[The Saucepan Man]

When I read Tolkien's Letters a while back, I found his thoughts concerning the film then planned most enlightening.

However, while it is clear from what he says in that letter that there are many aspects of Jackson's films that would have displeased Tolkien, it is also very clear that the screenplay which Tolkien was commenting on was a very different kettle of fish to the trilogy which Jackson made. Zimmerman's script seems in many ways to be aimed at "disneyfying" the Book, whereas Jackson largely avoided this.

And I think that you apply some of Tolkien's criticisms of the Zimmerman screenplay to Jackson's films rather out of context. For example:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

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.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King occurs at a time when he had been "raised to the stature of Vol. III". Tolkien envisaged that the Witch-King was "powered-up" for the attack on Gondor and Jackson portrays this nicely in the scene in Minas Morgul where he dons his armour. It is therefore not completely out of line with Tolkien's conception of the Nazgul that the Witch-King would represent a severe obstacle, if not a match, for Gandalf in this scene.

Similarly:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

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).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I practically bolded this whole excerpt because most of this stuff Jackson does. Irrelevant magic...fight between Gandalf and Saruman, Saruman's fireball.

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between Jackson's changes in this regard and the intrusion of fairy castles, multiple Eagles and floating Faramirs.

And:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

... and the whole of ’Mount Doom’ has disappeared in the distorted confusion that Z has made of the ending.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

And the choppy 30 minute ending could show the "distorted confusion of the ending."

None of the changes that Jackson made are anything like as drastic as the removal of "the whole of 'Mount Doom'". The 20 minute ending was, I think, Jackson's best attempt to capture the spirit of the end of the book. Given that some of the worst criticism of the trilogy (from film critics) is that it takes too long to end, I can certainly see why the Scouring was left out. I think it is unfair, however, to say that the films do not adequately represent the journey of the Ringbearer. Tolkien's criticism of this aspect of the Zimmerman screenplay seems to be based on the disappearance of 'Mount Doom'. Something that Jackson certainly cannot be accused of.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It's nothing like the things we know on balrogs.

Ah, but how much do we know about Balrogs ...? The film Balrog certainly seems to be an accurate representation of many people's (inclusing my) visualisation of the Balrog from the book (even if not strictly cannonical). And it certainly doesn't seem to suffer from the same poor realisation that Zimmerman's sneering Balrog seems to have suffered.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

Agreed. But Tolkien was not a writer of screenplays ...

As, indeed, the following comment shows:

Originally Posted by Tolkien

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.

Portraying the two threads of the story sequentially, while it works well in a book, would have worked disastrously on screen. The same point applies to his suggestion that the Battle of the Hornburg is less important than the story of Merry, Pippin and the Ents. He may not have liked the idea of his book being made into an "action" film (even a superior one, which I believe Jackson's trilogy is), but it is difficult to see it enjoying the same success if done differently (and, when stumping up the kind of investment required for these films, studios and investors want box-office success).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

Which is exactly what Jackson did (and got roundly criticised for) with the theatrical version. In any event, Tolkien's biggest gripe seems to be that Zimmerman had Saruman commit suicide, a mistake which Jackson did not make.

Overall, I agree that Tolkien would have been uncomfortable with many of Jackson's changes (just as his son and the purists are). But I do think that he would have appreciated it as a fine visual representation of the world that he created and I also believe that he would have recoginsed it as capturing much of the spirit of his story, certainly moreso than the screenplay upon which he comments in this letter.

And it also seems to me that Tolkien was unlikely to be satisfied with any film version of his book which stood a realistic chance of being made. Then again, he did do rather well out of selling the film rights to it ...