Fun fact, though, Tolkien actually *did* adore a different artist's take on his work, namely the illustrations of his characters and world done by _Pauline Baynes._ Baynes was the artist responsible for creating so many of the iconic illustrations for the books of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, and her work served as a base of some sorts for many designs in the movies adapted from both works as well. Her illustrations first caught Tolkien’s eye whilst he was visiting his publisher in 1948. She was a completely unknown artist at the time and had sent various 'on spec' drawings to different publishers hoping to break into the industry as an illustrator after putting her career on hold volunteering for the Army and Navy map-making department during World War II. Interestingly enough, it was during her service that she acquired the skills for drawing the maps of Narnia for Lewis and Middle-earth for Tolkien that fans know and love today. On viewing just a few of her drawings that day, Tolkien at once demanded that the artist behind them be set to work illustrating his books. When she first showed him her finished artwork featuring Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, the author nodded approvingly and murmured quietly: _“There they are, there they are.”_ Tolkien would go on to say that her work illustrating his books had _'reduced my text to a commentary on her drawings‘,_ which is extremely high praise coming from a gifted author such as Tolkien.
I love her art too. One thing I forgot to mention is that Tolkien and Baynes ended up becoming friends, and it was Tolkien that introduced & recommended her to Lewis who she also went on to illustrate for as mentioned. Pretty snazzy of Tolkien!
I always loved Tolkien's own art for The Hobbit, but as a child, Baynes was LOTR art for me, with her classic cover to the one-volume paperback, plus a couple of her map posters I had on my wall. I think, though, her artwork for Farmer Giles of Ham remains her peak (and I believe that's what Tolkien was specifically commenting on in the quote you mentioned). (Her first drawing of the Calormene god Tash in Lewis's The Last Battle was one of my scariest childhood moments.)
I saw many of the original Baynes paintings at the Wade Center in Wheaton College IL and they’re beautiful. Very unique and clearly captures the essence of those two fantasy worlds. The most striking to me is the large Narnia map. Absolutely beautiful up close with so much detail.
what would have been really interesting is if he had written a screenplay for LOTR. I think he would have found writing for the screen is a very different proposition.
@@mindstalk Well, he did get that, both when the books hit it big and when he sold the rights. A truckload for the time, anyway. This was before authors got paid $50 million for their books to be adapted. You'd think he would have hired an assistant once his first fat royalty check came in. (Tolkien's first royalty check for LOTR, btw, was larger than his entire annual salary at Oxford, and he was receiving an upper-middle class wage.) "I've got...some...papers for you to sort through."
I think he was several decades too early. Now, people have more knowledge of art-film and indie film, and technology has advanced to the point where basically ANYONE can make a movie wih just their phone and 30$ editing software.
That's interesting. I wonder what he would think of that scene. On the one hand, it hews very closely to the book, which would make him happy. On the other hand, we never got to witness that scene in the book. It was told secondhand by Aragorn to Legolas and Gimli, an interesting move on Tolkien's part. (By pulling it away from the reader's experience, it becomes a private thing, something only Aragorn was privileged to witness. All anyone will ever know of it is what he chose to tell, and I think it likely that he never told that story in that detail again. Possibly to Faramir, but even then the emotion would have receded.) So it's intriguing to wonder if the quality of the scene would override changing its place in the flow. :)
@@Serai3 Boromir's death scene literally objectively happens in the first chapter of the Two Towers. He dies in Aragorn's arms from Aragorn's POV. Do you mean his final fight scene?? That is not his death scene, lol.
I don't think he'd like that scene since the movie replaced Boromir's death speech for no reason I've ever discerned. I think the movies as a whole are terrific. They are a high water mark against which other future LOTR movies will have to be judged.
@@leonwilkinson8124 Oh dear. I see it's been a while since you read the book. "I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid." His glance strayed to his fallen enemies; twenty at least lay there. "The have gone: the Halflings: the Orcs have taken them. I think they are not dead. orcs bound them." He paused and his eyes closed wearily. After a moment he spoke again. "Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed." That's it. That is everything he said. Tell me which "speech" is it that they "left out"? In fact, he gets MORE to say in the film.
What is important to mention is that Tolkien died before Star Wars was released. Whether you like Lucas' films or not, they are the absolute watershed of fantasy on film, and the number one reason why the Jackson movies were possible. I don't know if Tolkien would have liked Star Wars or not, but if anything could have convinced him that a LOTR film could be made, this was it. As it is, he died without having all the information.
Frank Herbert lived to see SW released, and was not...entirely pleased with what he saw as a rip-off of his saga. On the other hand, he was impressed by the visual effects in Dune 1984 and I think part of the reason Tolkien was hesitant was because he couldn't possibly imagine CGI reaching the stage where it is today. to completely realize his created worlds. I thought LOTR was unfilmable for many reasons when I read it at a very young age in 1991, one among them the lack of CGI.
No. He didn't like Dune, but this is the full quote: _"It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike Dune with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment."_ So Tolkien didn't attack Herbert as an author; he recognized that Herbert was doing the same kind of thing he was in terms of, if I had to guess, dense themes and worldbuilding. He didn't like Dune as a narrative. There's a good video looking at the likely reasons why this was the case. @@TheMulletOperator_77
"I don't know if Tolkien would have liked Star Wars or not" He wouldn't. You really need to read some interviews with him and his non-fiction books. Steeped in modernity he was not.
This. Like, Toshiro Mifune (incredible Japanese actor, if you don't know who that is) was offered the role of Obi-Wan and turned it down. He did this because he didn't believe visual effects could convincingly create the world described in the script; but once he saw the finished film he expressed regret at turning down the role, stating that "had he known" it was possible to pull it off convincingly, he would have said yes in a heartbeat.
I think Tolkien would have appreciated things like the score, certain sets/locations (especially with Edoras), and things along those lines; and he probably wouldn't have been too upset about axing Tom or Glorfindel; but I bet he would find the removal of the Scouring of the Shire to be unforgivable. It's the actual climax of the story and the part of the tale that grounds the Quest in a genuine psychological place for Frodo.
I have to disagree, I think he would have hated that Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil were removed as these characters were extremely important to him. people are still to this day trying to find out why tolkien considered Bombadil so important to the story.
Scourging of the shire had to be removed from the movies, since the climax of the movie was the destruction of the ring and the story was built around that. Going back home and seeing the shire destroyed would not fit.
@@andurion8908 in a movie that makes sense, but Tolkien didnt write a movie. the scourging of the shire was a crazy important part of the book as it was Tolkien not telling us but showing us that the Shire as idyllic as it is, isnt untouchable to the decay of evil. I think Tolkien would have seen it being removed from the story and relegated to just replacing Sam's vision in the Mirror of Galadriel wouldve upset tolkien alot
the point of the Shire being under threat is definitely understood in various times by the Hobbits in the movies. It is a deliberate reality check Merry gives to Pippin. Frodo realizes it in the beginning, when the Wraiths are on the Shire's doorstep, and of course the Mirror gives him these glimpses as well. Several moments the fondness for the Shire is reflected by Sam and the rest. A film can technically always do more, but the idea of cuts is that more is accomplished with the combination of visual and auditory mediums. The brain processes it more efficiently than piecing together even a masterfully written sequence. While the epilogue of evil nature is removed with the Scouring, the main point everyone here brings up...about the Shire being under threat, not walled away from the happenings of the world (as all Hobbits cherish to believe), and the Hobbits opening their eyes and defending their home....are all accomplished. The movie effectively communicates the growth of all four Hobbits, and changes them, and makes them realize the importance of other people and other matters. The assault Saruman lays on the Shire does not need to happen in the movie like it does in the book. Personally, I like Theoden's appeal to Grima on the tower and how it segues into his outrage towards Saruman. It's all in line with Tolkien's emphasis on the original innocence of many evil hearts and plays on Grima's growing horror with what he's a part of, earlier on.
If Tolkien was alive, Lee would have played Gandalf. Because Tolkien DID give Lee his blessing to play Gandalf if the book was ever adapted to the cinema.
@@___David__It's not like Tolkien said Lee would have been the best Gandalf ever, he wouldn't have been opposed to the idea of him being Saruman instead
@@___David__ that was because of old age though. Unless Tolkien somehow managed to get these movies going a couple years earlier even though the idea came from Peter Jackson and co. than Lee couldn't have played Gandalf.
@@___David__ I think he's better as Saruman. Lee strikes me as a bit too cold and a bit too patrician for Gandalf. Maybe that's just because I'm mostly familiar with him from Hammer films, though.
The Professor was pretty exacting as to his vision, but he wasn't without nuance and was happy for fans to write their own fanfiction stories. I'd guess he'd have disliked what they did to Faramir and Denethor, but may have been impressed with Sir Ian's Gandalf and other performances (the death of Boromir in particular). He actually used to attend readings of his books, incognito, and would frequently get up and read it himself if he thought the hapless reader was doing a poor job. For what it's worth though, I think he'd have HATED Rings of Power.
I think he would have also hated Sam leaving Frodo, and what they did to dwarfs. (I am positing he wouldn't claim what the movies did was worthy of the use of the word dwarves, which he coined to differentiate them from the comedy relief that dwarfs so commonly conveyed in earlier stories.)
I think Tolkien would have hated The Hobbit movies as much as everyone else hates the Rings of Power. As for the Rings of Power, I think he would have found the show outright offensive to his very being.
Tolkien once commented that he hoped that a movie version would be faithful, but recognized that it would be problematic due to the scope of the books. He then added that if it couldn't be faithful, he hoped that it would at least be successful. From that point of view, I think he might have been ok with them.
@@mikearchibald744True, but the estate is worth half a billion dollars, so I think he might consider it successful. On, the other hand, he did regret selling off the rights to Lord of the Rings in 1968, so who really knows.
@@ejd53 well, it was said the only reason he sold it was for tax money, and that part of the reason he sold it was expecting that it NEVER would be made as a movie. In fact its possible that the way he describes the balrog is an example of him writing something that COULDN"T be made in to a movie. You read his description of it and really cant make heads or tails of what it looked like. A flaming tail?
