4 ms·

Christopher Tolkein was hopelessly grumpy (or protective, depending on your perspective) about anyone doing anything with his father's works. Personally, as a

by bmj 4y ago

Christopher Tolkein was hopelessly grumpy (or protective, depending on your perspective) about anyone doing anything with his father's works. Personally, as a fan of Tolkein's works, I thought LoTR was fine. I didn't necessarily agree with all of Jackon's decisions, but, in the end, I enjoyed watching the movies (and still do). The Hobbit films are a different beast, for sure.

arethuza 4y ago
Didn't his father sell off the film rights for £10,000 - no wonder he is slightly grumpy about any movies!
bigDinosaur 4y ago
Christopher Tolkien I think was fairly correct in his analysis of the LoTR films, and I think it became clear with the Hobbit what the ultimate conclusion of that style of treatment of the source material would be. What he got wrong is that they're perfectly fun and good films in their own right - it'd be more accurate to say they're heavily inspired by the LoTR books rather than being direct adaptions. In some cases they cut things which just would never have even worked on screen, and in general I don't think a deeply ponderous and weighty mood would have really been received that well. That said, some of the changes they made (e.g. to Denethor) were just gratuitous.
- tlear 4y ago
  Denethor and Faramir treatment hurt.. My number 1 gripe was the army of the dead being the deus ex machina making rest of the battle pointless joke. This is after making perfect entrance for Rohan I like the movies and enjoy watching them, some parts are masterpieces but some not so much.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    What was the original army of the dead like? It always seemed like the weakest point of all the films and certainly the most glaring plot hole of why didn’t they keep using them.
    - buscoquadnary 4y ago
      In the original the army of the dead was used to capture the ships, and grab the army under a Prince in southern Gondor, (I think it was Imiril) and bring his army up from Osgiliath, to surround the armies of darkness on 3 sides, who then broke and ran.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        Were they a tide of untouchable murder ghosts though? Or were they more of a conventional zombie force that could be killed?
        pfortuny 4y ago
        They cannot be killed but their aim is to abandon Earth, and they only need Aragorn to liberate them after they have fulfilled their oath. Not that Aragorn has true power over them. He has only the power to set them free, and they obey because that is the way to freedom.
    - pfortuny 4y ago
      More or less as in the film BUT they were eager to leave the Earth, and they only needed to heed their oath. They do so in a side battle (near Osgiliath IIRC) and, immediately, Aragorn sets them free. But they are not “an army at the ser ice of Aragorn”. They just want to be liberated and to do so, they fulfill the promise they broke. They are not obligated to more (and Aragorn has no power to keep them “here”), much less to make them obey him.
- DivineBicycle 4y ago
  That's what I think, they are not accurate to the books, or book in The Hobbit's case, but they are good films and I love watching them.
causi 4y ago
I didn't necessarily agree with all of Jackon's decisions, but, in the end, I enjoyed watching the movies (and still do). The Hobbit films are a different beast, for sure. Exactly my opinion as well. What worries me is that we saw what ten years of market shift did between LotR and The Hobbit. Now it's been another ten years of it. Instead of showing bad people tearing down trees to fuel industry, we're going to have some good character give a five minute long speech about it. There is going to be a romance plot between an orc and a non-orc. There is going to be a female orc and she is going to be a strong independent woman. There is going to be a ruler who is as bad Denethor but they're going to make a strong point about him also being a racist.
- at_a_remove 4y ago
  Oh gods no I ... I can see this happening, it's just too plausible.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Why wait, when you can watch this Gandalf^W Dumbledore prequel? https://decider.com/2022/05/30/fantastic-beasts-the-secrets-of-dumbledore-on-hbo-max-stream-it-or-skip-it/ https://decider.com/2022/05/30/fantastic-beasts-the-secrets-... (warning: Lots of spoilers in there...)
- darrelld 4y ago
  At the end of the day stories reflect our society and LoTR is just another story. All of the classic stories we tell kids have evolved over time and are no longer true to their original source material. We take the thing we need, ignore the things we don't need, and add what's missing from our modern eyes. If you go back to the source material for things like Snow White, Pinocchio and trace them through the ages you'll see that they have constantly changed and adjusted.
  - causi 4y ago
    I think there's a difference between tuning a story and misappropriating it as a vehicle for your personal goals. This can be done well by giving us more background on what was a minor character or altering dialogue to give a different perspective of events. It can be done badly, such as by introducing us to Kímli, the lesbian dwarf queen with a mithril wheelchair.

