Wow, some of you posters make me feel like a geriatric stick!
"There are better writers today?" Have you actually read these books? I mean, read them? The wordcraft is exquisite. Writers today, myself included, can't even edit properly, much less understand grammar and vocabulary. I've spent hours marveling at sentences in those books...
Sure, some think plastic is better than glass. Some would rather get McD's than fresh cut. Some would rather have a five-minute quickie than a life-long friendship.
Peter Jackson has great vision, but his movies contain too many: "Oh that's just silly!" scenes for me. I almost had to walk out of "Two Towers" (Horses galloping down that pitch, into a pike formation? Really?). "Return of the King" was even worse. Now "Hobbit" was too long and then had twenty minutes of epic sillyness. The last third of the movie could've been cut to three scenes and been the better for it.
Yeah, I understand Christopher Tolkien's grief. We live in a world that is all flash and no substance. Professor Tolkien lived in time before American pragmatism ruled the world. He tried to write about it.
This. Tolkien had exquisit control of his language. Read it again sometime and observe how the language changes to suit the current context of the story, and the characters that are being observed.
No, it isn't modern language. It was never /intended/ to be a modern novel with modern language.
I started reading LOTR when I was around 11 or 12, I am now almost 40.
IMO the films were great and have brought a whole new generation of fans to the IP. They may not be a 100% accurate representation of the books, but who cares. Alot of new fans of LOTR just because of the movies. Alot of those fans will have read the books because they saw the movies.
A win win for everybody. I think any writer who had their work turned into movies with millions of fans worldwide would be happy. Its yet another form of media for people to enjoy, all based on that initial work.
Something tells me Christopher would not be complaining that much if he was getting the money he thinks he deserves. If he was raking in 20 million per film I bet he would love the movies even.
Just my 2cp
Pretty similar here other than got 5 years till 40. First time the Library bus came to our primary school i borrowed The Hobbit, it was the book that got me into reading in the first place (Dandy and Beano annuals don't count ) and shaped my preferences . I'm not sure when i read the 3 following books but i remember getting the silmarrilion for a birthday present when still young and couldn't read it from start to finish in one go, that thing kicked my backside and i still find it quite hard to read.
The Tolkien books arent close to the best i've ever read but they were an entry point for me and have inspired a lot of writers.
The 'Tolkien Estate' have always been money grabbing gits for as long as i can remember, everything i've ever read about them through the years and decades has pointed in that direction.
Yes, how dare they expect to actually get a share of the money from the movies. The movies that, according to the studio, never made a fucking penny in profits. Despiste doing 1.9 BILLION in boxoffice.
Originally posted by Aramath I think someone should point out to the "family", the stories were aimed at pre teen and young teens. That the author's "family" is not raking in the cash is not the fault of anyone but themselves. Personally, I find it typical of today's ideals. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something because someone else did some work. If the "family" wants to make money, the "family" should get off their lazy arses and do something.
THe Lord of the Rings was most certainly NOT written for pre-teens and young teens.
Tolkien wanted to create a book that few people would read. The publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers. Jackson made a movie of it to appeal to moviegoers. This goes against what Tolkien wanted in the first place, but is a perfect fit for what he eventually wrote.
Boy. This is full of fail. Could you provide a citation showing how 'the publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers'?
For that matter, could you provide a citation demonstrating that Tolkien wanted to 'create a book that few people would read'?
Originally posted by aktalat where are the scenes of the dwarves all smoking their heads off like in the book? Oh right, not there, smoking is 'taboo' you don't want little Potter pisspants seeing people doing something like smoke.
There are some accurate points in your post and some stupid ones, but this part is by far the stupidest. Did you watch The Hobbit? The dwarves - and everyone else - smoke like chimneys. Bilbo smokes his fool head off. There's probably more smoking than in any other mainstream movie made this century.
Originally posted by Banquetto There's probably more smoking than in any other mainstream movie made this century.