@@mikearchibald744 I believe you are correct about the taxes. As far as I know, he did indeed sell the rights because of tax problems. I think your comment on the Balrog description is an interesting idea, but I'm fairly certain that he wasn't really thinking about movie adaptations in the 1940's when it was written. There is also the fact that his concept of what a Balrog was and it's description evolved over the years. For example they were originally not Maiar and there were at least a thousand of them in his first stories. This changed into them being Maiar and, as their power increased, their numbers were reduced to the point of "at most seven" ever existing (although Tolkien did talk about Morgoth having a "host" of Balrogs in 1958). Thus, It may not be a conscious act on his part, but his changing conception of them that relates to the ambiguity of their descriptions.
@@ejd53Well, that just popped into my head as I was writing, so I certainly wouldn't try arguing to make the point:) You could also argue the opposite that he's SO descriptive of the environment that he was consciously thinking about what it could look like on screen. Keep in mind that while movies were 'new', they were HUGE. When he was growing up (I think) were the first movie houses. He kind of intentionally DOESN"T describe the physical appearance of characters, except that they are 'tall and blonde' or 'short', etc. So as long as he's short and fat with a beard and yellow boots ANYBODY could play Bombadil, whereas new novelists will often have actors in mind as they descriptively write them out. Either way it doesn't matter that much, the balrogs are no doubt 'mental creations' of Morgoth, which is partly why like Sauron his own physical power decreases as his 'army' increases (to the point where a singing chick can put him to sleep and steal a silmaril). Fearon fought about seven of them didn't it say, and finally lost to seven of them. Glorfindel beat one, but oddly enough while elves seem to have LOST power, the Balrogs seem to have kept the same level of power. Glordindel was an elf, as is Legolas, but the notion in the LOTR is that Legolas wouldn't have a chance in hell of beating him. So that 'fading power' is an interesting notion, there seems FEWER balrogs, and yet they are still strong enough to kill Gandalf, a 'sort of' Maier, but at least at THAT point not one with that much strength. Setting a spell seems to have worn him out. But they seem to have disappeared rather quickly, wasn't there only one at the siege of Gondolin? But there is something of the notion that maybe at the end of the first age when the gods 'cleaned house' they got most of them.
I first read the books in the 70s and was disappointed in all the various adaptations over the years. When Jackson's films were in production I followed all the news out of New Zealand with cautious optimism. When they finally came out I was overjoyed and it rekindled my appreciation of the books. Since then I watch the movies and reread all the books every year. I forgive and ignore the changes in the films, knowing the truth is in the words. As for the good professor, he might have appreciated the care, dedication, and love that went into creating the sets, costumes, weapons. And the music. Maybe.
Wow, it's great to hear my thoughts stated so well! I, too, was an (early) 70's kid who found them probably before I was old enough to really read them, except the hobbit. Thanks!
@@kvaltone that is irrelevant, its still his characters, his world that were totally bastardised and the worst of all they added modern politics and allegory to his works. The things he he hated the most. What an absolutely tone deaf comment. Shame on you.
I think Tolkien would have appreciated some very subtle things (knowing when to remind the audience that the Hobbits are quite small) but more obviously I think he would have appreciated how much of the original writing was used in the script and that the languages he created were spoken but not only spoken, sometimes with or without translation, like the books.
Tolkien watches the LOTR movies: "I didn't like them" Then watches The Hobbit "Well, actually the LOTR adaptation was not so bad" Watches Rings of Power "Actually, LOTR movies were a masterpiece"
He would weep to see how RoP perverted the moral philosophy of his work. Bad writing can be forgiven; but not just rejecting the philosophy that underpinned the entire Legendarium, but replacing it with the exact opposite? Essentially turning his life's work into something that would be considered evil in his Ea? He and Christopher are rolling in their graves.
@@tom.m stop complaining. It makes perfect sense 9 thousand year old Galadriel acts like an immature and arrogant teenager who lies and contradicts herself. Feanor would be proud of Galadriels blind search for vengeance.
@@tom.m I think there's some aspects of RoP that feels more in tune with Tolkien vision than other adaptations, obviously it is ridiculous in so many ways and has all the issues you could have against the movies and then some but the depiction of Elves and Dwarves rivalry that would not devolve into war due to individual strong friendships feels kind of right and the scenes focusing on the forging of the rings (I call it craftporn) may please him way more than any battle scene from the other adaptations.
I actually liked the idea of an arrogant, and rebellious youth Galadriel. But the writing was bad; the social wokeness and propaganda was so gross, and the hubris of the cast was just too much
I have this conversation with my girlfriend quite often. My answer, to put it shortly, is no; however sometimes while watching a bit, we pause and say: "He'd like this song", or "this piece of music" or a specific story beat.
I think he would absolutely love howard shore's orchestration. I can definitely see him in the audiance looking proudly. His world genesis is centered on music and he would appreciate the complexity and reverence that Howard Shore demonstrated when composing the soundtrack for The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
I think Tolkien would have been particularly unhappy with some of the character distortions (e.g. Faramir), power-dynamic alterations (e.g. Gandalf vs the Witch King), invincible hero cliches (e.g. Aragorn vs hordes of Uruk Hai, or Legolas), and deus ex machina moments (e.g. the dead at Minas Tirith). But hopefully the score, and the scenery, would have helped cool his ire!
Why do people constantly say he would like the scenery? The parts of Middle earth presented in the books were mostly inspired Northern Europe and more broadly Europe generally. Not New Zealand. Completely different character
Yeah i would actually think Tolkien would quite dislike the scenary, Middle Earth nature was always "Northern European" in his mind, and i don't think he would have liked a New Zealand Middle Earth
@@TA-yw7ce Because he would have liked the scenery... that's why people constantly say it. But more specifically, listen to what was said in this video. A major concern for Tolkien is that a fantasy world is a real and believable reality outside our own. If you watch the movie, and you see the sweeping vistas, and the amazing cinematography, the incredible detail put into the wardrobes of the various cultures, the detail and quality of the towns and cities, the effort put into special effects of the non-human peoples... Middle Earth *feels* real. You can be immersed into the world, and your suspension of disbelief can easily be fooled into thinking "this was filmed *in* a world different than our own". Tolkien _might_ be bothered that this second world wasn't quite Middle Earth... and he would definitely think that the "actors from this alternate world didn't portray Faramir's character properly".... But he would be impressed how the movie addressed his concern with "drama". The movie would address his requirement that you could "believe that the secondary world was real"
I agree that Tolkien would have been unhappy with what was done to many of the characters. As well as Faramir being turned into almost a different character, many were turned into caricatures rather than characters (Denethor, Theoden, Gimli, Elrond). Considering what Tolkien said about needing to be able to get to the heart of what a story was about when adapting it, I really think the way so many characters were treated would have upset him. For the same reason, I don't think Tolkien would have liked the extra bits that Peter Jackson drew in from other stories. With a long enough exposure to movies as an art form, Tolkien may have come to appreciate that Peter Jackson made a great movie trilogy, but I don't think he would have thought that it was a good adaptation of his story.
I think you're probably right. Tolkien was an English professor who lived in the early to mid-20th Century. Big, loud action adventure movies would probably not have been his thing (his son Christopher certainly didn't care for them). If anything, Tolkien might have appreciated the visuals of the movies - the beautiful New Zealand landscapes and the special effects which had come so much further than in his day. These might have added the extra layer of suspension of disbelief that Tolkien felt was needed for fantasy in a visual medium. He likely would have hated the violent action sequences and changes to plot and characters though.
I wonder how many critics of Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's novel have ever read The Iliad, and the shocking levels of violence in that first of all Western epics. Tolkien was very aware of the variety of artistic expression over the ages of Western fiction in all mediums--prose, stage, dance, etc. I think he was learned enough to know that, by 1999, artistic expressions would differ once again from his own era.
What does the Iliad have to do with anything? He was not the professor of the classics or ancient greek. At least pick examples from Anglo-Saxon and related fields. The whole point is illogical. Are you referring to Iliad the movie he saw during his lifetime, that had violence just to look cool or what is the point?
I wonder if you’ve actually studied or done a deep reading of the Iliad, since you’d know there are actually self-reflective moments in the story such as Hector’s last moments with his family, which highlight the sadness of war and the victims of war, humanising those involved. Regardless of that, your point is completely irrelevant.
I've thought about this topic A LOT. Some of the changes Peter Jackson made in his adaptations still don't sit right with me even after almost 20 years (the two most notable being the radical changing of Faramir's character and the omitting of the Scouring of the Shire). And yet, I still absolutely love the movies - for these three reasons: 1) PJ's love and respect for Tolkien's story and vision come out in every frame of the movies - as a viewer you really do feel as if you are stepping into Middle-earth and that is a thrill that I've experienced with no other film adaptation; 2) the casting of the movies is absolutely perfect: just before the movies came out, I, as a Tolkien geek, had strong reservations about how faithful PJ's adaption was going to be; but when I went to see the Fellowship, I was absolutely blown away: the cast looked EXACTLY as I had imagined them in my mind when I first read the books many years before (this is particularly true of Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn and Ian McKellen's Gandalf); this is again something that I rarely experience in other film adaptations; 3) and perhaps most importantly, Peter Jackson's LOTR moves zeroed in with almost uncanny precision on the heart of the story (something that cannot be said of his Hobbit movies) - by focusing on the power of the Ring, PJ was able to give his LOTR movies a unity and cohesion that renders many of the other questionable changes forgivable. That is why I and my family now have the tradition of re-watching the LOTR movies every year during the week between Christmas and New Year's!
I don't think there is a respect for Tolkein, given Faramir was in a way his self insert and a deeply personal representation of the man's thoughts on war given his experiences there and ptsd.
