Originally posted by Saur0n
Christopher Tolkien is a spoiled little bitch who needs a punch in the face.  For years he's being taking people to court over nothing simply because he thinks his daddy's stories are just for him and no one else.  He's a vindictive sociopath that has done nothing but hinder the Tolkien Society.

Thank God, I thought I was going to get the warning... phew.  The Tolkein Society, explain your connection?

Originally posted by Normandy7
They are 2 different types of styles with Jackson and Tolkien but when I thnk of Lotr I think of Peter Jackson because he really brings the ip to life visually.  I don't know if some gamers out there can even remember Tolkien. I know I don't.  If we had a vote I bet many gamers would rather have Peter Jackson's version of Lotr.

read up mate, we were discussing missing characters, and when Samwise became the lord of Frodo's ring.  All in the book- is like 50 rings of gay. 

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

Originally posted by jdnewell

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.

Originally posted by Cameron27

I don't know why everyone is hating on this Tolkien guy. From a story telling persepctive Peter Jackson ruined a lot of characters and scenes in the final two films. The way he overdid Galadriel and Arwen cramming in worthless Rivendell flashbacks.

Sending Elves to Helms Deep.

Making Frodo show the One Ring to a ringwraith in Osgiliath, but then Sauron still thinks Pippin somehow has the Ring in Rohan.

Frodo telling Sam to go home as if that's even a realistic option, and Sam listening until he finds the bread at the bottom of the stairs lol.

Bringing the Oathbreakers to Minas Tirith. Waiting for the RotK to reforge the shards of Narsil.

Making Lord Denethor unwilling to light the beacons. Having Theodon unwilling to go to Gondor's aid.

Over conflicted the character of Faramir (He was supposed to be a foil to Boromir and shw that not all men fall into temptation), then over stressed the Denethor's disapproval of him, which led to a scene where about 200 horsemen charge toward Osgiliath in an unexplained suicide mission.

Missed one of the major points of the book by leaving out the scouring of the Shire. (Although this one I didn't mind as much.)

Failed to develop Merry and Pippen's character arcs, by having Merry stab the Ringwraith and then stay behind, and then NOT have Pippen stab the troll when he goes to battle.

Having the Ents not want to fight Saruman just ti giver Merry and Pippen something to do.

These are just off the top of my head...There're definitely more, but you see Jackson could have chosen to do things by the book, but he chose to do things differently for no other reason that I can surmise other than to put his own stamp on the story.

 

 

I completely agree and this has been my stance all along.

I fully know that there are things within books that don't translate well to screen so moives many times have to be altered. But there is a difference between changing things to make the movie have more cohesion or better illustrate a scene and just changing things because it would be cool.

Throwing this in for comparison: The Lord Of The Rings theatrical trailer 2 (1978)

Very different style (a little drug-fuelled, possibly..) but closer in "style" to the book. Eg "tales, stories and legends" etc.

Originally posted by Hluill

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.

Originally posted by Kabaal

Originally posted by jdnewell

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.

Originally posted by ET3D

To me the tl;dr version of the article is:

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'?

No? What a surprise.

---

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.

Originally posted by Icewhite

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?

Originally posted by ObiClownobi

Originally posted by Icewhite

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 rochrist

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 Seanalex

Originally posted by rochrist

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.