Originally posted by FrodoFragins

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Yes see up this thread, didn't think so myself either.

The Star Wars books are adaptations of the movies.  They weren't books first ...

I can see why people would be confused. I just looked it up and it seems like the first Star Wars book was released before the first Star Wars movie was available in cinemas (the book came out 1976, the movie 1977, according to Wikipedia), but the book is based on the script that Lucas wrote for the movie. So it's a novelization of a movie that was released before the movie. Not confusing at all.

Originally posted by rochrist

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.

Pity you didn't read the article. To quote the relevant paragraph: "In 1937, as soon as it was published, The Hobbit immediately became a critical and popular success, to the point where its then publisher, Allen and Unwin, demanded a sequel urgently. Tolkien, though, did not wish to continue in the same vein. He had instead almost finished a narrative of the most ancient times of his universe, which he called The Silmarillion. Too difficult, decreed the publisher, who continued to harass him. The writer, a bit half-heartedly, accepted the project of writing a new story. In fact, he was about to set in place the first stone of what would become The Lord of the Rings."

Now, not reading the article is forgivable, but stop being a jerk.

And I'm sorry if I phrased things badly. Tolkien almost finished a book that few people would want to read, and wanted to publish that. That's what I meant.

Isn't Christopher Tolkien the guy who wrote/finished The Silmarillion from his father's notes?

Yeah... I wouldn't put that book into a resume.

Personally, I think he's just bitter because he never could take up his father's mantle, because he just sucks at writing.

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.

   I realize that this post is very late to the game, but I feel it had to be made.  If you cannot find authors today that match up with whatever magically enchanced vision you have of Tolkien then the fault lies with you.  Martin is great at writing large and sweeping stories that encapture massive casts and varied landscapes.  Sanderson has creative and interesting worlds with characters that are easy to get into and enjoy.  But all of them, Tolkien included, pale compared to Patrick Rothfuss.  He, and his Kingkiller Chronicle series, is the first author to really grab me in a deep way.  I actually have "marveled at his wordcraft", as you put it.  I have read each of his books in that series 5 times each, and will very likely re-read them again while waiting for the third installment.  Absolutely no other book as been good enough for me to read 5 times. 

  For the record, anyone who hasn't already picked up on Rothfuss already should.  The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear cannot come any more recommended.  Both are must reads. 

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Originally posted by strangiato2112

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Agreed.  Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following.  Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan.  Don't get me wrong,  I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough.  After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it.  When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games.  I'd have killed to have what we have now.

Like everythign else in life this is going to be subjective and will avry from person to person but on subject of movies betetr than books, my list is..

Clockwork Orange

Jaws

Blade Runner

God Father

There will be blood

Apocalypse now

Rquiem For a Dream

Shawshank Redemption

And my personal favorite..... Fight Club.

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by strangiato2112

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Agreed.  Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following.  Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan.  Don't get me wrong,  I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough.  After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it.  When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games.  I'd have killed to have what we have now.

Underground cult following? Get real. LOTR is one of the top selling books of all time, far more people have read the books than have ever seen the film.

Originally posted by Banquetto

Well J.R.R. Tolkien's great-grandson Royd Tolkien loved the movies.

"I was beyond excited just to go on set and see behind the scenes. To watch how such a colossal film is so intricately crafted and pieced together was inspirational and planted a seed in me that has since grown into a love of film production and a desire to reach the heights scaled by Peter Jackson. It was one of the best experiences I've ever had."

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/why-i-love-new-zealand-tolkiens-great-grandson-20121217-2bisg.html

Is his opinion less valid than Christopher Tolkien's?

Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.

I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.

Originally posted by Gishgeron

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.

 

   I realize that this post is very late to the game, but I feel it had to be made.  If you cannot find authors today that match up with whatever magically enchanced vision you have of Tolkien then the fault lies with you.  Martin is great at writing large and sweeping stories that encapture massive casts and varied landscapes.  Sanderson has creative and interesting worlds with characters that are easy to get into and enjoy.  But all of them, Tolkien included, pale compared to Patrick Rothfuss.  He, and his Kingkiller Chronicle series, is the first author to really grab me in a deep way.  I actually have "marveled at his wordcraft", as you put it.  I have read each of his books in that series 5 times each, and will very likely re-read them again while waiting for the third installment.  Absolutely no other book as been good enough for me to read 5 times. 

  For the record, anyone who hasn't already picked up on Rothfuss already should.  The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear cannot come any more recommended.  Both are must reads. 

Well, if nothing else, at least I came away from this forum thread with some new reading recommendations.  Sweet!  Thanks!

Originally posted by Yamota
That is the reason I have not watched Bilbo and nor will I. It is the movie equivalent of a dumbed down ThemePark.

How do you know this without watching it? This is like saying you've never tried a food because it tastes bad.

Originally posted by JoeyMMO

Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.

I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.

Christopher should focus less on what was "gutted" and more of what was left.  Instead of focusing on Helms Deep, focus on how well the Frodo/Sam/Gollum half of the story turned out.

The movies were nowhere near perfect.  But I can forgive an hour of crap like Legolas sliding down an Oliphants trunk to get the 9-10 hours or so that were great.

Originally posted by strangiato2112

Originally posted by JoeyMMO

Is this great grandson a professor of Old English who was one of, if not the first, to hear all the stories the books are based on from his own father, JRR Tolkien himself? If Christopher Tolkien says the films have gutted the original books and turned them into an action movie, then who in his right mind can say otherwise? If Christopher Tolkien doesn't know Middle Earth, then who does? It should be clear that things were changed from the original books to "fit" into the type of movie Jackson wanted to make.