I do believe that Tolkien would have had qualms with certain changes and moments, and with things like the way the opening half of Fellowship was turned into a high-octane chase sequence or with other such adaptational changes, but I don't believe he would have been even as critical of the thing as a whole as his son Christopher was-Christopher's comments being somewhat motivated by the elevated memory of a deceased loved one and the resulting protectiveness of that, compounded by feelings relating to how the movie rights were acquired. Being a writer myself, though, I have a feeling that seeing his creations brought to life in such a cinematically revolutionary way (the films far out-did any fantasy fiction in a visual medium that had been done to that point) would have delighted Tolkien even as some portions discomforted him; and where the story would have disappointed him in certain places, I think the craft of the production itself would have impressed him. I would have loved to hear Tolkien's thoughts on the music and art design, in particular. A lot of people do seem to forget that Tolkien also did some drawing, though he under-sold his own talent for it. One thing that I think is worth bringing up here is that people place far too much importance on "he would have liked them" and "he would have hated them," even though Tolkien was a man who was very capable of having a mixed opinion on a larger thing, and of articulating what about the larger thing he liked and disliked. Tolkien is about as far removed as one can be from the kind of "THIS MOVIE IS TRASH" kneejerk social media screaming that permeates much of mainstream pop-culture "analysis." He wouldn't sum up his thoughts in a two-hundred-word headline or Tweet; he would write a goddamn essay, and by the end of it the reader would probably have to stop, scratch their head, and go back for a re-read before they could even figure out whether he said more positive things about the films than negative things. I do think he and Christopher would have agreed that trilogy was far too much of an action-adventure affair, but I also think some people overestimate his dislike of action (Tolkien would describe some good action sequences here and there, he just wouldn't lean into them the way modern fantasy-action writing does). I also think his comments about the limitations of "drama" versus the written word for fantasy storytelling need to be interpreted firmly within the production limitations of his time, which would have required much more suspension of disbelief than the Peter Jackson movies do. But then, had Tolkien been alive for those films, I don't believe he would have refused to meet Peter Jackson, and while we're talking about what-ifs, I don't think Peter Jackson would have ignored or sidelined his concerns about specific story choices, either. There might have been some things that turned out infeasible to implement, but he would have been listened to, and I think that would have colored both the final product (it probably would have come out feeling quite different overall) and his opinions of it afterward.
This is a problem I have with this take, it is too binary, and too indiferent to changes in the medium over time. All his letters really tell me he is that he likely wouldn't be as crazy about it as some fans were/are. But that doesn't imply disliking the movies altogether, a 5.1/10 review is still liking, just not a lot.
One thing I come back to is the Scouring of the Shire. Tolkien likely would have HATED it's exclusion. But by the same metric I think he would have liked the scene where Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin were in the Green Dragon. I think as a WW1 vet he could appreciate the melancholy of veterans returning from war to not feel like they fit in anymore. Like you said, he'd hate some things, love others, be ambivalent about some and mixed on others. Hell, I think the scene where Theoden says "no parent should bury their child" he'd both like the sentiment but be annoyed at the language used as he likely would have preferred him to say "No father should bury his son."
@@MUSICLOVER23429 I think the Scouring of the Shire arc was essential to him, it is the moment where coming back from their adventures the hobbits become masters of their own world it is very significant and I really miss it in the movie as they are personnally.
Great take! And wholeheartedly agree. I’m no disparager of the PJ films and am glad they exist. I do think there things that could’ve been done better (mainly in Two Towers). It’s also interesting that PJ and the crew would’ve had access to Tolkien’s Letter 210 breakdown of Zimmerman’s treatment yet still went forward in making choices and decisions Tolkien explicitly disliked and rejected (Nazgûl screaming, leaving Bree at night, etc…). Curious to hear or read if PJ ever addresses that letter specifically and why he decided to include them.
I don't think we can boil this down to a simple "yes" or "no." Tolkien was famous for his nuanced assessments of things. He might well like certain aspects of the film - like the opening with Bilbo reading from his book concerning Hobbits - or some of the portrayals of the Rohirrim. But of course he'd probably be shocked and horrified by some of the graphic violence, not to mention Jackson's occasionally brutal character-arc building (Frodo kicking Sam out of the quest, a-HEM!). But the thing we must remember is that Tolkien wrote his book for all time, and it remains because its lessons and perspectives continue to shape our time and culture. Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, on the other hand, is a reflection of our time as it is today - which Tolkien would find difficult to comprehend or appreciate. But that doesn't make the film trilogy bad - any more so than Maeterlinck's inability to comprehend Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande would have made it a bad opera. Sometimes the content moves beyond the author.
And Tolkien was well aware that stories grow in the retelling and move beyond their origins. That is a feature of all mythology and shows how successful he was in creating a new English mythology in the Lord of the Rings.
He would have been in a froth over Denethor's death. Of all the characters, he got dealt the dirtiest by the films, in my opinion, and he did not deserve that clownish nonsense when the death scene in the book was not only simpler, but grand and memorable. (Positively Shakespearean, one might say if Tolkien didn't dislike Shakespeare so much.)
@@Serai3 Tolkien's personality clearly wasn't one to ever get "in a froth", and he showed his displeasure, as was his wont, through his use of words, not personally displayed emotions. I remember reading the books containing so many of his letters to fans, as well as his reactions to some of the seedier screenplays he rejected. He could use his words viscerally and as incisive as Legolas' long knife, but he was an English gentleman, not a vulgarian who loved to display his feelings in public.
@@rikk319 Sure, because anyone who knows how to write well cannot POSSIBLY ever get mad over what might be done with what he writes. Could you be a little more clueless? They can't hear you up in the cheap seats.
I think part of humanity's wonder at storytelling is what even an attempt to be as accurate as possible to an adaptation ultimately becomes an interpretation by the creative minds behind it. Some capture the essences better than others but it's probably why Tolkien is among those who spearheaded modern fantasy, because he like many others opened the road for continuous interpretation. Having heard his comments on secondary creation were particularly heartwarming.
I hard a musician talk about the meaning of their music once and they said that the intended meaning doesn’t matter for multiple people the same song can mean many different things. A song that makes you think of your partner, a song that reminds you of when you were younger, a song that helps you though loss, a song that makes you think of your favorite vacation spot. When an artist puts their work out into the world that art now belongs to the people that interact with it. Lord of the rings is something that means something to each of us and we all interact with the franchise in different ways and in different levels. The original artists intent is only important to a certain extent. It’s really up to us to determine what these stories mean to us.
I remember reading some notes Tolkien made on a proposed Lord of the Rings script from the late 50s that was never made, ( though I could never find the website again) and he seemed very upset that the Weathertop sequence was apparently to much of an action scene, so yeah he probably would hate the movies that we eventually got.
The Lord of the Rings films are arguably the best fantasy movies ever made. I went into the films only having heard of the existence of Tolkiens work, so I really enjoyed the films with all of my heart. Knowing what I know now it is true that the films Are pretty severe distillation of the source material, but I think they did a reasonably good job of capturing the heart and themes that Tolkien was going for, that, and the quality of production, the quality of acting is objectively only true honor and respect to Tolkien, and his works.
"Best fantasy movie" though is a bit like bringing a limbo pole to a high jump contest! Sadly, too many of them cling to Tolkien's tropes without the greater depth.
The number one thing that struck me wrongly about the movie was the appearance of the Hobbits. They didn't look at all like Hobbits as I imagined them from Tolkien's writings.
I appreciate your perspective on his stories through our culture through time. My hippy parents raised me on the books and I discovered D&D and the Rankin & Bass The Hobbit on TV, I loved it. I also couldn't wait for the Bashki's Lord of The Rings and wanted it completed. While gaming, our crew did sing, "Where there's a whip, there's a way." Naturally, I loved the Jackson films, even the Hobbit trilogy, if I think of it as a child's amusement park ride. It will only continue.
HI Jess, you have a similar grasp of the stories - as I did long ago. I think it's wonderful! First read the books (all 4 major works) as a teen - in 1974! Living in the Santa Cruz mountains, I made believe part of the story could have been made there. Peter Jackson has opened doors to so many to read the books, that never would have otherwise. And, I still believe in the little folk... Thanks so much!
1:30 "...and unfortunately it is considered lost media and I want very very badly to find it." Hahaha, of course you do! 🤣 In all fairness though, I think JRR Tolkien would have appreciated Peter Jackson's version of a Balrog. It is such a beautiful monster design in the movie and so much better than I personally had imagined in the books before I saw the movies. I think it was also beyond JRR Tolkien's imagination and I think it would have blown his mind, when he would have seen it on screen.
@@stardusth2o it is so iconic, isn't it? In the LotR books I imagined some large orc wizard with leathery wings, but Peter Jackson turned King Kong into a dark demon with shadow wings & fiery furnace within and called that beast a Balrog. My jaw was on the theatre floor, when I saw that behemoth for the first time, hahaha. 😄
your channel is a revelation, as a long term LOTR/Tolkien fan. i love to see a well thought out and passionate analysis of these topics from someone who learned about Tolkien in a different way than I did. 🙏
I *_love_* the movies, but I do like the books more. I also have in the past been drawn into arguing against the notion that Peter Jackson made no changes to the story and characters other than changes that were strictly "necessary" to adapt them to the screen. I think that is demonstrably false. Some of what Jackson did were improvements though, like Theoden's mourning at Theodred's funeral and the "My friends, you bow to no one" scene (which is sort of adapted from the Fields of Cormallen, where "Praise the [two, Frodo and Sam] halflings," and "Praise them with great praise" was said a couple times). On a few other things, I was not as much of a fan (like the ambursh on the way to Helm's Deep and Aragorn's falling off a cliff).
The "you bow to no one" is exaggerated and ridiculous. In the books the elevation and praise is woven into the protocol and traditions, liie Frodo carrying the crown, Merry and Pippin at Rath Dínen. Utterly ridiculous everyone would suddenly bow at them. Might as well let them pass around the crown at the same time. It also takes away from the importance of the restoration of Gondor.
@@kvaltone I wouldn't gainsay your opinion, and it certainly is out of keeping with what would be realistic in a medieval setting that Middle Earth otherwise mirrors, but I found it touching. Now for undermining of moments...turning the Army of the Dead into unstoppable killing machines and putting them into the Battle of Pelennor Fields undermined the effort and sacrifices of the Rohirrim, who rode for days and lost many lives only to basically delay Sauron's army for about 20 minutes. Then the unstoppable Army of the Dead arrived and killed every enemy. I suppose the Rohirrim delivered Eowyn and Merry to where they needed to be...but they wasn't the reason Rohan anseered the call.
