6 ms·

I find it hard to have sympathy for Christopher Tolkien, who hasn't exactly been a model steward of his father's imagination. I'm reminded a lot of Brian Herber

I find it hard to have sympathy for Christopher Tolkien, who hasn't exactly been a model steward of his father's imagination. I'm reminded a lot of Brian Herbert, who really hit left field with the posthumous Dune stuff. Given some of his actions, calling the film franchise an "evisceration" is the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, let's film a 16-hour word-for-word rendition of each book, because that will work on film. I've liked everything Jackson has done, and I think his work can coexist with the source material without issue. I'm in the minority; I enjoyed The Hobbit even fully aware it suffered from First Film Syndrome. (Just had a thought: Peter Jackson should film Dune next, so he can annoy two posthumous estates.)

monochromatic 14y ago
> I've liked everything Jackson has done, and I think his work can coexist with the source material without issue. So have I, and as much as I wish it could coexist, I'm not sure it really can. For an entire generation, "Lord of the Rings" really pretty just means the movies.
dantheman 14y ago
What's First Film Syndrome?
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  Unlike The Matrix, The Hobbit was created knowing it would be the first of a trilogy (early in production, a two-part series). As such, it spends all of its frames laying the groundwork for the next film. One reviewer, I forget who, described the experience as "all foreplay with no sex", which I agree with. That said, still a rousing ride and a lot of fun. I enjoyed it, particularly the Thorin/Bilbo story that concluded near the end.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    To borrow a term from TV, it's a "premise movie", the counterpart to a premise pilot, which doesn't work as a regular episode, but as the set-up for the rest of the show.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Ah, but occasionally you even get a "premise pilot" whose succeeding program is very little like it.
      - kmfrk 14y ago
        You might even get characters who magically disappear. :)
  - tomelders 14y ago
    Like Prometheus, which was essentially an advert for another movie and a complete waste of my time and money.
    - philsnow 14y ago
      Come on, be reasonable! That's not the only reason it was a waste of time and money.
kmfrk 14y ago
All the things I have read about Christopher Tolkien have done anything but make me sympathetic to him. He reminds me of what happened to the estate of James Joyce, which is a very sad tale: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/01/james-joyce-public-domain.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/01/james-jo... I don't know whether a series like A Song of Ice and Fire could every be adapted well, but the TV show has definitely ensured that more people will read, and most important remember, the work of R. R. Martin. Whatever you may think about the artistic merit of LOTR and The Hobbit, I think Tolkien has still benefitted immensely.
jballanc 14y ago
I think you're being too hard on Christopher Tolkien. The first time I read through The Silmarillion I was disappointed by how much it resembled a history text book...then I realized: it is a history text book. This interview just cements what I had already suspected: much as the history of the real world is mostly mundane, punctuated by a few good "stories", the same is true of Tolkien's works. Surely, when you see the Mona Lisa your eyes are drawn to the face and slight smile, but da Vinci still had to paint the background for it to be the painting it is. In some regards, this is the difference between art and pop culture. Once you get past the surface, pop culture is typically hollow. All that said, I think the original movies are artistic masterpieces (haven't seen the Hobbit yet, so I can't comment)...just masterpieces of a different sort, in a different medium.
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  Yeah, it's Middle Earth's Bible, which is part of the reason why I disagree with its existence. Some argued that elder Tolkien would not have published his notes and thoughts in that form, and it dilutes Tolkien's published works of their artistic value.
  - jballanc 14y ago
    Yes, I've heard that argument as well, and felt it myself to some extent. Not to torture the analogy too much, but one thing to note about the Mona Lisa is the amount of discussion, debate, and research that has gone into questions such as "what location does the background represent?" and "who is this lady, anyway?". Literally hundreds of years have gone into an analysis of that painting, and posthumously publishing Tolkiens background notes almost guarantees that the legacy of his work will be treated very differently. That said, Tolkiens works exist at an interesting cusp in the course of human history, as we are transitioning from a dearth of contextual clues surrounding works of art, to an extreme excess. Nothing is sacred, but such is the way of things today...
    - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
      You make a good case, and I don't disagree.
magicalist 14y ago