That title's still held by (unofficially, of course) Bette Davis, All About Eve.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by Banquetto There's probably more smoking than in any other mainstream movie made this century.
That title's still held by (unofficially, of course) Bette Davis, All About Eve.
Wasn't that made in the middle of the last century?
supposedly cigarettes were thought to be good for you then. now of course, they've all got COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder!) .. or at least on their way to getting it, if something else didnt get them first.
now its all about how bad tanning beds are for you... still, its funny to see the 'orange' spray on tan people
Originally posted by Panther2103 The movies had plenty of story involved in them, they had a majority of the action scenes of the books because of the fact that if they made the movie exactly how the book was page for page, it would have been 15 hours long for one book if even that short. So they take the parts of the books, explain the story in a faster manner, and have the major action scenes. I don't see the issue. It wasn't marketed as an action film. I think the hobbit had maybe 4 or 5 actual action scenes that lasted more than 30 seconds. They always have been very slow, and that turns quite a few people I know off of the films. The environments in the films, and the way all of the characters look and act are exactly how I expected them to be in movie form.
And add crap that wasn't in the story and leave out major pieces that were. Yeah, not so much.
If you want to watch every step of evading the Naz'Gul, including the trek through the Barrow Downs and the meeting of Tom Bombadil, (Which are generally moot to the overarching story) plus the movement through the forests, and the first meeting of the elves (Again, rather unnecessary) that's on you, but seriously, it would have been rather boring and a bit too long to sit through.
Originally posted by Panther2103 The movies had plenty of story involved in them, they had a majority of the action scenes of the books because of the fact that if they made the movie exactly how the book was page for page, it would have been 15 hours long for one book if even that short. So they take the parts of the books, explain the story in a faster manner, and have the major action scenes. I don't see the issue. It wasn't marketed as an action film. I think the hobbit had maybe 4 or 5 actual action scenes that lasted more than 30 seconds. They always have been very slow, and that turns quite a few people I know off of the films. The environments in the films, and the way all of the characters look and act are exactly how I expected them to be in movie form.
And add crap that wasn't in the story and leave out major pieces that were. Yeah, not so much.
If you want to watch every step of evading the Naz'Gul, including the trek through the Barrow Downs and the meeting of Tom Bombadil, (Which are generally moot to the overarching story) plus the movement through the forests, and the first meeting of the elves (Again, rather unnecessary) that's on you, but seriously, it would have been rather boring and a bit too long to sit through.
Kind of like LOTRO really, which does have those things.
It definitely sounds like he is just being rubbed the wrong way because his family does not get much of the profits from these big budget Hollywood films. People will say it's not about money, its about the heritage of his father. But most certianly, it IS about the money, and he can't get it. Therefore he has a vendetta against anyone who will make big bucks on his fathers book.
In the famous words of what we call the internet.... "He mad bro."
On the one hand you have the Tolkien family that does the books etc.; and on the other you have the Zaentz corporation that is in Hollywood and exploits Tolkien in the same way that any Hollywood company exploits any property they get their hands on .I think that lately the Zaentz company has been getting too Hollywood and full of themselves and need to be reigned in a bit.
I think the family is right: therev seems to be now 2 parallel kinds of Tolkien product lines: book and movie.I just bought the Tolkien calender which I've been doing since '73 and there were 2: 1 which illustrations from the Hobbit novels and 1 with illustraitions from the Hobbit movie.
One of the things that I've always liked about LOTRO is that their view of Middle Earth is not the movie version. I hope they stay that wayl.
Every book to movie translation is the worst thing ever made.
Case in point. Queen of the Damned.
Shawshank Redemption....
currently playing: DDO, AOC, WoT, P101
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Christopher was the editor of all his fathers posthumous work. Notably he put together The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth and The Children of Húrin from his fathers old notes. He also helped his father prepare LOTR.
While I think his opinions on the movies is silly, he is undoubtably the most knowledgeable living person regarding his fathers work.