I wrote to the Tolkien estate some years back, thanking them, and Particularly Christopher for their hard work in preserving and publishing Tolkien's original work. I haven't yet, but have thought about, writing again now that Christopher has passed to than them again, but also include the idea that "Mythology " lives on and tends to grow newer, more popular versions. I'm sad that we don't have the earliest versions of Greek Myths. Wish they were preserved. But I'm also fascinated at how they've changed and grown over the ages
I read LOTR in my youth in the 1970s. I really enjoyed it. I saw the cartoon adaptation that came out in the late 70s, and was happy that the second film never made it to the screen! Peter Jackson's movies are, as you say Jess, a 'pretty good adaptation'. Certainly, as film adaptations of books go, it's really good. And I think that is mainly because of the deep knowledge and respect for the books that Jackson had. Where he took the plot away from the books, it still worked well enough for me to not get too grumpy. The books and the films both work well.
It's an uncommon opinion, but I see Bakshi's as closer to the book and the better adaptation. Borimir immediately accepts Aragorn as Isildur's heir, Elrond doesn't moan about the worthlessness of men, Gimli is not a clown, etc. All versions make changes, it just comes down to what bothers us more.
@@vedrengrabelox3231 It is closer to the book... sometimes word for word, rather than the schlock that Jackson put on screen... look at the Moria sequence as a prime example... the animated film actually creates tension and foreboding, while Jackson just has insane amounts of orcs crawling everywhere... honestly, it's stupid.
Deep knowledge and respect... based on what? PJ clearly either did not know, understand or care about central aspects.. The ring, Frodo, Aragorj, Faramir, Elves, Gimli.. need I go on?
1:40 i think my grandfather has an old radio version of lotr from around that time on a record. But i might be wrong and its just the brian sibley version from the 80s
I'm not worried about who likes it and who doesn't. What I don't like are those elitists of the films who call them the "definitive Tolkien experience." I fire back on them and tell them that Tolkien would NOT have liked them, and thus, they cannot BE the "definitive Tolkien experience." Especially because that is what the books are. As for why I think he wouldn't have liked the films? I think he would have liked some parts of them. He would probably have seen some elements and smiled and said, "This was very well done, I liked this. It's not as good as I could have imagined, but it's better than I thought it would be in film." What I think would have made him dislike the films is the... extreme abundance of character assassination. Turning Gimli into comic relief. Making Merry and Pippin a couple of dimwitted delinquents. Making Theoden a petty coward. Leading people to think that Denethor, even in his addled state, would EVER forsake Rohan, or think that Theoden had betrayed him. Making people think Frodo is so affected by the Ring that he would EVER turn on Samwise like he does in the film. Or that Sam would EVER abandon Frodo. This isn't even everything. A lot of the personality changes were ENTIRELY unnecessary. The Battle for Helm's Deep did not need to be half of the second film, but it was. I'm sure Tolkien would have thought that was an excessive amount of time spent on that, when it could have been over in 10-20 minutes. So, I think there's a LOT that he would not have enjoyed. I think he would have made it known too. So, when I see people talking about how PERFECT the movies are, I think they have no idea what's actually in the books. The average person neither needs to know, nor cares, if Tolkien would have liked the films. They just either enjoyed them, or they didn't. But you've got to watch out for those elitist jerks who want to pretend the books never existed, and that the only thing that should be enjoyed are Jackson's films.
I was thinking about this, just the other day. I'm sure he'd loathe many parts, like others, but in general be more indifferent than many people might expect. I don't think he'd feel the need to actually see his works "brought to life" on the screen, in the way people these days have become conditioned to do. For him, the true form of his work was that which exists in the mind and the imagination. However, I do think that he'd like to see many of the reactions here on TH-cam. Many of them end with the reactors in tears, visibly moved in a deep and profound way. I think it would warm his heart to know that, even in this day and age, mythology still has the power to touch the core of what makes us human, and that his own created mythology stood as equal to any of the "real" myths. In short, that he'd succeeded in his goal.
as someone, who worked in an archive of a German public broadcasting firm (NDR - northgerman broadcast), it is pretty likely, that there are some tapes left in some stinky cellar, that one day a student like me has to carry out and sift through. Or maybe we will have a story similar to the restauration of Metropolis and suddenly discover the radio version on the other side of the planet. Maybe in Indonesia or India or something like that.
The Scouring of the Shire is probably the biggest hurdle to adapting the story to the screen in a way that Tolkien would have approved of. I believe Tolkien said that was the most important part of the story, and it is obviously omitted from the movie. Its personally my favorite part of the books - something about Bill Ferny trying to arrest the hobbits and they're just like "no" really tickles me. Despite liking that part of the book, I also see that its really hard to put into a movie. In the form of a movie, that whole episode would feel anticlimactic after everything else that happens.
@@JoshuaLivie Yeah. I can live with the scouring and Tom Bombadil being omitted, and the dozens of other small changes to tighten things up for a movie. That's the one thing where I have to say "no Peter, you did bad and you should feel bad." That change doesn't tighten up the script, but it does completely undermine a key character.
No the culture has deteriorated to the point here Hollywood was happy with the ridiculous Hobbit trilogy. Culture has not grown, it has morphed into a pornographic loving shell of its former self.
What I think Tolkien would hate: - Gimli being a comic relief in the movies; - Tom Bombadil's absence; - The entire runaway from the Shire being resumed to some 30 minutes; - Saruman being a lot more present in the movies; - The Balrog having wings.
Some of the art design by weta workshop is quite breathtaking. I'd like to think Tolkien would have been impressed by some of Alan Lee's depiction of beauty. Arwen and Aragorn on the bridge in Rivendell for example with the Flake music in the background.
Maybe, although there is a big difference between stage practical effects and the CGI of Gollum. Nevertheless, I think there are several reasons Tolkien would not like the films, largely because they do many of the same things Zimmerman did. For example: "He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately." It's hard to say Peter Jackson did not do this also. "Gandalf, please, should not 'splutter'. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity." If Tolkien did not like this, I doubt he would like Gandalf beating up Denethor with a stick, for example. He also probably would be unhappy with Ian McKellen impersonating himself in his dialogue (no offense to Tolkien). "The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis." This is also true for the most part with Peter Jackson-not to mention many other moral lines, such as Aragorn's words to Éomer. Most of the theme of mercy was sacrificed for cheap angst, and Aragorn randomly commits a serious war-crime when it is quite clear he will not in the book. I think overall he focuses most largely on characterization, theme, and tone. As a result, if anyone acted out of character in any way, I think Tolkien would point it out. And that is pretty much every major character in The Lord of the Rings, together with Peter Jackson apparently mistaking Frodo's "kindness for blindness" and making him extremely gullible, Sam actually agreeing to go home on that account somehow, Pippin and Merry being thieves, Legolas being stone-faced serious, Gimli being an utter joke, Aragorn being filled with self-doubt, Gollum being a master manipulator, Théoden not wanting to help Gondor (his own mother's people), Treebeard being unconcerned with the world, Denethor being a cartoon villain, and Faramir being the opposite of everything the character is and stands for in The Two Towers. I have the feeling some people will disagree with that assessment, but I hope you know what I mean, and judging from the Zimmerman script, I think that is what Tolkien would say, among other things. He would also be opposed to anything that felt "silly" that was not in line with the book. For example, everything about Gimli and much of Treebeard, to name a few examples. Also, I am not sure he would like certain stunts of Legolas if he feels too much like a superhero, but I am not so sure about that so I will not speak on it. With this in mind, personally I think he might not mind the 1978 film.
Great vid topic Jess. Like you I was introduced to Tolkien through the Jackson trilogy. In fact I was taken to Fellowship opening week for my 15th birthday. When I got back to school after break I immediately signed Fellowship out of the school library
I just subbed today because I saw you on Today's Tolkien Times with Alan Sisto! I think a lot of fans conflate their own opinion of the films with what they think Tolkien's opinion would have been. I think the closest we'll get to what Tolkien would have thought is what his own son thought. And we all know what Chris Tolkien thought of them... My personal opinion of the films is that the parts closest to the books were very, very good. The parts where they made up their own stuff...were not so good.
00:32 I don't know what reasons you have yet and am very curious but, my reason is simple - Tolkien has added to my life and I'd want him to be happy in general. 🙂❤🧡💛💚💙💜 Love your stuff, Jess.
I wonder would Fëanor dislike the Phial of Galadriel as an imperfect imitation of his Silmaril. Like "Yeah, you captured the light, but you're totally missing all of my soul I poured into the shape of the gem and the intricate beauties of the light you can only see up close."
Its hard to distance myself from the experience of seeing these movies in theaters as a high school student who just finished reading them for the first time. But I think you are right. The media are just too different for a film to capture Tolkien fully. Yet, Jackson did do things that advance some points in the different media, and some (lack of the scouring of the shire) which did not in my opinion. Faramir has pretty little screen time before showing to let Frodo go, building the weight of the choice Tolkien communicates succinctly in the Two Towers. The change in media demands some changes in the story to tell it well... But there it is... It has to change it, and even with the best of intentions, reconstructing something is never going to be perfect and will lose part of what made it so special. Anyways, great video, and I look forward to the next!
Besides the obvious over the top action scenes like Legolas surfing on a shield, or Gimli being used as comic relief, I suspect he might not have liked the overt sentimentality that many viewers enjoy. And I think I can say pretty confidently that the quality of at least some of the added dialogue would not have been met with approval. Now, as for the Hobbit - I think he just would have walked out of that one!
Best Frodo: the 1978 movie. Best Gandalf: the 2001 movies. Best Aragorn: 1978 Best Sam: 2001 Best Galadriel: 1978 Best Saruman: 2001 Best Balrog: 2001 Best battle at Helm Deep: 1978 Each movie/movies has its strengths and weaknesses. I do not know which parts of which movies Tolkien would like.
I completely agree, but I might add: Best Pippin:1978 Best Merry: 1978 Best Elrond: 1977 Best Thorin: 1977 Best Bombur: 1977 Best Bilbo: 1977 Best Thrush: 1977 Best Denethor: 1980 Best Gollum: 2002 That said, I think Tolkien's favorite film, were I to guess, would be the Bakshi one.
Bakshi's Aragorn seemed somewhat lacking but then so did Jacksons, nobody has really ever gotten Aragorn right, though I think Viggo really gave it his best effort.