by bmj 4y ago

arethuza 4y ago

Didn't his father sell off the film rights for £10,000 - no wonder he is slightly grumpy about any movies!

bigDinosaur 4y ago

Christopher Tolkien I think was fairly correct in his analysis of the LoTR films, and I think it became clear with the Hobbit what the ultimate conclusion of that style of treatment of the source material would be. What he got wrong is that they're perfectly fun and good films in their own right - it'd be more accurate to say they're heavily inspired by the LoTR books rather than being direct adaptions. In some cases they cut things which just would never have even worked on screen, and in general I don't think a deeply ponderous and weighty mood would have really been received that well. That said, some of the changes they made (e.g. to Denethor) were just gratuitous.

tlear 4y ago
Denethor and Faramir treatment hurt.. My number 1 gripe was the army of the dead being the deus ex machina making rest of the battle pointless joke. This is after making perfect entrance for Rohan I like the movies and enjoy watching them, some parts are masterpieces but some not so much.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  What was the original army of the dead like? It always seemed like the weakest point of all the films and certainly the most glaring plot hole of why didn’t they keep using them.
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    In the original the army of the dead was used to capture the ships, and grab the army under a Prince in southern Gondor, (I think it was Imiril) and bring his army up from Osgiliath, to surround the armies of darkness on 3 sides, who then broke and ran.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Were they a tide of untouchable murder ghosts though? Or were they more of a conventional zombie force that could be killed?
      - pfortuny 4y ago
        They cannot be killed but their aim is to abandon Earth, and they only need Aragorn to liberate them after they have fulfilled their oath. Not that Aragorn has true power over them. He has only the power to set them free, and they obey because that is the way to freedom.
  - pfortuny 4y ago
    More or less as in the film BUT they were eager to leave the Earth, and they only needed to heed their oath. They do so in a side battle (near Osgiliath IIRC) and, immediately, Aragorn sets them free. But they are not “an army at the ser ice of Aragorn”. They just want to be liberated and to do so, they fulfill the promise they broke. They are not obligated to more (and Aragorn has no power to keep them “here”), much less to make them obey him.
DivineBicycle 4y ago
That's what I think, they are not accurate to the books, or book in The Hobbit's case, but they are good films and I love watching them.

causi 4y ago

I didn't necessarily agree with all of Jackon's decisions, but, in the end, I enjoyed watching the movies (and still do). The Hobbit films are a different beast, for sure. Exactly my opinion as well. What worries me is that we saw what ten years of market shift did between LotR and The Hobbit. Now it's been another ten years of it. Instead of showing bad people tearing down trees to fuel industry, we're going to have some good character give a five minute long speech about it. There is going to be a romance plot between an orc and a non-orc. There is going to be a female orc and she is going to be a strong independent woman. There is going to be a ruler who is as bad Denethor but they're going to make a strong point about him also being a racist.

at_a_remove 4y ago
Oh gods no I ... I can see this happening, it's just too plausible.
- hedora 4y ago
  Why wait, when you can watch this Gandalf^W Dumbledore prequel? https://decider.com/2022/05/30/fantastic-beasts-the-secrets-of-dumbledore-on-hbo-max-stream-it-or-skip-it/ https://decider.com/2022/05/30/fantastic-beasts-the-secrets-... (warning: Lots of spoilers in there...)
darrelld 4y ago
At the end of the day stories reflect our society and LoTR is just another story. All of the classic stories we tell kids have evolved over time and are no longer true to their original source material. We take the thing we need, ignore the things we don't need, and add what's missing from our modern eyes. If you go back to the source material for things like Snow White, Pinocchio and trace them through the ages you'll see that they have constantly changed and adjusted.
- causi 4y ago
  I think there's a difference between tuning a story and misappropriating it as a vehicle for your personal goals. This can be done well by giving us more background on what was a minor character or altering dialogue to give a different perspective of events. It can be done badly, such as by introducing us to Kímli, the lesbian dwarf queen with a mithril wheelchair.