[Man-of-the-Wold]

We (devoted adherents of the philosophy, minutia, etc., as laid down by JRR Tolkien) can understand C Tolkien, in never being satisfied with these films ... or with any films, I'd argue, that could realistically be made well in terms of cinematic standards.<P>I'm just glad they (3 separate motion pictures) were done now, with DVDs and so forth, and not in the `60s, `70s or `80s. Times change, of course, in terms of markets, technology, tastes and so forth, and perhaps truer versions would be possible 10 or 20 years from now, but it has been long enough in coming.<P>Why this reference to time? … because JRR Tolkien's genius and work belong to the ages and to all people. It is not even C. Tolkien's job to be "dogmatist-in-charge."<P>JRR Tolkien's post-LotR-publication letters show that he was eager for film adaptations for popular exposure, as well as financial reasons. [“Stanley U. & I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.”—Letters. #202 to Christopher and Faith Tolkien (emphasis in the original)] C Tolkien failed on both counts, it might seem, as a result of the Bashki decision, and regrets may be part of the issue with him now. JRR Tolkien was also well aware of the need for severe recasting of his huge story to make a movie out of it. Nevertheless, it is very sobering to compare the effort and sensitivity of Peter Jackson and crew with the stupidity from Hollywood that JRR Tolkien encountered in his lifetime.<P>The commercialism, however crass, does sustain and spread his work, and frankly, I find most of it to be sort of endearing, but it is also a reality of the need for money and marketing to make these films successful, for which they could not otherwise be made, and I’m sure much of it delights plenty of small children, as well.<P>The reality of the stories is that they are adventure epics. Despite the presence of so much more, the LotR plot does revolve around battles and exciting encounters. Hence, you have an action-packed film. How much more you can do with that as part of the screen-play is quite limited; that's the genre, in which one is stuck with, and I'm glad that these elements can be pulled off with a maximum of design, realism, skill and technology, not too mention decent writing, excellent acting, beautiful cinematography, and so forth. Poorly done costumes and goblin make-up would not have gone down well.<P>But it is all incredibly expensive, requiring confidence in mass-audience appeal, including female characters and relationships. Most literate folks, really don't read books, they wait for the movie to come out, and then perhaps, they read the book. This fact was certainly not lost on JRR Tolkien.<P>My biggest problem with the films remains (merely) the somewhat cartoon-like aspects at the Council of Elrond, Moria and in Fangorn. They could have been more sophisticatedly rendered. Despite Peter Jackson's brilliance at direction and visual impact, the screenwriters are not great ones, but if they had been, they would have likely sought even more to make their own artistic mark, and then there'd be clashes not only with the books but also with the Director, and so on. Life is full of trade-offs and non-ideal circumstances.<P>The substantive additions (“slight deviation” as facetiously said in the EE commentary) to the storyline are for me largely defensible in terms of what JRR Tolkien implied in the Appendices, other writings or earlier conceptualization that while not right for the book have value in a screenplay. It's all just Art, sub-creation, and not really canonical in a religious sense, notwithstanding the altar in the Barrow.<P>Much of the other things that bother us about the films are the unavoidable simplifications, abridgements, omissions, compression of time, re-juxtaposition of lines, scenes & places, visually driven renderings, composition of characters, changes of emphasis, and other such devices to adapt a story to screen<P>Also, in spite of the lavish budget and time afforded this project, both constraints were felt, restricting the filmmaker's ability to experiment and takes risks, and ultimately they had to work with what they had and deliver a product, which C Tolkien should recognize from the published Silmirillion, which I feel he and others regret overmuch.<P>Thirdly, this is a gargantuan undertaking. Neither any Tolkien, you, nor I could ever hope to do it, but humans, who make mistakes, plain & simple, did it. If they have an overwrought concern for maintaining dramatic tension, then that is one of the weaknesses, but they bring a lot of counter-balancing strengths to the table.<P>Moreover is the challenge of holding an audience’s attention. Most people do not like to read too many words at once; the majority will not yet have read The Lord of the Rings’ thousand-plus pages (much less recently or multiple times); they are easily confused, and they always resent being confused or having to think very hard, and will tune out immediately. This brings me to something that I find very troubling, and possibly C Tolkien does too: To keep the issues clear and the Ring’s significance obvious, the Films blatantly depict the Ring as an aggressively, overtly evil force (notwithstanding that even Film-Bilbo cheerfully carried it around for 60 years), and Men (per Isildur), are ‘easily corrupted’ and lusting of power (only Film-Aragorn is really different, but in contrast to the books, he’s on a markedly anti-power trip!).