I used to work at mediaplay. In 2003, when we had a cardboard book display with movie based covers of the LotR books, featureing a standee of ian mckellen as Gandalf the grey, well, lets just say at the end of the promotion the wandering wizard took up residence at my house and hes still there. I didn't save the empty book containers, but Gandalf, such as he is, is on my wall. Life sized. Only missing the lower right quarter, due to they were never there in the first place because thats where the books were.
When one reads LOTR, the world is imagined in the mind (medium hot), When one just sees the movie LOTR then the imagination lies dormant as you are fed what the world looks like (medium cool). I have read the book LOTR 22 times so far in my life and watched (extended edition) innumerable times. But it gets worse for me as I have also toured most of the outdoor locations for the LOTR movie in News Zealand, and even climbed Mt. Sunday or Edoras as it is known. Now when I read the book, not only do I imagine that world, I REMEMBER it as if I was there back in the 3rd age. I once had to listen to a die hard LOTR fan complain about the movie because it cut a lot of the book out. I pointed out that if it had been exactly true to the book that you would have a 30 hour long movie that would have bored it's audience to tears. 'Nuf said. Great video Jess, yet agin!
Well that’s retarded. Since middle earth was never inspired by New Zealand at all. New Zealand’s terrain is striking and nothing like Europe, particularly Northern Europe, which actually inspired Tolkien’s vision of middle earth
That's what a lot of book fans seem to forget. A direct 1:1 adaptation would take a week to watch and would be boring beyond words. Lengthy static dialogue scenes work amazingly well in books, but just drag out in films. Imagine a 2 hour council of Elrond. Everyone would hate it, as amazing at it is in the source material.
I absolutely love what you said about the stories “living in us!” This is it precisely! There is a young Tolkien scholar who said something very similar to your words…he described Middle Earth and all its stories like “The River Anduin.” It’s a part of us and flows through us and doesn’t go away just because someone decides to adapt something. He used a metaphor of Jackson putting a stone or moving a stone in the river and then also mentioned ROP. But the point was the River exists and is a part of us forever. The movies brought me back to the books and since I grew up hearing Tolkien poetry quotes in my house it was such a lovely experience to share seeing the movies with my family. I would argue that Tolkien might come to face his own words “Even the wisest cannot see all ends.” My feeling is that he set an impossible task in his imagination for how his stories should be developed. I don’t doubt he might want a word by word by scene because everything ties into a bigger picture. I’m not sure he would have liked any adaptation. I have no animosity against Christopher Tolkien and I appreciate all the effort he put into bringing out more of his father’s writings. But I disagree with his take on the film. I understand he grew up with these stories as a tiny boy and so knows his father’s heart on the matter. However, I felt there was beauty within these movies (yes I had quibbles) but it felt so easy to dream in the landscape of middle earth! I know what you meant in another video about the feeling of deep emotions for sure! And then of course I was adding back what was missing in the movies in my imagination. But speaking of landscape, that might be another element Tolkien would have been stubborn about. New Zealand is not England and he would take issue I think. Even though I felt it worked beautifully with the movies. Yet, Christopher perhaps felt that the movies were “too big,” even with the landscape. I understand Tolkien wanting to work on those deep personal and mythic themes and yet his work in our imaginations does something very much like those NZ vistas, whether Tolkien intended that or not. But how can it not? Especially when Tolkien is talking about secondary worlds and songs of the Ainur in his writings? After all his spoken dislike of allegory and applicability, I remember he suggested that applicability gives us as readers more freedom. What I really love about Tolkien is how he almost contradicts himself. You have probably seen one of those black and white interviews, where in one instance, he speaks of mapping out the world and languages, very true. But also admits to the writing being a mess; that he didn’t know what he was going to write until he got there, and sometimes he had to write backwards to correct things. And there are other interviews where he speaks of the story being written through him. So definitely higher inspiration muses there! I think he was a bit like Gandalf the Gray himself! And we love that! As for things never being quite what you imagine them to be once they are on the screen…Christopher Tolkien’s comment on Legolas in the movies is quite telling. He said something apparently to the effect that his Father knew what an elf looked like and that wasn’t an elf. That might surprise some. But it makes one wonder what did Tolkien really see in his mind? I would have argued instead, that so much poetry and other light hearted moments were cut out of the movie for time, that not all the dimensions of the elves were shown. And they weren’t always stoic as you and others have pointed out. But now it makes one wonder…perhaps to our surprise Tolkien May have wanted all his elves to have curly raphaelite angel hair? Or be stronger in body even if lean. Maybe more Gene Kelly than Fred Astaire? Or maybe he didn’t want the pointed ears at all, though I don’t remember that being an issue in the cartoons. I think it would be fascinating to see how Tolkien would have responded to the movies. Or found something he grudgingly liked about them. I know the things he wouldn’t have liked including Sam and Frodo fighting. But would he have secretly felt those other moments of beauty? Or would he have said it was all some magic show and not true art? I would have been more impressed if Tolkien had watched Behind the Scenes and all the love and effort the artists put into this. They are not merely making some contraption devices like Saruman. Would he pause long enough to appreciate that craft? My guess is deep inside something might resonate with him, but he would never admit it to us. I also think part of the reason for his strong feelings is how much LOTR and all that work was not only part of all his knowledge and life experience and languages, mythology and his spirituality. But also was a deeply ingrained part of his psyche. And I think it really does come down to the vision in Tolkien’s imagination was so strong, that he could not imagine seeing someone else’s interpretation of that, even though he entertained the thought a few times. Ok enough, I’ve gone ent again. Laugh. I love your well thought out take on this! Thank you!
As an aging (yeah... Aging...) Tolkien fan who has changed perception and appreciation, I wish I could say that I'd read the books first, etc. I feel deprived that I did not make the decision to read them sooner, but I have a deep appreciation for the LOTR books and Silmarillion. The Hobbit to me would be ideal if re-done to suit the same audience as his LOTR , but I still enjoy the Hobbit. I got into it first with the books. Being a kid at heart, my first exposure to Tolkien (deliberately) was the movies. I was 27. I of course had heard of it, as I'd played many RPG games on computers and played a little D&D, and I knew it was inspired by Tolkien, but that's that. I didn't know the story until I decided to read the books after watching the first movie. I skipped past the poetry, and skimmed everything to get to the "good stuff". I know read everything and savor it, and love it, and find something I missed with each new reading, and I'm fine with that. My views of virtually ALL of the characters in the Tolkien Legendarium has evolved based upon my philosophy and values changing. The parts I think Tolkien would have enjoyed the most would probably be the Shire and Bree scenes. I suspect he would have been awed to see Rivendell, but probably sad to see the council of Elrond so abbreviated. I suspect he would have liked the scene outside of Moria. Had been touched by the death of Boromir, Sam chasing Frodo on his boat. I cannot help but think his outrage would exceed mine at the character assassination of Faramir. I believe Tolkien inserted himself into the book with Faramir, perhaps more with Frodo, but I sense him strongly in Faramir. That was an utter disgrace. He probably would have scowled at the Elves at Helm's Deep, though I enjoy their addition to the defense. I like switching Glorfindel with Arwen, and he might have taken serious issue with that. He definitely would have been apoplectic with rage at the beheading of the mouth of Sauron. It made for good cinema, but is appalling in terms of rules of parlay. You do not under any circumstances kill the herald. That is anathema. I would like to think Tolkien would have shed a tear over the legendary Ride of the Rohirrim, and enjoyed the Ents trashing Orthanc. Sorry this went so long.
I had never heard of the books until a friend dragged me to see the first movie. I was not impressed but somehow he convinced me to see the 2nd movie and I’ve been a fan ever since. I’ve read the LOTR, Hobbit and Silmarillion. The movie’s introduced me to a world I didn’t know I needed in my life.
It's funny - I read the books almost annually for decades, so when I first saw the movies I actually had several problems with them. However, now that I've watched them more times than I could count, I've forgiven a lot of issues because I realized that Jackson was a filmmaker and that certain aspects had to be edited/changed; it's simply a different medium, and requires a different mindset. But there is one scene that, to this day, I still don't like - and that is Gandalf literally knocking out Denethor with his staff and taking control of the army. I mean I get it, with the way the movies set everything up, he had to do something; and Gandalf also takes charge in the books (along with Prince Imrahil and others), although much more subtly. But IMO, having Gandalf act so disrespectfully to the Steward is probably one thing that Tolkien would have had a major problem with.
True, but of course in the books Lord Denethor is not portrayed as cowardly arseholes, but as a man stricken with grief over the loss of both of his sons and influenced by Sauron through the Palantir. I also didn't like the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff. The Witch King was no match for Gandalf, especially the new and improved version.
I read the books almost annually for decades as well. I will never understand why books have to be changed for film. It makes zero sense to me. Take care.
@@The1Elcil Only so much can be adapted for the sake of runtime, with books you have so much more room to stretch your legs with vivid descriptions of locations and also to develop characters. After 3 or so hours in a cinema people tend to shift around a bit.
in the book Gandalf takes charge just becouse Denethor says to soldiers that he wants to be left alone and they can listen to whoever they want - even grey wizard - or smt of that sense I remember. :) So they were able to show it that way, maybe after some dialogue between Gandalf and Denethor that Gandalf tells him that he also is a steward. I wished this dialogue was in the movie becouse its important to understand the distance of rank of Denethor and Gandalf. Denethor obviously knew it but we as audience should be told that Denethor knows who Gandalf realy is and still choses not to listen to him ! The movie has more brawl than bain :D though we can understand most of these changes into "action movie" becouse that way it is 3h 30 minutes long and not 7 h long :D And IMO Gandalf, being the steward of Valars - so being above any steward, prince and king - got this right to smack Denethor :)
Most movies and videogames today are so much focused on violence of fighting. Tolkien did not put as big focus on at as most of modern movies and games so thats why I believe Tolkien would not like it.
Among the many things I disliked about the films was the extended battle scenes. Tolkien paced his battles carefully. In the first book there were skirmishes. In the second book, there was one medium-sized battle. In the third book, there was one major battle. When I saw the Battle of Helm’s Deep going on endlessly in the second film, I dreaded what would happen to the Battle of Pelennor Fields.