And what a mess of a book The Simarillion was too. His fathers influences for the Lord of the Rings were places like Moseley Bog, Sarehole Mill (known in The Hobbit as the Great Mill), Perrott's Folly, Edgbaston Waterworks which still exist today and are awesome to visit if you get the chance. These were Tolkiens influences nothing to do with his son. Chri$topher is just after the dollars and the drama.
Jackon's LOTR and Hobbit is a f****** Indiana Jones on steroids. It's stupid, cheesy and childish. I'd be pissed as well if I were Christopher Tolkien regardless of the money.
Originally posted by kishe Only thing "more" Peter Jackson could of done is include the songs from the books but there's so many of them that the movies would've became musicals!
I really like Jackson's portrayal of one of the most powerful charaters from the books, Tom Bombadil. Err wait.
We should thank Jackson and the other people who made Lotr and Hobbit movies for what they did.
Lets face is, Lotr books were quite boring compared the other fantasy books nowdays (see "game of thrones" or "Malazan Book of the Fallen"). Jackson made great movies thanks to him the lotr universe will live forever.
Hollywood always has to screw up a good story when they make a movie.
Just look what they did to "I am legend"
Jeezus, that was terrible. I was so pissed off when leaving the cinema my friends had to restrain me from physically attacking other viewers who thought the movie "a great flick." (They obviously haven't read the book and now, thanks to that turd, will forever have a certain idea what it's all about...) If there is such a thing as character assasination, that was nothing less than "book assassination."
As for PJ's Hobbit...
Loved Jackson from when he was just a kiwi nobody doing weird films on shoestring budget. Nowadays, however... wild horses couldn't drag me to see The Hobbit. I love the book too much. (Incidentally, I think that's the only really good novel JRR ever wrote. LoTR is many things, but good literature it's not, at least imo. The films may heve even improved some on the subject matter. The Hobbit, on the other hand... and spreading such a nicely tight, well rounded little book into this bloated epic... It's shameful, that's what it is.)
Hollywood always has to screw up a good story when they make a movie.
Just look what they did to "I am legend"
Jeezus, that was terrible. I was so pissed off when leaving the cinema my friends had to restrain me from physically attacking other viewers who thought the movie "a great flick." (They obviously haven't read the book and now, thanks to that turd, will forever have a certain idea what it's all about...) If there is such a thing as character assasination, that was nothing less than "book assassination."
As for PJ's Hobbit...
Loved Jackson from when he was just a kiwi nobody doing weird films on shoestring budget, but nowadays...
I disagree several movies are better than the books
Godfather trilogy Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film Original star wars trilogy Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author) Shawshank redemption Misery The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)
Originally posted by ShakyMo I disagree several movies are better than the books
Godfather trilogy Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film Original star wars trilogy Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author) Shawshank redemption Misery The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)
And controversial - lotr movies
Someone once said (and I really can't bother finding the source) that it is much easier to make a good movie out of a mediocre book than out of a really good one. It's like remakes of classics.. How can one "improve" on perfection? Gus van Sant did the right thing when given to direct a remake of "Psycho"... He meticulously copied Hitchcock's original shot by shot, almost frame by frame.
Additionally not all novels are fit to be made into movies; if nothing else, they wouldn't fit into the feature film time format. Only recently, with advent of mini-series and re-invention of theatrical serial we can see literary epics properly brought to screen. "The Game of Thrones" (which is a decent port to screen, at least until S2) wouldn't have been possible just 10 or 15 years ago because the format wasn't there. And LoTR's was made possible by the success (financial, at least) of the SW prequel trilogy which finally proved what Spielberg and Lucas were trying to say since the 80's - that theatrical serials can and do make financial sense.
However, The Hobbit is taking things too far... Just like many movie adaptations failed because they were screaming for a serial format but hollywood wouldn't listen, now when serials are all the rage they're trying to stretch everything into this new hot format, whether it fits or not. Sadly, I can see the otherwise quite valid and finally rediscovered form of theatrical serials vanish back into the black hole once a big production one flops because it was forced onto unsuitable original material. And The Hobbit "trillogy" might just turn out to be it.
