Hobbit movie progressing

[Tuor in Gondolin]

from what I've seen on ToRN the Dwarves look far too harsh,
unlike The Hobbit Thorin & Co. How they could ever work with
the slapstick comedy of surprising Bilbo (and then Beorn) stretches
credulity.

And that's a good point about dialogue needed in the White Council.

This again is an example of CT's extremism in non-cooperation with PJ
has hurt the movies (he could have, both through general influence and in
rewrites, have ameliorated some of the worst aspects of PJ's films,
while bolstering his strenghts---particularly cinematography).

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

This again is an example of CT's extremism in non-cooperation with PJ has hurt the movies (he could have, both through general influence and in rewrites, have ameliorated some of the worst aspects of PJ's films,
while bolstering his strenghts---particularly cinematography).

Yes, if CT had wanted to, he probably could have had great influence over the films, and stopped some of the idiotic decisions. One of the reasons* - and I'm pretty sure everybody knows I'm a huge fan of them by now - that I like both McKellen and Lee is that they are fans of the books and not just actors reading the script. I believe that somewhere on one of the EE discs, PJ mentions McKellen mentioning to him when things got too far from the book (and if that's true, I shudder to think what kind of movie we would have had without him.).

Edited to add: Just started reading McKellen's Hobbit blog. Apparently, Gandalf's silver scarf and black boots are part of the costume.

*You all would be here all day if I listed all the reasons. They're just cool men.

[Mithalwen]

No he couldn't. Unless it is written into the deal authors (or their estates) have no power whatsoever. JK Rowling had power because apart from anything else she hadn't finished the books and could say it compromised the plot.

The other year there was an adaptation of Jodi Picoult 's "My sister's keeper" - they completely changed the ending in a life or death manner and she had no influence whatsoever.

They would have dismissed any criticism of CRT reference his lack of knowledge of screenwriting and movie making. The would have not given an inch. They might have liked his blessing but they wouldn't have wanted any input beyond clearance to use material in UT. CRT is 86 years old and has given us 30 years of editing his father's papers, I hope he spends what time is left to him in pursuits he enjoys. Why should he waste it on something he isn't interested in and can't control.

Lee is a genuine fan, McKellen has been a bit disparaging of Tolkien in some interviews.

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

No he couldn't. Unless it is written into the deal authors (or their estates) have no power whatsoever. JK Rowling had power because apart from anything else she hadn't finished the books and could say it compromised the plot.

He could have played the public. If he hadn't of sounded so anti-movies completely, he could have used public pressure on PJ. You just have to be smart and manipulative. CT is a brilliant man, but his PR skills need work. After all...it's so much fun to try and make the public turn to your side. Politics and the movie industry have a lot in common...

They would have dismissed any criticism of CRT reference his lack of knowledge of screenwriting and movie making. The would have not given an inch. They might have liked his blessing but they wouldn't have wanted any input beyond clearance to use material in UT.

So then you make a deal....I'll let you use this, but you have to do this, change that, and do this. And you get it written in a legally binding contract. Then, if they don't do it, you sue them and take all their hard earned by breaking the contract money for yourself. And yes, I really am like that in real life.

CRT is 86 years old and has given us 30 years of editing his father's papers, I hope he spends what time is left to him in pursuits he enjoys. Why should he waste it on something he isn't interested in and can't control.

If he isn't interested in it, then why did he try to sue to stop it? Or give any newspaper interviews about it? Though, I agree...if he wants nothing to do with it, then that's his well earned right.

Lee is a genuine fan, McKellen has been a bit disparaging of Tolkien in some interviews.

At least he's read the books - I'm not sure how many of the other actors have. I haven't read the interviews, so I'm not able to comment on how disparaging he might have been. I used to be a huge fan of Harry Potter - didn't mean I worshiped Rowling blindly, and I did get on message boards and comment on her mistakes (math is not a strong point of hers...) Not that I'm entirely sure how you can be a little disparaging....I was always thought that disparaging meant regard as being worth almost nothing.

[Mithalwen]

1, Christopher Tolkien has lived quietly in France for many years. He does not seek publicity and doesn't even use his own name when travelling to avoid it. Why you think a man already in his seventies would want to start to play media games I don't know. He is neither a politician nor a film maker, he is a scholar.

2, Christopher Tolkien did not make the film deal. His father did so because basically he had a major cash flow problem due to the punitive tax regime in force in the UK in the sixties which meant he had to pay in tax a huge proportion of his earnings before he actually received them. 2a, This isn't about you. He has not sold film rights to any of the works "under his watch" and there is zero chance he will. Adam may feel differently should he take up the mantle as seems likely and he may well have the inclination and nous to set up rowling like controls.

3, I don't think Christopher has given an interview for a very long time - maybe since the Silmarillion - there is a video on youtube - on anything. He did respond to a list of questions regarding the Children of Hurin. The estate sued to stop the film because of a breach of contract. When Tolkien sold the rights for a relatively modest sum there was a clause that he or his estate was due a portion of the profits. These weren't paid and that voided the contract There has been a settlement of an undisclosed amount though the Tolkien Trust accounts give a lot of clues. The Tolkien Trust gives many hundred of thousands of pounds to educational and humanitarian charities worldwide.

4, The interviews I saw gave me the impression that McKellen didn't rate Tolkien as a writer. But then I don't rate McKellen as Gandalf,
Rowling certainly didn't take much care with her Astronomy.