I still haven't seen the movies (I technically saw Two Towers in theater as a very small child tag-along, but I obviously could not remember anything but my fear of Smeagel), and while it's on my future to-do list, I had the opportunity to read one of the most influencial pieces of fiction, untainted by movie visuals (except Smeagel and maybe the image of Gandalf's face), and I took that opportunity willingly two years ago. I love the vision in my head and I shall be glad to sit with it for a while longer. Also, I told my friend that my favorite chapter is the final one where they return to the Shire and cap off the thematic character development of the hobbits. I said I was eager to see it in movie form. She, uh... frowned... and told me the truth... It dampered my enthusiasm to see the films a bit, so I don't mind taking my time before watching, but I own them, so it'll probably be a "me and the girls" movie night thing. Lol
I think Tolkien MAY have been absolutely enthralled by Jackson’s films at first. He could not have imagined the ability of modern film and computer graphics to create an alternate reality. So he would have thought them “magical” and astounding at first. But as they went on, and he became more accustomed to the technical elements, he would begin to notice the departures from his own tale and imagination and he would have become estranged to them.
Would Beethoven have danced on a Walter Murphy's music? Would Mark Antony consider his speech in the play Julius Caesar good? What would Vermeer think of the photograph of a real girl with a pearl earring? If the Tolkien from the 60's had seen Peter Jackson's trilogy, maybe he would have been amazed by the technological achievement, or maybe the modern cinematography would have seemed alien to him. If Tolkien had lived long enough to see Peter Jackson's trilogy, he would not have been the Tolkien from the 60's. His ideas and opinions would have changed, or on the contrary he would have become allergic to modern cinema. I am not saying that as a criticism. On the contrary. It is really an interesting question, and a non-literal answer is expected (and, I would say, an educated answer like the one presented is also very interesting and intellectually satisfying.) But I still wonder... Would Beethoven have danced on disco? Mmh... With good hearing aids maybe...
As I've noted elsewhere in relation to Tolkien's thoughts on drama, it's incredible to think how much SFX moved on, even within a decade of his death. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters Of the Third Kind, ET, Alien, The Thing... I can see the point he makes about having to put that effort in to suspension of disbelief in to the theatre, but I don't believe that to be true with films these days. It's so much harder to see the join than in the days of Harryhausen etc
It's purely a thought experiment, but my guess is that if an artist or composer were to travel into the future -- especially if that happened to them in their old age -- they would likely not like the style/styles that their art had evolved to. That could depend on a lot of things, though.
well youre right. and most propably no one would like an adaptation of their work. People are hard against new things, and stubborn when it's related to their vision.
I think that would be a hell no! Christopher Tolkien saw that the Peter Jackson movies would lead to more and more fan fiction and that is one reason he hated them. He also didn't like the sensationalization of the movie adaptations. Jackson then made the fan fic Hobbit movies. This really blew up the legacy of Tolkien and led us to the Rings of Power.
I adored the Peter Jackson movies when they came out and if you asked me a month ago I would still love them. But on my most recent reread of LOTR this month I have soured on them. They do some things rigbt but I realized almost all my favorite things from the books simply don’t survive adaptation. And I’m not talking about Tom Bombadil or Ghan buri Ghan. Those cuts made perfect sense tbh.
I think he would like how Gollum was treated. As a sad heart wrenching story about someone very far gone from his use of the ring and rejection by society finally feeling the smallest ounce of love and mercy from Frodo. I think he’d like it for that but obviously have his own little nitpicks of his own. But Gollum and Sméagol were unimaginably important characters for Tolkiens Christian themes and messaging which he took very seriously. I think his biggest problem would be Peter Jackson’s characterization of Isildur and Elrond in the intro sequence. They didn’t exactly know what the ring was they knew it was immensely powerful, but it had only been in Sauron’s possession at that point. Gandalf took decades to figure out wtf it even is and was literally the wisest person in middle earth.
I love these explorations. Of course the author knew the "books were better than the movies." That's not a cliche, it's a truth. But, having first read the trilogy in the '70s, I can say the movies did an amazing job at capturing the friendship, the commitment, the essence, and...yeah... the action. Thank you for delving beyond the "what" into the "why" Tolkien's seminal story matter. And, don't apologize for quoting the On Fairy-Stories book. I've bought a print copy solely because I want to explore Tolkien's perspective myself...anthropologically and in depth. And, as always, Thanks!
thanks Jess, those were witty remarks and analysis... I knew the books a long time before the movies, and was so nervous and scared to see them translated, and indeed transformed, into movies. I think Peter did the best possible with it all, and deserves every single Oscar for it, that he and the whole crew got. Tolkien would in my view liked the extended version much more than the shortened cinema versions - reasons are obviously because in the extensions there's more space for the lore of the races, the more subtle notes on cultures, song and dance... these are very important to break down the action-ridden story lines of the movies. I think that the movies can't replace the books, so anyone who only knows the movies, will miss some important aspects and depths of the whole plot, but that doesn't make the movies wrong or bad - they are master pieces by themselves... I've heard many a times first watchers being desperate about reaching the end of the third one, but the good news is, there is so much to delve in deeper through the books, and further Tolkien scripts like the Silmarillion, that everyone can pursue a deeper dive afterwards... what an incredible gift, what a heritage... 💖
I started out as a reader of the books back in the 60s, when I was a child. So yes, I have head canon that no visualization can touch. Still, I approached the PJ movies with delight. I bought all of them, and watched them through with every commentary track and every "making of" feature. Practically wore them out. But I've shifted over the years since. One of my very close friends is a lover of the movies and has tried to read the books but never got past the opening chapter. I was angry with him. It forced me to examine how I would stack up books vs. movies, and I found more and more that I disliked all that PJ had to strip out-- Tom Bombadil, the poetry, the Scouring of the Shire, and how much PJ intruded-- Arwen as a girl boss, the small to immense alterations of every character, and a taste for the grotesque. PJ loves the books and kept them at hand when he and his team wrote the scripts. I know that. But I've come to resent all that he changed bc it drifted from what made the story great in the first place.
I think I was like that too. I think I originally loved the movies because they made me decide to read the books but now I kind of resent the differences.
I'm reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry who was basically not involved with the movies after the first one, and who was heavily involved with TNG at first, but eventually had to step back considerably, due to his failing health. We know that he disagreed with some of the choices made with the movies (especially the sixth one, which premiered shortly after his death) and many people have pointed out the problems he would've had with, say, Deep Space Nine, which focuses heavily on a war in its later seasons. And yet both Star Trek VI and Deep Space Nine are almost universally loved by Trek fans. In fact the episode "In the Pale Moonlight" seems to break all the moral rules Trek had established under Roddenberry, and yet its considered one of the series' best episodes. Perhaps, at some point, an IP grows to the point where even the creator's approval need not be the final say, much like a child who chooses a different path in life than his parents would've liked. We can thank the Tolkiens and Roddenberrys and George Lucases for the worlds they created, while still acknowledging that those worlds have grown bigger than what the creator would approve.
I recall my reaction to the movie Dragonslayer. My wife and I thought that the movie didn't deserve an Oscar for special effects because it was obvious that they used a real dragon! Similarly, I think that Tolkien would have at least respected the Peter Jackson movies because it looks so real. The movies are really long and there are three of them. I know that some things were changed to reduce the films to a more manageable size, and hopefully Tolkien would be impressed by what they were able to accomplish.
The only person who has really captured fantasy on screen is John Boorman with Excalibur. Fighters wearing plate armour that actually behaves like plate armour ie it’s very heavy and you could just about walk in it. Very slowly. And big iron swords are heavy, not flicked around as if they are made of wood (which of course they are as props). He also captured the mythic, mystical nature of magic and how it was connected to the Earth and its creatures. The scene where Merlin invokes the dragons breath and we see the centipede and owl shows that magic is not a conjuring trick, it’s the power of the land and it’s creatures. This is what Tolkien portrays so brilliantly throughout his books, primarily with Gandalf and Tom Bombadil. And completely ignored by Jackson - who treats the former as an all powerful being (which devalues any tension) and excludes the latter. The rest is road journey with too many battles. The first film was quite good because it at least captured some tension of the journey and the meeting with Strider. The second and third not so good. Thought the Ents were done very poorly, and the sequence with Shelob not nearly as frightening as in the books - not up to Alien(s) level where it should have been (surely an inspiration for those films).
I think it actually pretty uncontroversial to say Tolkien would have disliked the movies. But I think he might have liked the landscapes, if there were anything he had liked at all.
I think there mere fact that he would have been incapable of processing the concept of CGI makes this hard to answer. He may have felt drama was subpar and provided a lesser experience but he couldnt have possibly fathomed monsters that look straight up real crawling from his pages. He couldn’t have imagined it being possible to get 10k Uruk Hai to march on Helms Deep. I suspect he would have been flabbergasted by and enjoyed immensely Jacksons films (lotr not hobbit). Another big reason is Jackson gets the core of the story and spends a fair amount of time just showing us the world while panning over New Zeelands landscape.
Yes, Tolkien wouldn't have liked them. But the films are great and I also was introduced into Lord of the Rings by the Fellowship film and became a slight critic of the films at the beginning 😂
The radio adaptation was very good. The guy who played Bilbo in the films was Frodo on the radio. Edit: actually, I was thinking of a different radio adaptation. {:o:O:}
The 2000's movies destroyed the ring improperly, with Frodo rising again to tackle Gollum. That's a deal breaker for me. I actually told my wife, before the last film debuted, that I dearly hoped that they wouldn't do that exact thing (have Frodo rise and tackle Gollum into Orodruin) to the greatest climax in Western literature. Yet they did exactly what I feared. In Tolkien's view (based on a letter) Iluvatar destroyed the one ring by nudging Gollum in.
Yes but how do you show that on screen. That may have worked in the books but in a medium like a movie something like that could easily fall into anti-climactic territory for a lot of viewers. Also I have to disagree with you and say that frodo only tackled Gollum because he too wanted the ring. Not because he wanted to destroy it.