His opinion is meaningless to me. Did he ever even write a book? Did any of the Tolkien kids/grandkids take up J.R.R.'s legacy and start writing more books in the Lord Of the Rings universe?
I would take his opinion seriously if he was like Brian Herbert (Frank Herberts son) who actually continued writing more Dune books (and still writes them) after Frank Herbert died.
I don't like Christopher Tolkien but you completely lost me here. Tolkien took his fathers writings and fleshed them out into a readable format. Herbert's son cashed in on his dads work by writing fan fiction in his fathers universe. I'll take Chris Tolkien over Herbert's kid any day.
Comments
This. Tolkien had exquisit control of his language. Read it again sometime and observe how the language changes to suit the current context of the story, and the characters that are being observed.
No, it isn't modern language. It was never /intended/ to be a modern novel with modern language.
Yes, how dare they expect to actually get a share of the money from the movies. The movies that, according to the studio, never made a fucking penny in profits. Despiste doing 1.9 BILLION in boxoffice.
THe Lord of the Rings was most certainly NOT written for pre-teens and young teens.
Boy. This is full of fail. Could you provide a citation showing how 'the publisher made him write a book that would appeal to readers'?
For that matter, could you provide a citation demonstrating that Tolkien wanted to 'create a book that few people would read'?
No? What a surprise.
There are some accurate points in your post and some stupid ones, but this part is by far the stupidest. Did you watch The Hobbit? The dwarves - and everyone else - smoke like chimneys. Bilbo smokes his fool head off. There's probably more smoking than in any other mainstream movie made this century.
That title's still held by (unofficially, of course) Bette Davis, All About Eve.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Wasn't that made in the middle of the last century?
"It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs
supposedly cigarettes were thought to be good for you then. now of course, they've all got COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder!) .. or at least on their way to getting it, if something else didnt get them first.
now its all about how bad tanning beds are for you... still, its funny to see the 'orange' spray on tan people
If you want to watch every step of evading the Naz'Gul, including the trek through the Barrow Downs and the meeting of Tom Bombadil, (Which are generally moot to the overarching story) plus the movement through the forests, and the first meeting of the elves (Again, rather unnecessary) that's on you, but seriously, it would have been rather boring and a bit too long to sit through.
Played - EQ 1/2, WoW, SWG, SWTOR, GW 1/2 UO, STO, CO, DCUO, AO, Rift.
Kind of like LOTRO really, which does have those things.
It definitely sounds like he is just being rubbed the wrong way because his family does not get much of the profits from these big budget Hollywood films. People will say it's not about money, its about the heritage of his father. But most certianly, it IS about the money, and he can't get it. Therefore he has a vendetta against anyone who will make big bucks on his fathers book.
In the famous words of what we call the internet.... "He mad bro."
On the one hand you have the Tolkien family that does the books etc.; and on the other you have the Zaentz corporation that is in Hollywood and exploits Tolkien in the same way that any Hollywood company exploits any property they get their hands on .I think that lately the Zaentz company has been getting too Hollywood and full of themselves and need to be reigned in a bit.
I think the family is right: therev seems to be now 2 parallel kinds of Tolkien product lines: book and movie.I just bought the Tolkien calender which I've been doing since '73 and there were 2: 1 which illustrations from the Hobbit novels and 1 with illustraitions from the Hobbit movie.
One of the things that I've always liked about LOTRO is that their view of Middle Earth is not the movie version. I hope they stay that wayl.
Every book to movie translation is the worst thing ever made.
Case in point. Queen of the Damned.
