[Boromir88]

I honestly don't think Tolkien would have liked the movies Jackson made. He seemed uneasy about anybody making a movie off his works. Does that mean I don't like them? No, there are many good and bad things about the movie, but here are some problems Tolkien had with turning his books into movies...

Now Tolkien through out says Z, and from an extract Tolkien explains the set up...

Z is used as an abbreviation for (the writer of) the synopsis.
References to this are by page (and line where required); references to the original story are by Volume and page

Letter #210 explains Tolkien's feelings on movie adaptations...

If Z and/or others do so, they may be irritated or aggrieved by the tone of many of my criticisms. If so, I am sorry (though not surprised). But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about. ....

The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

Jackson over-exaggerates things a lot in the movies. He tries to beat it into our heads. Denethor's madness, Gimli's humor...etc. Also, in this opening paragraph you can see Tolkien's general wariness of making films out of his books.

Z .... has intruded a ’fairy castle’ and a great many Eagles, not to mention incantations, blue lights, and some irrelevant magic (such as the floating body of Faramir). He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately: the journey of the Ringbearers. The last and most important part of this has, and it is not too strong a word, simply been murdered.

I practically bolded this whole excerpt because most of this stuff Jackson does. Irrelevant magic...fight between Gandalf and Saruman, Saruman's fireball. Jackson cuts characters stories (and in some cases Frodo's story) to insert large fight scenes. The cutting of the Scouring of the Shire may be argued as missing the whole point of the Journey of the Ringbearers.

Gandalf, please, should not ’splutter’. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity. The description on I p. 239 should never be forgotten.

For the most part Gandalf's character was within the books (atleast to me). It was his beating of Denethor that I thought was out of his character.

Here I may say that I fail to see why the time-scheme should be deliberately contracted. It is already rather packed in the original, the main action occurring between Sept. 22 and March 25 of the following year. The many impossibilities and absurdities which further hurrying produces might, I suppose, be unobserved by an uncritical viewer; but I do not see why they should be unnecessarily introduced. Time must naturally be left vaguer in a picture than in a book; but I cannot see why definite time-statements, contrary to the book and to probability, should be made. ....

As Tolkien says he understands the time contraints in movies, but what he does point out in this is for example, if 17 years pass between Frodo getting the Ring and leaving the Shire, it should be (in movie time) 17 years. Frodo seems to get the ring, than leave, and he looks younger than his 3 Hobbit companions.

Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be visually represented.

This is a key one, Tolkien admits that not everything can be added into the movies, things are going to get cut.

9. Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.3

Now there are some misuse PJ uses in the Nazgul.
One, the Osgiliath scene when Frodo walks up to the Nazgul. First off, Frodo wouldn't be that stupid. Second, we can see from Tolkien's views on the Nazgul, they would not have the power to possess Frodo in walking right out in front of them.

Second, the Witch-King Gandalf scene. As Tolkien explains they have no power of the fearless, Gandalf is one of the few Fearless ones. He was the LONE PERSON to stand against the Witch-king when he broke the gate. The scene with the encounter of the movie shows fear in Gandalf and goes totally against Tolkien's views on the powers of the nazgul.

Strider does not ’Whip out a sword’ in the book. Naturally not: his sword was broken. (Its elvish light is another false anticipation of the reforged Anduril. Anticipation is one of Z’s chief faults.) Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was explicitly not fought with weapons?

Aragorn doesn't even get Anduril until ROTK and throughout he shows uneasiness to become the King of Gondor. Aragorn showing the shards to the Hobbits and getting it reforged is key as it shows Aragorn wants to become the King, there is no unwillingness in him.

11. Aragorn did not ’sing the song of Gil-galad’. Naturally: it was quite inappropriate, since it told of the defeat of the Elven-king by the Enemy. The Black Riders do not scream, but keep a more terrifying silence. Aragorn does not blanch. The riders draw slowly in on foot in darkness, and do not ’spur’. There is no fight. Sam does not ’sink his blade into the Ringwraith?s thigh’, nor does his thrust save Frodo’s life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20:4 the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)

Why has my account been entirely rewritten here, with disregard for the rest of the tale? I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.....

I have spent some time on this passage, as an example of what I find too frequent to give me ’pleasure or satisfaction’: deliberate alteration of the story, in fact and significance, without any practical or artistic object (that I can see); and of the flattening effect that assimilation of one incident to another must have.

