Christopher Tolkien finally speaks out on the LOTR film trilogy
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df4f4678c271d3ce08b333a2ec64555f.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 374 Forum Member
✭
Son of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and the highest authority on all things Tolkien in the entire world finally gives his opinion on the trilogy and the upcoming Hobbit films.
http://www.examiner.com/article/christopher-tolkien-gives-rare-interview-to-french-newspaper-le-monde
The rest of the fascinating interview:And what does he think of Peter Jackson and the upcoming Hobbit film adaptations? For now, he's simply turning a blind eye to them. The Tolkien Estate has declined invitations to meet Jackson, and recognizes that versions of his father's works have been placed in the hands of a wider audience that has now turned Tolkien's world into their own playground:
"They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk. Tolkien became...devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the time. The gap widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become is beyond me. This level of marketing reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical significance of this work."
http://www.examiner.com/article/christopher-tolkien-gives-rare-interview-to-french-newspaper-le-monde
0
Comments
Ah well least he has made millions off the back of films he pretty much despises, and the resurgences of book sales due to the films
Just because Jackson adapted the books and made sensible changes does not mean he gutted them.
What benefit does Tom Bombadil really give the story?
Yes he's a nice contribution to the book, where you practically have an infinite (if you so wish) amount of time to tell the story.
In a film your time is limited. What does Bombadil contribute that the film was lacking? Nothing.
Yes, Jackson DID gut the books, then replaced the parts he'd gutted with a load of trashy writing and action scenes.
As for sensible changes - I cannot think of one single change that Jackson made which could be deemed even remotely sensible.
The Moria battle: All about Gandalf facing his fears, and Gimli avenging his kin.
Helms Deep: Aragon's development into leader, and Theoden's despair
Pellennor: So many! When the action is hotting up, Jackson cuts away to Pippin, to Gandalf, to Eowyn, and how this horrible thing is affecting them!
Christopher seems to think the movies are little more than a Michael Bay bastardisation of his father's masterpiece. I wonder if he's even seen the film.
Well, the Bombadil example for one. To portray this character on film would have taken AT LEAST half an hour to do properly, in a movie already packed full of plot. Plus, this dude does not show up again. He's supposed to be a demi-god of some sort, and we spend three chapters with him. Why does he not get involved later on? Plus, he completely breaks up the mad dash from the Shire. We are running for our lives! Let's stop off and have tea with Tom.
Another: Arwen.
Using the Beren and Luthien story (in effect telling two of Tolkiens stories in one) and also bringing in more female demographic. LOTR falls dangerously close to being a sausage fest, and Jackson does everything he can to flesh out and add much depth to the few female characters there are. Pretty much everything Eowyn does in the movie The Two Towers is not in the book. In the book she appears briefly, then apparently has fallen in love with Aragorn after seeing him once. For like five minutes. In the films, it is developed in a lot more detail.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to claim Jackson's changes were all not remotely sensible is slightly silly, and a little trolly. I'll defend these films to the end. And I cannot wait for the Hobbit!
Arwen at the Ford was just plain wrong.
The Wizard duel was just rubbish.
Gimli reduced to comedy status.
Reluctant Aragorn.
Gimli expecting Balin to welcome them with roast pork - he knew something terrible must have happened.
Cave Troll spearing Frodo - Even a Mithril shirt wouldn't have stopped his ribs being smashed.
Theoden not wanting to fight after being healed.
Aragorn being lost in the river.
Elves at Helm's Deep - how did they get there so fast?
Saruman standing at the top of the tower talking to the party. There was a balcony there above the door that he could have used as per the book.
Aragorn and the Palantír. He was able to master it as the King should.
Faramir the weak willed. Tolkien is on record as saying that Faramir is the character that is closest to himself.
Frodo and Sam parting company on Cirith Ungol. Sam would never have left Frodo like that.
The death of Denethor.
Arwen "dying" for no apparent reason and Elrond himself turning up to tell Aragorn.
I'm sure there are many more examples like these. I'm hoping Jackson doesn't do the same to The Hobbit.
I think a lot of these changes make sense when you think that he was making films here. The whole "Sam leaving Frodo on Cirith Ungol" makes the audience feel torn, knowing what Gollum is up to, feeling for both Frodo and Sam. Faramir just wanted to make his father proud and the whole family dynamic added to the films and was probably something a lot of people could relate with. Gimli added comedy yes, as they were films for a very wide audience and adding comedy to books which aren't exactly bursting with it was necessary. The wizard fight in Isengard showed a different kind of battle, different from the big scale Helm's Deep or even on Amon Hen, so offered the audience something sort of cool and on a different scale, sort of mentally as well as physically, to the other battles.
Nah I do see what you're saying man, there are changes and some of them maybe aren't fantastic, and don't think I'm rubbishing the books at all, cause I bloody adore the books. I just think Jackson did a pretty fantastic job with the films and generally did what was necessary.
