Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc
I would second something of what Galin said, and I believe Tolkien's opinion would have even a bit deeper foundations. It isn't just about movie, it is about any attempt of visual arts - even drama! - to capture the story. A director, even if he was thousand times better than PJ, can only show you his portrayal of Middle-Earth - and that, in my book, is already something else than my Middle-Earth. The thing I dislike about blockbuster movies being made out of LotR is the fact that it imposes a certain image of the world on unaware and unprepared masses of people.
|
From the start, the only strong point I could see in favor of the movies was the hope that they might inspire people to read the books, and get the
true story as its author meant for it to be told. Sadly, I fear for many that just hasn't been the case.
I think perhaps Tolkien might have been pleased with some of the visuals of the films, especially the Shire and Minas Tirith.
From his words in the letter about Zimmerman that
Galin mentioned, I think though that he would have had serious issues with the multiple liberties Jackson took with the characters; specifically the overblown "comic" treatments afforded to Merry, Pippin, and most of all, Gimli. The oft-maligned alteration of Frodo and Sam's encounter with Faramir would have been another problem. Since Tolkien complained about Zimmerman calling Galadriel an "Elvenqueen", how much more would it have upset him to see his well-written account of Faramir's refusal of the Ring turned on its head?
In the letter, Tolkien said that Zimmerman's ideas about Lórien were in line with the "gimcrack of modern conventional fairy-tales".
As regards PJ's Arwen, I can see Tolkien similarly railing about Jackson's preference for the "gimcrack of modern movie romance".