Jackson does exactly what Tolkien says he despised. Rewriting the Weathertop scene and turning it into a fight.

Again, the last paragraph here is key. As Tolkien says he understands "artistic license" but he does not agree with deliberate alterations of the movie for "pleasure and satisfaction."

Z does not seem much interested in seasons or scenery, though from what I saw I should say that in the representation of these the chief virtue and attraction of the film is likely to be found. But would Z think that he had improved the effect of a film of, say, the ascent of Everest by introducing helicopters to take the climbers half way up (in defiance of probability)? It would be far better to cut the Snow-storm and the Wolves than to make a farce of the arduous journey.

Now would Tolkien think Jackson's work on the snowstorm was a farce? I can't say, but Jackson does alter it and makes it almost nothing like the books. He changes it to another fight between Gandalf and Saruman, and as Tolkien says he'd rather see this scene cut than be changed.

20. The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

Now there's a big problem with the Balrog in the movie. It's nothing like the things we know on balrogs. Jackson seems to take his Balrog off of John Howe's work, and while John Howe is a dazzling artist, there's little lore he puts in to his drawings of Balrogs.

In the book lembas has two functions. It is a ’machine’ or device for making credible the long marches with little provision, in a world in which as I have said ’miles are miles’. But that is relatively unimportant. It also has a much larger significance, of what one might hesitatingly call a ’religious’ kind. This becomes later apparent, especially in the chapter ’Mount Doom’ (III 213-5 and subsequently). I cannot find that Z has made any particular use of lembas even as a device; and the whole of ’Mount Doom’ has disappeared in the distorted confusion that Z has made of the ending. As far as I can see lembas might as well disappear altogether.

Well, the Lembas are long gone once they get to Mount Doom. In fact I don't know if they've eaten anything since. And the choppy 30 minute ending could show the "distorted confusion of the ending." Tolkien mentions.

I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.

This is one of the biggest faults Tolkien would find in the movies (I think). The altering of dialogue, switching lines with people, and just making up your own dialogue. Tolkien would not be very fond of this, he makes it clear here, that to him his dialogue is important and a necessity to plot and scenery.

The narrative now divides into two main branches: 1. Prime Action, the Ringbearers. 2. Subsidiary Action, the rest of the Company leading to the ’heroic’ matter. It is essential that these two branches should each be treated in coherent sequence. Both to render them intelligible as a story, and because they are totally different in tone and scenery. Jumbling them together entirely destroys these things.

Now, I myself do not have a problem with the "jumbling" of the two stories. Tolkien thinks differently.

31. I deeply regret this handling of the ’Treebeard’ chapter, whether necessary or not. I have already suspected Z of not being interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a quite unintelligible glimpse? What are Ents?

Another thing I see a lot of people complain about in the movies. One, Treebeard and the ents deciding at first NOT to go to war, and have to be tricked into it. Secondly, Treebeard is totally unaware that his forest is being cut down, he has no clue until Pippin tricks him into taking him passed Isengard.

33. I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the ’defence of the Hornburg’ this would be a better title, since Helm’s Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this way. Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out, if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant part of the story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story; and there would be this additional gain that we are going to have a big battle (of which as much should be made as possible), but battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain by having no competitor.

Tolkien thinks the battle of the Hornburg is secondary to the story with Merry, Pippin, and the Ents. This is switched around in the movies. The half and hour fight scene, plust more for preparing the battle takes up almost a third of TTT. Tolkien did not see The Hornburg as a significant event compared to the story with the Ents.

Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman’s proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die. Saruman would never have committed suicide: to cling to life to its basest dregs is the way of the sort of person he had become. If Z wants Saruman tidied up (I cannot see why, where so many threads are left loose) Gandalf should say something to this effect: as Saruman collapses under the excommunication: ’Since you will not come out and aid us, here in Orthanc you shall stay till you rot, Saruman. Let the Ents look to it!’

So, now we get to the cutting of the Scouring. And Tolkien says if he's going to do this there is no reason in Saruman's death being shown. The Whole Orthanc scene I think is mishandled. With Saruman's fireball, and falling on spikes...etc

Now I have come to accept and love the movies and many things I have come to accept Jackson's terms. Perhaps Tolkien would have, but from this letter he was not very fond of the idea of his books being altered and changed. He knew things had to be cut, but he felt some things (characters and dialogue) were more essential then large fight scenes and in Jackson's movies this is switched.

I do not see Tolkien being very fond of Jackson's movies.