I think it would depend a lot upon the scenario/set up of this hypothetical situation… For example, are we assuming that professor Tolkien didn’t die in 1973, and was privy to the advances in filmmaking effects since then? If so… I think he would be disappointed with many of Peter’s choices, but I’m sure he would like the treatment of the hobbits, and I believe he would have approved of much of the casting. Now, if we’re talking about waking the dead professor after 50 years and screening the movie for him… I’m not sure he would survive the experience, let alone have an opinion to render.
It was clear that Peter Jackson spent a lot of time on casting and the general look of Middle-earth which I appreciated. The times I almost walked out of the theater: In FOTR: Indiana Jones and the Mines of Moria, TT: Aragorn "fell" and the Last Last Alliance of elves and Men at Helm's Deep, the *travesty* the character assassination of Faramir ROTK: when Gollum framed Sam for eating "lembus bread" and Frodo sent him away. Those were pretty Unforgivable. There are times over the years that I've wished that the movies were never made. I used to compare it to being invited to a lavish banquet where everybody is in the most beautiful costumes and the hall is decorated wonderfully and then you are served hors d'oeuvres which tastes like dog poop. So you're in this wonderful rich picturesque environment but you can't get the taste of dog poop out of your mouth. Overall Peter Jackson's movies of The Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit, are cinematic masterpieces in terms of Cinema. I think the argument that the movies made more readers is not quite correct because on social media it's evident that most of the people that love for the movies never read the books and don't plan to. I'm sorry I didn't mean to go this long with this. But the books were world famous and translated into many languages before Peter Jackson came along.
@@slawaboga1433 Hahaha! That's pretty funny. I'm actually soured from all the stupid memes that glut social media. Specifically Denethor and the cherry tomatoes. Or they should have taken the Eagles to Mordor. You can literally hear brains leaking out of their ears.
I feel like this perfectly covers why I love anime and animation. It only requires the single suspension as once you forget its animated, there is no break between the characters, the magic and the world, it all smoothly blends together.
There is a philosophical question here. Let's talk about a single element - the "Party Tree". As each person reads those words, an image of a tree crops into their heads. Arguably, for each person, the image will be different. Even if an author minutely describes the tree, short of implanting their image of the tree they imagine into the minds of every reader, each reader will still picture a slightly different tree. And then comes a movie. The Director/Producer/ Location Manager must pick a specific tree. And even if that tree is identical to what the author describes, it's also going to be different to what a huge number of readers had pictured. However, because of the movie, future generations of readers will be limited in how they picture the tree, because, in a sense, the movie has canonized a Particular tree - and I think that was what Tolkien would have objected to...
I would like to explore if Tolkien would like how the themes and messages of the movies and how they are viewed, like what would he think about the difference in Aragorn and if he could appreciate the purpose of the change. I want to know if the movies keep the spirit of Tolkien's work, in many ways people believe the creation of rings of power does not. Also I think he'd like the care that Howard Shore put into the music
The Tolkien family should appreciate that the films were a gateway into the books. Those 15-25-year-olds they disparaged became addicted to Middle Earth and wanted more of it, so they turned to the books and came to appreciate them for all their differences. The messaging from the estate tells me that they would rather JRR's series fall into obscurity and my generation NOT read them, because we got into it the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, and should know well enough without some movie getting us halfway there.
I think it was more of Christopher Tolkien who was so hardline against the films. He, like his father was very perfectionistic and given that the films are effectively treated as extensions of his father's legacy and tied to it, that combination was not a good mix. I doubt he'd been very receptive to any film from any producer just because of how perfectionistic he is and how he views the films should abide exactly as his father's works' heart was. And that he was in his lifetime the dominant spokesperson and representative and head of the Tolkien estate, it's understandable how what he stated became the estate's hardline public stance.
Better question would be: what PARTS of the movies would he like - music, casting, gollum, destinct architecture and rich cultures? What about setting the entire world in new zealand? What about sauron´s depiction, or Christopher Lee being saruman, and Ian McKellen´s Gandalf? Would he like how orcs look?? I doňť kňov. But I´m sure some of it would impress him for sure. You can deny accuracy but you cant deny passion.
I think he would have been completely overwhelmed by the Jackson movies. He died -73. Another kind of movie making, in almost every aspect, 30 years later. Pretty sure he would have been angry and grumpy about them, before ordering the remastered Blue-rays in secrecy.
Dying in 73 I think makes for an interesting debate - what would have been the peak SFX he would have seen by that point? Then list the films within the next 10 years that would be considered landmarks in SFX development! I don't think he would have much regard for the writing in Star Wars, but it did represent a massive change in how movies could be viewed
@@neilbiggs1353 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts, Ben-Hur and Planet of the Apes were all in Tolkien's lifetime. I'd reckon a mix of the miniature work, stop-motion, costuming, sets and scale of those could end up with a LOTR adaptation, but the cost would have been extraordinary.
@@alexbruce9499 That's the thing that is impossible to predict - where Tolkien's sensibilities would be in regards to those. Even as a young person, the stop-motion of Harryhausen looked fake to me, and the facial prosthetics of the Apes franchise weren't convincing, but other people would be fine and wouldn't have their suspension of disbelief affected. If he was very critical, I don't think any SFX would satisfy him until the 90s
Your comment on the question is pretty exhaustive and as all I haven seen from you, nicely enlightended from various perspectives. I could not add much except a comment on my personal feelings on the movie. I discovered the LoR in 1987 in our church communtiy library at the age of 14. So I feel extremely happy having been able to build a mental image of middle earth and its inhabitants unbiasdly. I was however thrilled when I heard that there will be (another) movie adaptation. I enjoyed watching them a lot, and I highly appreaciate PJs efforts but for me these are almost two different worlds. A strange thing is that I like the movies the better the more often I read them. I keep exploring new destails which I usually think haven been done well by PJ and his team. Nowadays I am reading the LoR for my little 11y daughter. We finished the first part yesterday. My conclusion is that every medium and every adaptation may give you a new inspiration and new ideas. Even reading silent vs loud for others is a different experience. Keep up your great work, I appreaciate the depth of your analyses very much!
I am returning to a fantasy novel I started writing 41 yrs ago. I do not consider myself as skillful or brilliant as Tolkien, but I think I can describe what I would fear if, by some miracle, my novel(s) became popular enough to gain the attention of movie makers. There is a woven tapestry of events, people and culture in my novel. It is a secondary creation. I've covered many centuries, sometimes, in just a few worlds, sometimes putting some events and people under a microscope. Every thing and everyone is interconnected. I use words to paint the tapestry as I want it to exist. The threads of that interconnectedness can not be broken without destroying the story. I see it as a whole world. It isn't Disney cute. It is an adult story. There is also a great deal of philosophy and spirituality, as well, as a kind of magic. I wouldn't trust Hollywood with the story as I envision it. They could never do the tapestry, justice and Never understand why things happen as they must. Allowing them make a movie of my beloved novel (and I do love my Characters!) is like letting a 2 year old play with a sharp sword. It won't go well for anyone. It is better to leave it on the page and allow the words to do their magic. Maybe some people might read it. Maybe not. Hollywood is frequently where good stories go to die. I might guess that Tolkien felt the same way. He loved his work.
I think there are elements he would have liked a lot such as the design of the shire, edoras, helms deep and moria. But I think he would have scoffed at the changes and the cuts made.
I think it hardly matters. In some cases, movies actually manage to deepen your previous experience while reading a book, while in other cases they just kill the whole sensation you had while reading it. Jackson did a good job and I enjoyed watching his take on a story so well known, even though some of the magic has forever vanished after watching the movies. We all know that that’s a risk we take when watching movies, so we shouldn’t blame the director.
Another banger! Good work! You cannot separate Elijah Wood and Sean Astin and Dominic Monaghan and Viggo Mortensen from their respective characters in my mind. Those folks and others gave amazing performances, once in a lifetime performances for them I bet, and, while I love the original text, I will always love those films too.
Dominic Monaghan was horribly miscast as Merry - nothing like Tolkien's character at all. I wasn't a fan of Elijah Wood as Frodo either. I will happily give you the other two.
@@brianthom6798 that’s pretty fair really. I read the books long after seeing the movies when I was younger, so they definitely color how those characters look to me.
I watched the films several times before I finally got to the books, but even still there was a lot I imagined differently while reading, chiefly the Balrog, but as far as the casting goes, no, I just couldn't see them any other way. Ian McKellen is another one for me though, absolutely perfect Gandalf.
Token may not have liked the films but he would have definitely liked the money he would have gotten from more people buying his books. I would also like to think that he would have enjoyed how the films brought his work to new audiences.
Honestly, I don’t see him disliking them. There’s no way for us to know. But what we do know is that Jackson respected the books. At least more than most would have. He fought for them to be made properly. The movie had a great sense of hope and I think that takes the films a lot further than we think. I could see him taking issue with Aragorn. No Tom Bombadil whatsoever. Obviously Sauron is a standout because he had no physical form. And some other issues of course. But in Hollywood, Jackson managed to get something done that will probably not ever be done again. And I would hope Tolkien would be able to see that. It’s a shame they never mention the creation of Middle-Earth. The story behind all that is just incredible.
I love this video and you make very good points! all of us have our own worlds and ideas, and being that I am a writer, and lover of Tolkien I believe Tolkien's thoughts going into the Lord of the Rings was to give people something that they would remember, and take into their hearts and be inspired to tell their own great stories as well while also telling his story! And you see how the lord of the rings has become almost a foundation for great writers, whether that be through the movies or books, great work Jess!
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
“Man I loved when Legolas surfed a shield down those stairs like a badass.” - Tolkien (if he was alive today)(probably)
When Aragorn rizzed up Eowyn like a boss, that shit was lit" - Tolkien
😅😂
The movies certainly indulged a few eccentricities but over all you can tell there was so much professionalism and passion behind them.
That shit was so tight.
- J.R.R. Tolkien on the Last Ride of the Rohirrim
@@Evongelo indulged in a few vulgarities, you mean
Fun fact, though, Tolkien actually *did* adore a different artist's take on his work, namely the illustrations of his characters and world done by _Pauline Baynes._ Baynes was the artist responsible for creating so many of the iconic illustrations for the books of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, and her work served as a base of some sorts for many designs in the movies adapted from both works as well. Her illustrations first caught Tolkien’s eye whilst he was visiting his publisher in 1948. She was a completely unknown artist at the time and had sent various 'on spec' drawings to different publishers hoping to break into the industry as an illustrator after putting her career on hold volunteering for the Army and Navy map-making department during World War II. Interestingly enough, it was during her service that she acquired the skills for drawing the maps of Narnia for Lewis and Middle-earth for Tolkien that fans know and love today.