Christopher Tolkien can be called many things. He hasn't always done the best job stewarding his father's world, erring on the side of conservatism and disapproving of anyone else's work based on his father's (rightly or wrongly). And he's kind of a jerk. But the Brian Herbert comparison just means you've never read anything Christopher Tolkien actually published (or you never attempted to read Brian Herbert's terrible terrible work). The only publication where Christopher Tolkien embellished or added to his father's writings was The Silmarillion, published under pressure from their publisher to get it out the door as soon as possible after his father's death and when he was younger (relatively) and less sure about his bargaining position to leave his father's work untouched. The added narrative was mostly connecting prose, meant to keep the story more coherent, and one full chapter replacing a version that was hopelessly out of date compared to the rest of the updates his father had added over decades. He's repeatedly expressed regret about changing The Silmarillion (including again in this article), and has even laid out exactly what he added to the story so you can mentally edit it out. Every single other book (that would be 13 of them, I believe) that he's published has been literally a written guide to trying to piece together a chronological view of all the undated scraps of rough drafts and notes his father left behind. The only thing he adds are clearly delimited notes about why he thinks some scrap came next and summaries about how some minor change made elsewhere suddenly made ripples of changes through future drafts of other sections, which he then proceeds to include verbatim. In other words, there's no way to get less respectful of his father's work, short of leaving it unpublished. Again, he can be called many things (he really does seem to be like a total jerk, and there's no way any adaptation would have pleased him, even a word-for-word dramatic reading), but comparing him to Brian Herbert and what he did with Dune is beyond the pale. Yes, Brian Herbert's work is just that bad :)
- jspthrowaway2 14y ago
  Allow me to clarify that the reminding of Herbert that Tolkien triggers for me is not based upon the quality of the work -- and I think you and I are going to agree on how bad Herbert's is -- it's only the territorial and overbearing defense of a creation not his own, often with ill effect. In both cases, I wonder if we'd be better off had forward progress in the canon died with the author.
pm90 14y ago
I'm in the minority; I enjoyed The Hobbit even fully aware it suffered from First Film Syndrome. (Just had a thought: Peter Jackson should film Dune next, so he can annoy two posthumous estates.) I didn't know there were 3 films, so I was so annoyed at the ending that I went back and read The Hobbit. And you know what? The movie is actually a pretty good adaptation. somewhat <SPOILER ALERT>: The battle of five armies, which will show up in the last movie is likely to be much more epic than the book, based on Jackson's renditions of other battles of Middle Earth. </SPOILER ALERT> I would go one step further: Peter Jackson's adaptation has been nothing short of fantastic. He's been pretty faithful to the LoTR story, but his movies have sparked interest in Tolkein's universe among those who would have never known about it otherwise. None of my friends would even consider reading the Hobbit or LoTR, but they've all seen and enjoyed the movies. (A tiny minority even tried reading the book). Now, its something that we enjoy talking about over many afternoons
- WalterBright 14y ago
  While I enjoyed the Hobbit movie, I was annoyed by the Jabba the Hut scene, and some of the slapstick that was lifted right out of Laurel and Hardy movies.
  - jonny_eh 14y ago
    What's wrong with Laurel and Hardy? Don't forget that The Hobbit is an adaptation of a childrens book. I think a bit of slapstick fits right in.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      It isn't any children's book Jackson felt like mixing in, it was one particular children's book.
    - WalterBright 14y ago
      Hardy played the hit on the head with a brick, and then when he thought that was the worst, he'd get hit on the head with another brick. This schtick has appeared (in various forms) in endless movies. It's so cliche I knew the goblin king was going to fall on the dwarves the moment one of them said "that wasn't so bad". Then there's the good guy slicing the bad guy with a sword. You think he missed, then the bad guy looks surprised as his head slides off. I've seen that in probably at least 6 movies. Falling into the abyss, and yet being grabbed and saved at the last second. Where have we seen that before? The literal "cliff hanger". And we get to see it several times over in The Hobbit. I still liked The Hobbit. But in spite of those scenes.
stan_rogers 14y ago
To borrow a phrase from comedian Chris Addison, "[t]his isn't the pot calling the kettle black; this is the kettle calling another kettle a kettle."
Nursie 14y ago
Brian Herbert is a hack. IMHO, of course. I would love to see a production of Dune with the budget and values of LoTR, even just book 1. But yeah, I would definitely find some things to be annoyed about :)
jpdoctor 14y ago
> calling the film franchise an "evisceration" is the pot calling the kettle black. It's a little worse than that. Compare how the stories were told back in the 80s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y (I saw this in first broadcast, and have probably been singing the song for 3 decades since.) Peter Jackson wasn't an improvement on this? So let's be clear: This is not about showing respect for the stories. It is about the money.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Also: http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm
Evbn 14y ago
What is First Film Syndrome? Seems you invented the term.