I really doubt there is anybody out there with any credibility in literature who will try to claim that the movies are a perfect "translation" of the books. It's a series of movies, the first probably being the best, Gandalf facing off against the Balrog was probably better in the movie than in the book. But a movie is only a movie, even if it does manage to capture the essence of the books.

Christopher should focus less on what was "gutted" and more of what was left.  Instead of focusing on Helms Deep, focus on how well the Frodo/Sam/Gollum half of the story turned out.

The movies were nowhere near perfect.  But I can forgive an hour of crap like Legolas sliding down an Oliphants trunk to get the 9-10 hours or so that were great.

Honestly, why should he? I mean, even we can see the "gutted out" parts, and we're "just regular" fans, without any real attachment beside our love to the lore. He basically lived his whole life in it, he was there at the creation of it, he did a lot of editorial and other work with it as well, as JoeyMMO wrote since J.R.R. is gone C.T. is the one with the most knowledge (and attachment) to Tolkien's writings. I think he has every right to notice things which are devaluating his father's work.

Actually I don't understand the hostility in this thread... He didn't bashed GW2, nor praised Pirate101 for Eru's sake :) he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...

Originally posted by BartDaCat

Well, if nothing else, at least I came away from this forum thread with some new reading recommendations.  Sweet!  Thanks!

  You're welcome, Rothfuss is legendary and I hope you enjoy his books.  Just be prepared for a wait on the next book, he takes his time and it pays off.  I'd also recommend Brandon Sanderson.  The Mistbon trilogy is awesome, (as well as its follow up The Alloy of Law), but his grand epic is going to be the series spawning off from "The Way of Kings" and its a good read.  His writing really comes into form on that book, and its definitely worth checking out as well. 

  So thats 7 books you can get into now.  All of them I find to be better than The Game of Thrones, and I question why that series got so popular so fast.  Not that it isn't good, its great.  But its heavy reading, and has a cast so large I can't even remember a third of its characters.  Even a third is huge, though.  Besides, we all know that people read the books for Tyrion anyway.  Maybe that's just me.  I love that dwarf, always whoring it up and being snarky.

Originally posted by Po_gg

he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...

what does the slot machine thing have anything to do with Peter Jackson?  come on.

If he can't tell Jackson has a deep love and respect for HIS FATHER'S (not his) works, he is a grade A moron.  The wrong path?  He can go fuck himself.  Jackson made a highly entertaining movie that captured the spirit and essence and soul of the novel, as he did with LOTR. 

Originally posted by strangiato2112

Originally posted by Po_gg

he just stated his sadness that Jackson and New Line Cinema are on a wrong path with the Hobbit, the slot machines, etc. Strange that this makes him "pompous brat" and "crybaby" at some poster...

what does the slot machine thing have anything to do with Peter Jackson?  come on.

If he can't tell Jackson has a deep love and respect for HIS FATHER'S (not his) works, he is a grade A moron.  The wrong path?  He can go fuck himself.  Jackson made a highly entertaining movie that captured the spirit and essence and soul of the novel, as he did with LOTR. 

  There is absolutely no need for all the vulgarity and hate.  An argument that has merit maintains that merit without trying to attack someone.  Case in point, I agree with the core of what you said.  Its clear that Jackson loves LoTR.  He spent god only knows how much money flying all over the world to find locations that were picture perfect for the story.  I bet there is an army of artist right now that are on meds after going through design after design trying to find the perfect weapons and armor to use.  He put everything he had into making the movie a visually perfect realization of the books.

  His love of the material is not in question.

Originally posted by Saur0n

Originally posted by strangiato2112

1.  These movies cost a shit ton of money to make.  And visually Jackson has done an astounding job with Middle Earth.  In order for the movies to be financially successful, some hollywood touches need to be made.

2.  As for the action movie claims, The Hobbit is a pretty fast moving story and in particular the goblin > wargs/trees sequence is non stop action in the books as well as the movie.  The goblin escape was handled quite poorly in the movie though, no reason at all for that huge fall then the goblin lands on top of them.

3.  The good Jackson brings to the table FAR out weighs the bad.  Again, his use of NZ as Middle Earth is stunning.  And lets not forget Gollum, no one else would have done half as well as Jackson with Gollum.  And the heart is still there.  Jackson obviously loves the source material and it shows.  I have no doubts that his adaptations are as good as we wer elikely to get, far better really.

4. Christopher is an ungrateful brat.  Jackson has brought mllions to Middle Earth that have gone on to read and appreciate his fathers writings.

Agreed.  Before the movies, Tolkien had an underground cult following.  Now everyone and their grandma is a Tolkien fan.  Don't get me wrong,  I looooved those days when not many people knew anything about LOTR but finding anything related to LOTR and the Hobbit back then was tough.  After the movies came out millions of people went and bought the books which in turn made them in to life long fans and the book money still goes to the Tolkien estate so Chri$topher Tolkien can suck it.  When I was 12 and first read the hobbit and lotr all we had were the books, 3 cartoons, and 2 DOS Interplay games.  I'd have killed to have what we have now.

Underground cult following. Yeah, if by underground cult following you mean multiple polls naming it the greatest books of the 20th century. One tha's sold well over 150 million copies.  Sheesh.