<P>This films’ treatment of the Ring & Men is not, of course, really inconsistent with themes from the book, but it sadly distorts JRR Tolkien’s message about humanity, morality and mortality. But to capture even a portion of the requisite nuance and breadth on these issues would mean an entirely different type of film, with long dialogue and cheap action sequences. Also at work is present-day political correctness. For “Men” read “white males.” (Even the books’ emphasis on nature and simplicity is given the decidedly and misleadingly “green” gloss of late 20th Century environmentalism) Whether the filmmakers were wrong in these regards, and couldn’t have found less simplistic and truer techniques to communicate about the Ring and keep it central to the story, it’s hard to say, given the constraints noted above. But even in vain retrospect, regarding “what I’d have done” or “how I think it should have been done,” I can’t really come up with a good alternative that wouldn’t have been lost on the average moviegoer (poor souls).<P>Finally, the filmmakers are artists to one degree or another, and JRR Tolkien might have appreciated the need to let them follow their own inclinations, talents and ideas. Micromanagers everywhere forget that when competent folks take on big jobs, control of the means, process and outcomes needs to be relented. Everyone has a different vision of The Lord of the Rings, and for someone to sit back and say that something isn’t right (now that it’s presented to them) is not exercising a positive influence. An author should either write the screenplay and be part of the project, or let go. I’m just glad the Films are not filled with cheesy Gallic moustaches or stereotypic Viking helmets.<P>We’re he alive today, JRR Tolkien would hopefully not be so arrogant as to exert inappropriate control. A Film is an entirely unique creation unto itself, however much it is based on another source. The Harry Potter movies show how unsatisfying an overly faithful adaptation can be, and they were feasible as such, in my opinion, only because of the film-friendly nature of those books and the first two installments’ relative brevity.<P>The Lord of the Rings (at least the first two parts) are not at all film-friendly, and it is a gorgeous but nevertheless complex and sprawling story, and again, I count my blessings that the ultimate extended edition DVD(s) will provide up to 11 hours of quality-made picture time, which is absolutely incredible. To render the books in truer form would necessitate at least another four hours and a fourth theatrical release, which in retrospect New Line might have done, but beforehand, the company was taking a tremendous gamble in bankrolling three, 180-minute productions at once.<P>If JRR Tolkien shared any of the perspective that I describe above, I feel that he would have been extremely appreciative and pleased with such treatment of his work. Obviously, C Tolkien knows him better than anyone else alive now, but JRR Tolkien left this world over 30 years ago. Busy with his own career and family, C Tolkien was plainly not very familiar with his father’s work on Middle-Earth during the final 20 years, as revealed in The History of Middle-Earth and the many things that he only lately uncovered. In short, no one knows what JRR Tolkien would have thought today, and ultimately C Tolkien is just another fan with his (however superiorly informed) viewpoints. And to some extent it doesn’t matter; note that if it weren’t for Rayner Unwin dedicated efforts to move JRR Tolkien along, as shown in Letters, The Lord of the Rings books could very likely have never seen the light of day.<P>So, obviously I would like to see the Tolkien Estate and the New Line/Peter Jackson folks come together and work out a deal. The Hobbit seems rather film-friendly to me, and I think it and JRR Tolkien’s memory deserve to see it also made into a high-quality, live action and widely seen motion picture. For better or worse, I feel that any film of The Hobbit needs to be consistent with the look and feel of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings.<P>Here we must accept that New Line and Jackson now own (in the most general way) part of the JRR Tolkien legacy. Whether this is part of C Tolkien’s problems, who can say, but they have arguably expanded that legacy much more still. I don’t see what New Line and Jackson could do for the Tolkien Estate other than to be understanding and a bit contrite. They pulled off what no one could do for decades, except for the animated disaster, for which we can thank the Tolkien Estate. Though, Bashki did some good things, which Jackson copied more than he admits.