monochromatic 14y ago

> I've liked everything Jackson has done, and I think his work can coexist with the source material without issue. So have I, and as much as I wish it could coexist, I'm not sure it really can. For an entire generation, "Lord of the Rings" really pretty just means the movies.

dantheman 14y ago

What's First Film Syndrome?

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
Unlike The Matrix, The Hobbit was created knowing it would be the first of a trilogy (early in production, a two-part series). As such, it spends all of its frames laying the groundwork for the next film. One reviewer, I forget who, described the experience as "all foreplay with no sex", which I agree with. That said, still a rousing ride and a lot of fun. I enjoyed it, particularly the Thorin/Bilbo story that concluded near the end.
- kmfrk 14y ago
  To borrow a term from TV, it's a "premise movie", the counterpart to a premise pilot, which doesn't work as a regular episode, but as the set-up for the rest of the show.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Ah, but occasionally you even get a "premise pilot" whose succeeding program is very little like it.
    - kmfrk 14y ago
      You might even get characters who magically disappear. :)
- tomelders 14y ago
  Like Prometheus, which was essentially an advert for another movie and a complete waste of my time and money.
  - philsnow 14y ago
    Come on, be reasonable! That's not the only reason it was a waste of time and money.

kmfrk 14y ago

All the things I have read about Christopher Tolkien have done anything but make me sympathetic to him. He reminds me of what happened to the estate of James Joyce, which is a very sad tale: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/01/james-joyce-public-domain.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/01/james-jo... I don't know whether a series like A Song of Ice and Fire could every be adapted well, but the TV show has definitely ensured that more people will read, and most important remember, the work of R. R. Martin. Whatever you may think about the artistic merit of LOTR and The Hobbit, I think Tolkien has still benefitted immensely.

jballanc 14y ago

I think you're being too hard on Christopher Tolkien. The first time I read through The Silmarillion I was disappointed by how much it resembled a history text book...then I realized: it is a history text book. This interview just cements what I had already suspected: much as the history of the real world is mostly mundane, punctuated by a few good "stories", the same is true of Tolkien's works. Surely, when you see the Mona Lisa your eyes are drawn to the face and slight smile, but da Vinci still had to paint the background for it to be the painting it is. In some regards, this is the difference between art and pop culture. Once you get past the surface, pop culture is typically hollow. All that said, I think the original movies are artistic masterpieces (haven't seen the Hobbit yet, so I can't comment)...just masterpieces of a different sort, in a different medium.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
Yeah, it's Middle Earth's Bible, which is part of the reason why I disagree with its existence. Some argued that elder Tolkien would not have published his notes and thoughts in that form, and it dilutes Tolkien's published works of their artistic value.
- jballanc 14y ago
  Yes, I've heard that argument as well, and felt it myself to some extent. Not to torture the analogy too much, but one thing to note about the Mona Lisa is the amount of discussion, debate, and research that has gone into questions such as "what location does the background represent?" and "who is this lady, anyway?". Literally hundreds of years have gone into an analysis of that painting, and posthumously publishing Tolkiens background notes almost guarantees that the legacy of his work will be treated very differently. That said, Tolkiens works exist at an interesting cusp in the course of human history, as we are transitioning from a dearth of contextual clues surrounding works of art, to an extreme excess. Nothing is sacred, but such is the way of things today...
  - jspthrowaway2 14y ago
    You make a good case, and I don't disagree.