Would love to have seen what the great man himself thought of the films.
the books are unfilmable, just too much depth, and a certain licence had to be taken...
Besides Christopher Lee, knew tolkien and reads the books once a year and gave his seal of a approval, and thats good enough for me
This is important. It was Christopher Lee's lifelong dream to star in a Lord of the Rings film, and he regularly discussed this with Tolkien when he was alive. He knows a lot better than anyone else what Tolkien would have wanted from the films, and he has shown nothing but admiration for PJ, even after his scenes were cut from ROTK.
And with respect, Christopher Tolkien is heavily biased, and also knows nothing about screenwriting and direction. Stuff like Tom Bombadil, The Scouring of the Shire and Saruman's Technicolour Dreamcoat is unthinkable for a mainstream blockbuster. In my opinion, all of the changes were sensible - the heart of the books is 100% there, as are almost all the characters and the vast majority of the plot points. Anyone who asks for more than this is deluding themselves.
I understand why they left this bit out but I would love to see this bit in film, all four of them riding into the shire in gleaming armour and sorting the hood out!!!:)
Some really interesting stuff in this thread that I didn't know.
But after 12 hours of build-up to the dramatic climax at Mount Doom, would it really make sense to start the story again and bring back a previous villain? This doesn't just apply to the film by the way - I always hated this part of the book for exactly this reason - IMO once the main story is told, you can't be throwing whole new dangers in after the climax.
By the way, something else I forgot - people often forget that Jackson actually fixed some of Tolkien's mistakes. The timeline of the books of Two Towers and Return of the King are all wrong, and they realised that The Battle of Minas Tirith should be happening alongside/just before Frodo meets Shelob, so the whole movement of those scenes into Return of the King is actually how Tolkien's story should happen. Jackson/Walsh/Boyens did know what they were doing there.
So therefore all comparisons between book and film become almost irrelevant (especially when it comes to the last 2 books). The only solution would have been not to make the films at all, but I don't know if Tolkien Junior's bank balance would have looked as good right now.
Yeah, I do totally understand why they didn't put it in the film but I loved that bit in the book and all the appendixes.
Maybe it will be in The Hobbit as a flash forward, that would be so cool.
I read an interesting interview with JK Rowling about the first Harry Potter film.
She said that as she was involved from Day 1 she wanted to make sure everything in the book was included in the film and was very resistant to any change in the storyline.
However once filming began she realised very quickly why the changes were being proposed and then understood that something which works perfectly in a book can make no sense in a film and detract from film's narrative.
Tolkien went back and wrote story after story based in middle earth after LOTR was released, there can never be a definative version its practically impossible, the trilogy was as close as you will get in probably our lifetimes to a filmic representation of Tolkiens master piece.
Sarumans extra scenes that where cut from ROTK where added to the Extended edition, and does fill in a few plot holes.
Also i would treat TTT and ROTK as 1 film as they almost roll into each other with a little compression of time. to stop us having an hr of walking and talking on horseback lol.
I like the films but I think they would have been much better without a lot of the tinkering. Middle Earth did look fantastic though.
TTT as a film was a bit of a mess. Theoden vacillating and Faramir being a prat are major diversions from the book. Not forgetting Elves at Helm's Deep.
ROTK was a lot better though I did think that Jackson overdid the Dead Men of Erech. The charge of the Rohirrhim was great but using the Dead to win the battle seemed a bit anti-climatic.
Also a tiny bit at the end has always niggled me when Sam arrives home but it's not Bag End. You'd think they could have had a 10 second scene with Frodo asking Sam and Rosie to live with him. A small niggle as I said.
Hmm, we've already seen The Shire after the war at the end of ROTK, and those final scenes cover a good few years after that and everything's fine, so how would it work?
I do think a lot of omitted stuff from LOTR is going to show up in The Hobbit though, especially if a third film is thrown in, as it seems may happen. I reckon there's a good chance we'll see Tom Bombadil at some point in The Hobbit.
He met Tolkien only once, that's it. He reads LOTR once a year, but his knowledge on the legendarium as a whole is lacking. He isn't the Tolkien scholar he's made out to be.
Christopher Tolkien on the other hand helped his father in writing the novel by proof reading the whole thing while Tolkien was writing it. He has reorganised his father's other work with utmost precision and it was he and his fellow siblings who convinced Tolkien to actually write the novel along with C.S Lewis. Tolkien did not intend a sequel to The Hobbit, he was happy with continuing The Silmarillion.
Without Christopher Tolkien, The Silmarillion, History of Middle-earth series, The Unfinished Tales, The Lost Tales,
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfeo, The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun would never have been published and the original manuscripts would be rotting away somewhere never to see the light of the day.
The likes of Tom or Glorfindel showing up is slim to none.