Maiar are explicitly not a pantheon, just as the House of Stewards are explicitly not kings. The Gift of Men is terribly obvious in that light: they get to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, then go directly to join Ea Illúvatar. The Valar cannot hold them, they go to join the heavenly chorus. The message is not as direct as in his friend C.S. Lewis’ tales, but it’s there.

StarlaAtNight 7y ago

I read that as Christopher Walken has died

twodave 7y ago

Last year, I finished reading The Lord of the Rings to my girls. Before that I read them The Hobbit. It took about three years to finish it all, but it was a great for them as an opportunity to learn about a variety of topics (language arts in general primarily, but especially vocabulary). The experience was also good to me because, while I'm typically prone to skim through less interesting passages, it forced me to read every word. I adopted voices for the different characters to keep them interested, and to give them something to look forward to, I would not let them watch the movies until we finished reading the corresponding volume of the series. We had so much fun with this! I'm extremely thankful for Christopher's work because the movies (which were released when I was a teenager) were my first introduction to his father's work.

brianwawok 7y ago
What ages did you do? Were they able to keep up with the story OK at those ages?
- flatiron 7y ago
  My daughter is about to turn 6 and I think that the hobbit would be too much for her. I too would like to hear what age he started and if they had any resistance at first. My big problem now is the only Barbie book they had at the library was in Italian and google translate makes me seem like I’m having a stroke when I read it to her but she loves it anyway.
  - twodave 7y ago
    I probably wouldn’t have attempted it when the oldest was that young, but my girls were 7 and 5 when we started.
  - edgarvaldes 7y ago
    I started reading The Hobbit to my son (5 years old). We read half a chapter every night, or even less before he falls sleep. He loves it, and asks me to read to him when I almost forgot to do so. He asks A LOT of questions about new words and differences with the movies (he is a big fan of them). Our pace is quite slow, but it is a great time together.

quentinms 7y ago

If you find yourself in Paris, the National Library has a great exhibit on JRR Tolkien [0] until February 16. Christopher Tolkien's work is heavily featured. It's fully translated in English (for once). [0] https://www.bnf.fr/en/agenda/tolkien-journey-middle-earth https://www.bnf.fr/en/agenda/tolkien-journey-middle-earth

fsckboy 7y ago

on hacker news, we STEM lords (of ring 0?) like to examine both sides of every issue, right guys? Guys? I'm sure he was a nice man, and I'm sure you've all derived a lot of pleasure from time spent with his work, much like so many engineers over the years have spent so much time and earned so much of their livings from FORTRAN and COBOL. Because, it must be said, FORTRAN and COBOL are to Computer Science as Lord of the Rings is to English Literature. So I hope this man rests in blissful peace as earnestly as I could wish it of any good man. But let me go even further and say, if it turns out that if after we pass instead of sleep we are instead subjected to involuntary cage-fighting in our area of expertise, I earnestly hope that this nice man is not put in the cage with the recently departed literary critic and scholar Harold Bloom, may he also rest in peace having left us a cultural hole that's more than 6 feet in every dimension, but not as big as the "new ones" he and his friends tore in Lord of the Rings. [and lest you think I'm just being snarky, there's plenty of trash genre porn that I enjoy, I just don't exalt it. Quick quiz: who was the only credible protagonist in Lord of the Rings? answer after the jump]

mcguire 7y ago
Sam.
- fsckboy 7y ago
  Thank you! no. The answer is Gollum. He's the only character who undergoes character development. It's a tragedy, where early he is confronted with choice and he is blind to the mistake he makes due to his personal weakness, and suffers the consequences and realizes, but too late, the error of his ways. Compare him (favorably) to King Lear, or Hamlet, or Oedipus, etc. The other characters are essentially finger puppets, they have "a nature", a personality, but they don't change, it's just "and then this happens (but I don't actually change) and then this happens (and I don't actually change) and this happened (don't worry, I'm still the same old me you are comfortable with)". These are sidekicks, these are comic book characters. The richer human qualities of character development are what we can identify with as we look back at our lives and recognize our own growth, our own change, and the importance of setting aside our weaknesses in favor of larger themes of living up to our better selves. What makes Lord of the Rings weak as literature is that it wasn't written centered around its most interesting character, Gollum.

richardwhiuk 7y ago

Son who traded off more famous, successful and talented father dies.

agumonkey 7y ago

I just read that he was quite critical of Jackson's adaptation. I'm not a huge fan of the franchise (not too critical either since it's not the easiest adaptation to make) and I'd love to read if Christopher made detailed comments on what he felt was wrong. Le Monde (french newspaper) interviewed him but he only said one line "they turned it into an action movie for teenagers".. I'd hope he had more to say elsewhere :) Or maybe I should just read the silmarillion

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mikro2nd 7y ago
And now Amazon or somebody is going to make some sort of LoTR prequel TV series!? Travesty, I say! Sheer, naked greed.
- flyinghamster 7y ago
  Yuck. I've refused to see any of the LoTR movies, so this looks like another thing I'll refuse to watch.
mdiesel 7y ago
It's a fascinating read the complete Le Monde article [0], but there's an extended quote in the second to last paragraph. Google translate gives me: "The gap that has widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become, all of this is beyond me. Such a degree of commercialization reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical scope of this creation. I only have one solution left: turn my head. " [0] https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-anneau-de-la-discorde_1729858_3246.html https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-...

z3t4 7y ago

The commercialization screwed it for me too. I remember that at the time the first movie was released, the web was scorched of fan material. Fans where threatened and insane amount of fan arts where removed and replaced by commercialized material, especially cartography.

martinpw 7y ago

A long time ago I was working at an observatory searching for new asteroids. For cloudy nights, they had a large library of paperbacks and I read LOTR twice through. Because of this, when I got to name a newly discovered asteroid, I wanted to call it Tolkien. I wrote to the publisher and got a wonderful short letter back from Rayner Unwin, who talked to Christopher Tolkien about it - here is the letter: https://imgur.com/a/XDGwOl6 https://imgur.com/a/XDGwOl6?

skunkworker 7y ago
That's an awesome first-hand story, and made me read up on 2675 just now.

hyperion2010 7y ago

I have so many things to say here, but I think that the kernel of it is as follows. The Children of Húrin, Beren and Lúthien, and The Fall of Gondolin are a gift, unlooked for and unexpected. They are the best founding mythology one could ask for, three Silmarils in the crown of a lifetime sorting through the mind of his father. We can wish that JRR had lived another lifetime, we are blessed to have gotten Christopher in his stead. If you have not read the forward to The Fall of Gondolin it is a timely and poignant reflection. All I can say is thank you.

sifar 7y ago
The verses are so vivid, so poignant. They talk of great deeds, vows (e.g sons of Feanor),the powers people had, the nobility they showed when faced with terrible evil. It makes one really sad for a lost world.

TheDesolate0 7y ago

At only 95! So young for an Elf.