magicalist 14y ago

Christopher Tolkien can be called many things. He hasn't always done the best job stewarding his father's world, erring on the side of conservatism and disapproving of anyone else's work based on his father's (rightly or wrongly). And he's kind of a jerk. But the Brian Herbert comparison just means you've never read anything Christopher Tolkien actually published (or you never attempted to read Brian Herbert's terrible terrible work). The only publication where Christopher Tolkien embellished or added to his father's writings was The Silmarillion, published under pressure from their publisher to get it out the door as soon as possible after his father's death and when he was younger (relatively) and less sure about his bargaining position to leave his father's work untouched. The added narrative was mostly connecting prose, meant to keep the story more coherent, and one full chapter replacing a version that was hopelessly out of date compared to the rest of the updates his father had added over decades. He's repeatedly expressed regret about changing The Silmarillion (including again in this article), and has even laid out exactly what he added to the story so you can mentally edit it out. Every single other book (that would be 13 of them, I believe) that he's published has been literally a written guide to trying to piece together a chronological view of all the undated scraps of rough drafts and notes his father left behind. The only thing he adds are clearly delimited notes about why he thinks some scrap came next and summaries about how some minor change made elsewhere suddenly made ripples of changes through future drafts of other sections, which he then proceeds to include verbatim. In other words, there's no way to get less respectful of his father's work, short of leaving it unpublished. Again, he can be called many things (he really does seem to be like a total jerk, and there's no way any adaptation would have pleased him, even a word-for-word dramatic reading), but comparing him to Brian Herbert and what he did with Dune is beyond the pale. Yes, Brian Herbert's work is just that bad :)

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
Allow me to clarify that the reminding of Herbert that Tolkien triggers for me is not based upon the quality of the work -- and I think you and I are going to agree on how bad Herbert's is -- it's only the territorial and overbearing defense of a creation not his own, often with ill effect. In both cases, I wonder if we'd be better off had forward progress in the canon died with the author.

pm90 14y ago

I'm in the minority; I enjoyed The Hobbit even fully aware it suffered from First Film Syndrome. (Just had a thought: Peter Jackson should film Dune next, so he can annoy two posthumous estates.) I didn't know there were 3 films, so I was so annoyed at the ending that I went back and read The Hobbit. And you know what? The movie is actually a pretty good adaptation. somewhat <SPOILER ALERT>: The battle of five armies, which will show up in the last movie is likely to be much more epic than the book, based on Jackson's renditions of other battles of Middle Earth. </SPOILER ALERT> I would go one step further: Peter Jackson's adaptation has been nothing short of fantastic. He's been pretty faithful to the LoTR story, but his movies have sparked interest in Tolkein's universe among those who would have never known about it otherwise. None of my friends would even consider reading the Hobbit or LoTR, but they've all seen and enjoyed the movies. (A tiny minority even tried reading the book). Now, its something that we enjoy talking about over many afternoons

WalterBright 14y ago
While I enjoyed the Hobbit movie, I was annoyed by the Jabba the Hut scene, and some of the slapstick that was lifted right out of Laurel and Hardy movies.
- jonny_eh 14y ago
  What's wrong with Laurel and Hardy? Don't forget that The Hobbit is an adaptation of a childrens book. I think a bit of slapstick fits right in.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    It isn't any children's book Jackson felt like mixing in, it was one particular children's book.
  - WalterBright 14y ago
    Hardy played the hit on the head with a brick, and then when he thought that was the worst, he'd get hit on the head with another brick. This schtick has appeared (in various forms) in endless movies. It's so cliche I knew the goblin king was going to fall on the dwarves the moment one of them said "that wasn't so bad". Then there's the good guy slicing the bad guy with a sword. You think he missed, then the bad guy looks surprised as his head slides off. I've seen that in probably at least 6 movies. Falling into the abyss, and yet being grabbed and saved at the last second. Where have we seen that before? The literal "cliff hanger". And we get to see it several times over in The Hobbit. I still liked The Hobbit. But in spite of those scenes.

stan_rogers 14y ago

To borrow a phrase from comedian Chris Addison, "[t]his isn't the pot calling the kettle black; this is the kettle calling another kettle a kettle."

Nursie 14y ago

Brian Herbert is a hack. IMHO, of course. I would love to see a production of Dune with the budget and values of LoTR, even just book 1. But yeah, I would definitely find some things to be annoyed about :)

jpdoctor 14y ago

> calling the film franchise an "evisceration" is the pot calling the kettle black. It's a little worse than that. Compare how the stories were told back in the 80s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y (I saw this in first broadcast, and have probably been singing the song for 3 decades since.) Peter Jackson wasn't an improvement on this? So let's be clear: This is not about showing respect for the stories. It is about the money.

stcredzero 14y ago
Also: http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

Evbn 14y ago

What is First Film Syndrome? Seems you invented the term.