Playing: Smite, Marvel Heroes
Played: Nexus:Kingdom of the Winds, Everquest, DAoC, Everquest 2, WoW, Matrix Online, Vangaurd, SWG, DDO, EVE, Fallen Earth, LoTRo, CoX, Champions Online, WAR, Darkfall, Mortal Online, Guild Wars, Rift, Tera, Aion, AoC, Gods and Heroes, DCUO, FF14, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge
Waiting On: Nothing. Mmorpg's are dead.
Shawshank Redemption....
currently playing: DDO, AOC, WoT, P101
And what a mess of a book The Simarillion was too. His fathers influences for the Lord of the Rings were places like Moseley Bog, Sarehole Mill (known in The Hobbit as the Great Mill), Perrott's Folly, Edgbaston Waterworks which still exist today and are awesome to visit if you get the chance. These were Tolkiens influences nothing to do with his son. Chri$topher is just after the dollars and the drama.
REALITY CHECK
I really like Jackson's portrayal of one of the most powerful charaters from the books, Tom Bombadil. Err wait.
Edit: Post 666, I quit.
Great example of another massively overrated film by viewers.
REALITY CHECK
We should thank Jackson and the other people who made Lotr and Hobbit movies for what they did.
Lets face is, Lotr books were quite boring compared the other fantasy books nowdays (see "game of thrones" or "Malazan Book of the Fallen"). Jackson made great movies thanks to him the lotr universe will live forever.
Jeezus, that was terrible. I was so pissed off when leaving the cinema my friends had to restrain me from physically attacking other viewers who thought the movie "a great flick." (They obviously haven't read the book and now, thanks to that turd, will forever have a certain idea what it's all about...) If there is such a thing as character assasination, that was nothing less than "book assassination."
As for PJ's Hobbit...
Loved Jackson from when he was just a kiwi nobody doing weird films on shoestring budget. Nowadays, however... wild horses couldn't drag me to see The Hobbit. I love the book too much. (Incidentally, I think that's the only really good novel JRR ever wrote. LoTR is many things, but good literature it's not, at least imo. The films may heve even improved some on the subject matter. The Hobbit, on the other hand... and spreading such a nicely tight, well rounded little book into this bloated epic... It's shameful, that's what it is.)
I am sorry, but that is hilarious.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
Godfather trilogy
Starship troopers -horrible fascist book, great satirical film
Original star wars trilogy
Blade runner (although I really like Dick as an author)
Shawshank redemption
Misery
The davinci code (even though the film is shite, its less shite than the book)
And controversial - lotr movies
Someone once said (and I really can't bother finding the source) that it is much easier to make a good movie out of a mediocre book than out of a really good one. It's like remakes of classics.. How can one "improve" on perfection? Gus van Sant did the right thing when given to direct a remake of "Psycho"... He meticulously copied Hitchcock's original shot by shot, almost frame by frame.
Additionally not all novels are fit to be made into movies; if nothing else, they wouldn't fit into the feature film time format. Only recently, with advent of mini-series and re-invention of theatrical serial we can see literary epics properly brought to screen. "The Game of Thrones" (which is a decent port to screen, at least until S2) wouldn't have been possible just 10 or 15 years ago because the format wasn't there. And LoTR's was made possible by the success (financial, at least) of the SW prequel trilogy which finally proved what Spielberg and Lucas were trying to say since the 80's - that theatrical serials can and do make financial sense.
However, The Hobbit is taking things too far... Just like many movie adaptations failed because they were screaming for a serial format but hollywood wouldn't listen, now when serials are all the rage they're trying to stretch everything into this new hot format, whether it fits or not. Sadly, I can see the otherwise quite valid and finally rediscovered form of theatrical serials vanish back into the black hole once a big production one flops because it was forced onto unsuitable original material. And The Hobbit "trillogy" might just turn out to be it.
I don't like Christopher Tolkien but you completely lost me here. Tolkien took his fathers writings and fleshed them out into a readable format. Herbert's son cashed in on his dads work by writing fan fiction in his fathers universe. I'll take Chris Tolkien over Herbert's kid any day.