<P>This doesn’t mean that Peter Jackson would actually need to direct The Hobbit, much less that it would need the same script-writing team, but the design and other folks would need to be reassembled to a great degree, and Peter Jackson involved as producer to maintain the consistency, that I find indispensable as a film package. And the Tolkien Estate could have a consultative role, but C Tolkien or whoever would need to be realistic about the appropriate extent of that role or share of the proceeds.<P>As for anything from the First Age, a rather different look and feel might be quite good, and those stories offer plenty of latitude for writers and filmmakers in terms of dialogue and other things, which cannot be directly compared with the literary work. Hopefully, they are not really off limits. I’d like to see Beren and Lúthien on screen.<P>I don’t really understand the whole thing about the rights to The Hobbit or the Tolkien family dynamics described above in this thread. Evidently, despite the Rankin|Bass animated Hobbit for television, the rights were retained by, reverted to or otherwise recouped by the Tolkien Estate. It seems unbelievable that C Tolkien could allegedly be so estranged from his son because the latter likes the Films and the former is unhappy with them. But someone might best be careful lest he “Inherit the Wind.”<P>I have (in addition to movie tickets) spent nearly $200 in terms of DVDs and other film stuff, and I’ll gladly spend more, regardless of the things that trouble me, but ultimately my complaints are vain; there is nothing I can do.<P>C Tolkien differs from us here. In a negative sense at least, he can do something by not releasing the rights to make films based on other of his father’s genius. Clearly, I don’t think that serves his father’s legacy or humanity, but maybe that’s just me.<P>C Tolkien may also regret the control that he forfeited, not to mention the vast sums of money involved; hundreds of millions of dollars are not so easily overlooked, even if the Tolkien Estate is presumably quite well endowed, in no small thanks now to the films’ effect on book sales. Of course, he did one smart thing, by quitting his job and devoting himself to producing his father’s written, albeit unfinished, work. Too bad his father was not so prescient 25 years earlier. But if C Tolkien so understands his father mind and vision, then why in the process of collecting and cataloguing the father’s prodigious writings did he not take the bold editorial steps to put it all together into a final, fully fleshed out and truly complete version of The Silmirillion and associated Legendarium? … as his father did wish to do.<P>C Tolkien has the talent, understanding and natural right to have done so, it would seem. Maybe, he just wasn’t so inclined or was restrained by the literary provisions of his father’s Will. Instead, he embarked on an equally challenging and probably more laborious task of the 12-volume History of Middle-Earth. But in this case, he assumes the role of the detached academic (for the most part) who is merely presenting a study of his father’s work. In a sense, he made a choice not to contribute to the popular and widely read legacy of his father (even if the HoME books have become fairly good sellers), but instead he sought to heighten respect of his father’s work from a more academic and philosophical perspective.<P>To this, movie-making, even if sensitive and sophisticated, contributes little, but I believe you can have both, and the bulk of moviegoers and lovers of the erudite are different audiences indeed. Perhaps, after all his work, C Tolkien may take it all a little too seriously.<P>Returning to speculation about The Hobbit film, I think it could quite closely follow the book. It could and should include more extensive back-story in terms of the Necromancer, assault on Dol Guldor and the pre-Unexpected Party story. Hugo Weaving and Ian McKellen should reprise their roles, and Orlando Bloom might be a minor part of the Woodland Realm stuff. Some elements and dwarves might have to be lost, but it is really a very compact story, and the double climax of Smaug’s destruction and the concluding battle could be cleverly done, not unlike the first Star Wars movie.<P>Ian Holm is a tough one. In the prologue they show him somewhat younger looking, maybe, hard to say, although later in the story it is indicated that like in the books, the Ring prevented him from aging, but the filmmakers may have wanted some contrast, rather then trying to push the non-aging point, in order to reinforce the impression that a long period of time has gone by. Peter Jackson like many filmmakers is uncomfortable with screen-play element that are not contained within in continuous stretch of current time, and indeed jumps in time often appear rather artificial and awkward on film. But given the physical demands and the fact that he is only supposed to be the equivalent of someone in his late 30s, the Bilbo role in The Hobbit would need to be played by a younger actor. Hopefully, it will happen.