I can't believe Christopher Tolkien is being slagged off for the films failings as well as everything else. He couldn't get more stick if he had burnt every last scrap of manuscript. Absolutely beggars belief... what do you want from the man? Blood?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

So then you make a deal....I'll let you use this, but you have to do this, change that, and do this. And you get it written in a legally binding contract. Then, if they don't do it, you sue them and take all their hard earned by breaking the contract money for yourself. And yes, I really am like that in real life.

Well, apart from the fact that it doesn't apply in this case, since the rights had already been sold, those kind of tactics are much more likely to result in the film not being made at all, or being delayed indefinitely, rather than in improving it. And that's if you (as a hypothetical novelist) were able to negotiate a deal like that in the first place– which is not all that easy. I mean, film people don't like an author trying to drive the production from the back seat. I can't say I blame them, either.

[LadyBrooke]

2a, This isn't about you.

I wasn't saying it was - I was referring to the fact that that would be unlike him, because it is a rather b***** stand to take. I didn't make that clear enough, that it would take somebody like me, who really enjoys it to do that. As I said in the third quote, he does have the right to stop due to all the hard work he's put in.

I don't think Christopher has given an interview for a very long time - maybe since the Silmarillion - there is a video on youtube - on anything.

I got slightly confused - it was not an interview, but rather a statement he released. While I cannot find the AP report itself, which had just the statement, and little of the speculation BBC includes, here is the BBC report in which he says he believes that "My own position is that 'The Lord Of The Rings' is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form." You don't release a statement saying that if you have no feelings.

I can't believe Christopher Tolkien is being slagged off for the films failings as well as everything else. He couldn't get more stick if he had burnt every last scrap of manuscript. Absolutely beggars belief... what do you want from the man? Blood?

And I can't believe that you have somehow managed to change a I wish he wanted to because it would have been a better movie into blaming him for the mistakes - I leave full blame for the mistakes on PJ. All I said was that I wished Christopher Tolkien had a more active role, because I believe it could have and would have been a better movie. I can understand why he didn't, because he is an old man. I could have easily said that I had wished J.R.R. Tolkien was still around, and would you be jumping on me for that? Because I do. I honestly wish a movie had been made while he was alive, so that he could have reacted to it. I could have said that I wished that J.R.R. Tolkien had a stricter contract sold (which I do) that left limits on what the filmmaker's could do. Do you now think that I blame a dead man for what went wrong with the movies? There's a difference between blaming somebody for want went wrong, and wishing they were there to keep it from getting that bad.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean, film people don't like an author trying to drive the production from the back seat. I can't say I blame them, either.

I can say I blame them...if you don't want to stay true to the book, don't adapt a book for a script. And certainly don't claim you're adapting a book, and then go 180 degrees opposite of a book. Because to me, that shows disrespect for the book and the author. Perhaps I'm weird, but I don't think this movie or LotR will be/was an adaption of the books. I think they're a sort of glorified fanfic script, because they're not true to the book. I don't watch movies frequently, and if going to see an adaption of a book, I don't want to see dwarves with hammers hanging out of their heads, or every warrior from Lothlorien get slaughtered in a battle. The worst moments in the movies are when the script has no backing from Tolkien's writings.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

And I can't believe that you [meaning Mithalwen] have somehow managed to change a I wish he wanted to because it would have been a better movie into blaming him for the mistakes - I leave full blame for the mistakes on PJ.

Very well, but I think you still implied at least (through your wish, even if unintended), that Christopher Tolkien 'should' have done something that he didn't, something that only possibly might have changed the films into some measure of better, which judging by the reactions on the web, 'better' for a film being quite subjective in the first place.

All I said was that I wished Christopher Tolkien had a more active role, because I believe it could have and would have been a better movie. I can understand why he didn't, because he is an old man.

Not that you said otherwise, but Christopher Tolkien, at any age, is also entitled to his opinion about the suitability of the book being adapted for film, and we have no reason to not believe him. Plus, as you're talking about mights and maybes here, any involvement would also maybe (which I think likely actually) result in the filmmakers claiming (something like): 'and we had Christopher Tolkien's input too' generalizing in the extreme and giving their films a false sense of 'authorization' even in some measure.

And considering how poor I think these adaptations are (and I obviously cannot speak for Christopher Tolkien), 'better' would need to be significantly better, possibly starting with rewrites on page one, and a wholly different take on certain characters, tone, focus, action, 'modernization' and humor.

What if CJRT agreed with me after seeing the film treatment (as I'm sure he would)

Let's say after months of only hopeful work Christopher Tolkien gave us 'closer to Tolkien' here or there and arguably made the films better, but if the end sum is still significantly poor as far as 'faithful' is concerned, then I think CJRT would certainly be hailed as a contributor, yet in this possible scenario, would feel that he basically failed in a larger context in any case. Even if betterness is achieved (according to enough opinions) there's no guarantee of putting out a work that Christopher Tolkien would not mind having his name attached to -- which I think shirly would happen if the filmmakers changed even only a number of small details because of his advice.



I'm not in the camp of 'never try' to better something even if things seem unlikely, but afterall this is a film (hyperbole alert) not world hunger, and I think your wish places Christopher Tolkien into a potentially unwanted situation; and it's not the first film based on Tolkien's work, won't be the last, and certainly isn't alone among various interpretations from various fields of art.


Ask a man somewhat advanced in years, who already doesn't think the book is suitable for film (for his own reasons) to drop his work on The Children of Hurin (it would seem, and at least for a time), to try to sway some director about the latest film adaptation because it might be better in some measure (if they listen to him), but not necessarily faithful in sum to the work he truly cares about?