On viewing just a few of her drawings that day, Tolkien at once demanded that the artist behind them be set to work illustrating his books. When she first showed him her finished artwork featuring Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, the author nodded approvingly and murmured quietly: _“There they are, there they are.”_ Tolkien would go on to say that her work illustrating his books had _'reduced my text to a commentary on her drawings‘,_ which is extremely high praise coming from a gifted author such as Tolkien.
I really love her art!
I love her art too. One thing I forgot to mention is that Tolkien and Baynes ended up becoming friends, and it was Tolkien that introduced & recommended her to Lewis who she also went on to illustrate for as mentioned. Pretty snazzy of Tolkien!
I always loved Tolkien's own art for The Hobbit, but as a child, Baynes was LOTR art for me, with her classic cover to the one-volume paperback, plus a couple of her map posters I had on my wall. I think, though, her artwork for Farmer Giles of Ham remains her peak (and I believe that's what Tolkien was specifically commenting on in the quote you mentioned).
(Her first drawing of the Calormene god Tash in Lewis's The Last Battle was one of my scariest childhood moments.)
I have a hardback copy of The Hobbit with her illustrations. Very very nice.
I saw many of the original Baynes paintings at the Wade Center in Wheaton College IL and they’re beautiful. Very unique and clearly captures the essence of those two fantasy worlds. The most striking to me is the large Narnia map. Absolutely beautiful up close with so much detail.
It sounds like Tolkien liked the idea of an adaptation of his work more than he could possibly have like any actual adaptation.
what would have been really interesting is if he had written a screenplay for LOTR. I think he would have found writing for the screen is a very different proposition.
Well, he was a perfectionist, so it makes sense.
The other thing he would have liked would be truckloads of money.
@@mindstalk Well, he did get that, both when the books hit it big and when he sold the rights. A truckload for the time, anyway. This was before authors got paid $50 million for their books to be adapted.
You'd think he would have hired an assistant once his first fat royalty check came in. (Tolkien's first royalty check for LOTR, btw, was larger than his entire annual salary at Oxford, and he was receiving an upper-middle class wage.)
"I've got...some...papers for you to sort through."
I think he was several decades too early. Now, people have more knowledge of art-film and indie film, and technology has advanced to the point where basically ANYONE can make a movie wih just their phone and 30$ editing software.
I don't think he'd like them, although he would love individual sequences. Especially Boromir's death.
That's interesting. I wonder what he would think of that scene. On the one hand, it hews very closely to the book, which would make him happy. On the other hand, we never got to witness that scene in the book. It was told secondhand by Aragorn to Legolas and Gimli, an interesting move on Tolkien's part. (By pulling it away from the reader's experience, it becomes a private thing, something only Aragorn was privileged to witness. All anyone will ever know of it is what he chose to tell, and I think it likely that he never told that story in that detail again. Possibly to Faramir, but even then the emotion would have receded.) So it's intriguing to wonder if the quality of the scene would override changing its place in the flow. :)
@@Serai3 Boromir's death scene literally objectively happens in the first chapter of the Two Towers. He dies in Aragorn's arms from Aragorn's POV.
Do you mean his final fight scene?? That is not his death scene, lol.
Idk the movie doesn’t the company singing a lament for Boromir. I think Tolkien would miss that
I don't think he'd like that scene since the movie replaced Boromir's death speech for no reason I've ever discerned. I think the movies as a whole are terrific. They are a high water mark against which other future LOTR movies will have to be judged.
@@leonwilkinson8124 Oh dear. I see it's been a while since you read the book.
"I tried to take the Ring from Frodo," he said. "I am sorry. I have paid." His glance strayed to his fallen enemies; twenty at least lay there. "The have gone: the Halflings: the Orcs have taken them. I think they are not dead. orcs bound them." He paused and his eyes closed wearily. After a moment he spoke again. "Farewell, Aragorn! Go to Minas Tirith and save my people! I have failed."
That's it. That is everything he said. Tell me which "speech" is it that they "left out"? In fact, he gets MORE to say in the film.
What is important to mention is that Tolkien died before Star Wars was released. Whether you like Lucas' films or not, they are the absolute watershed of fantasy on film, and the number one reason why the Jackson movies were possible. I don't know if Tolkien would have liked Star Wars or not, but if anything could have convinced him that a LOTR film could be made, this was it. As it is, he died without having all the information.
Frank Herbert lived to see SW released, and was not...entirely pleased with what he saw as a rip-off of his saga. On the other hand, he was impressed by the visual effects in Dune 1984 and I think part of the reason Tolkien was hesitant was because he couldn't possibly imagine CGI reaching the stage where it is today. to completely realize his created worlds. I thought LOTR was unfilmable for many reasons when I read it at a very young age in 1991, one among them the lack of CGI.
@@squamish4244didn't Tolkien diss Herbert though?
No. He didn't like Dune, but this is the full quote: _"It is impossible for an author still writing to be fair to another working along the same lines. At least I find it so. In fact I dislike Dune with some intensity, and in that unfortunate case it is much the best and fairest to another author to keep silent and refuse to comment."_
So Tolkien didn't attack Herbert as an author; he recognized that Herbert was doing the same kind of thing he was in terms of, if I had to guess, dense themes and worldbuilding. He didn't like Dune as a narrative. There's a good video looking at the likely reasons why this was the case. @@TheMulletOperator_77
"I don't know if Tolkien would have liked Star Wars or not" He wouldn't. You really need to read some interviews with him and his non-fiction books. Steeped in modernity he was not.
This. Like, Toshiro Mifune (incredible Japanese actor, if you don't know who that is) was offered the role of Obi-Wan and turned it down. He did this because he didn't believe visual effects could convincingly create the world described in the script; but once he saw the finished film he expressed regret at turning down the role, stating that "had he known" it was possible to pull it off convincingly, he would have said yes in a heartbeat.
I think Tolkien would have appreciated things like the score, certain sets/locations (especially with Edoras), and things along those lines; and he probably wouldn't have been too upset about axing Tom or Glorfindel; but I bet he would find the removal of the Scouring of the Shire to be unforgivable. It's the actual climax of the story and the part of the tale that grounds the Quest in a genuine psychological place for Frodo.
I have to disagree, I think he would have hated that Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil were removed as these characters were extremely important to him. people are still to this day trying to find out why tolkien considered Bombadil so important to the story.
Scourging of the shire had to be removed from the movies, since the climax of the movie was the destruction of the ring and the story was built around that. Going back home and seeing the shire destroyed would not fit.
They should have just used the same chronological order of the books
@@andurion8908 in a movie that makes sense, but Tolkien didnt write a movie. the scourging of the shire was a crazy important part of the book as it was Tolkien not telling us but showing us that the Shire as idyllic as it is, isnt untouchable to the decay of evil. I think Tolkien would have seen it being removed from the story and relegated to just replacing Sam's vision in the Mirror of Galadriel wouldve upset tolkien alot
the point of the Shire being under threat is definitely understood in various times by the Hobbits in the movies. It is a deliberate reality check Merry gives to Pippin. Frodo realizes it in the beginning, when the Wraiths are on the Shire's doorstep, and of course the Mirror gives him these glimpses as well. Several moments the fondness for the Shire is reflected by Sam and the rest. A film can technically always do more, but the idea of cuts is that more is accomplished with the combination of visual and auditory mediums. The brain processes it more efficiently than piecing together even a masterfully written sequence. While the epilogue of evil nature is removed with the Scouring, the main point everyone here brings up...about the Shire being under threat, not walled away from the happenings of the world (as all Hobbits cherish to believe), and the Hobbits opening their eyes and defending their home....are all accomplished. The movie effectively communicates the growth of all four Hobbits, and changes them, and makes them realize the importance of other people and other matters. The assault Saruman lays on the Shire does not need to happen in the movie like it does in the book. Personally, I like Theoden's appeal to Grima on the tower and how it segues into his outrage towards Saruman. It's all in line with Tolkien's emphasis on the original innocence of many evil hearts and plays on Grima's growing horror with what he's a part of, earlier on.
I think he'd like seeing his friend Christopher Lee play Sauroman :)
If Tolkien was alive, Lee would have played Gandalf. Because Tolkien DID give Lee his blessing to play Gandalf if the book was ever adapted to the cinema.
@___David__ well I knew that but in a way I'd still think he'd like to see his friend be a part of his world is all I really meant by that
@@___David__It's not like Tolkien said Lee would have been the best Gandalf ever, he wouldn't have been opposed to the idea of him being Saruman instead
@@___David__ that was because of old age though. Unless Tolkien somehow managed to get these movies going a couple years earlier even though the idea came from Peter Jackson and co. than Lee couldn't have played Gandalf.
@@___David__ I think he's better as Saruman. Lee strikes me as a bit too cold and a bit too patrician for Gandalf. Maybe that's just because I'm mostly familiar with him from Hammer films, though.
The Professor was pretty exacting as to his vision, but he wasn't without nuance and was happy for fans to write their own fanfiction stories. I'd guess he'd have disliked what they did to Faramir and Denethor, but may have been impressed with Sir Ian's Gandalf and other performances (the death of Boromir in particular).
He actually used to attend readings of his books, incognito, and would frequently get up and read it himself if he thought the hapless reader was doing a poor job.
For what it's worth though, I think he'd have HATED Rings of Power.
Please, don’t even get me started on that 😂
I think he would have also hated Sam leaving Frodo, and what they did to dwarfs. (I am positing he wouldn't claim what the movies did was worthy of the use of the word dwarves, which he coined to differentiate them from the comedy relief that dwarfs so commonly conveyed in earlier stories.)
I'm sure Tolkien would've also hated the The Hobbit movies, especially the romance-tinted relation between a dwarf and an elf.
I think Tolkien would have hated The Hobbit movies as much as everyone else hates the Rings of Power. As for the Rings of Power, I think he would have found the show outright offensive to his very being.
I'm waiting for him to rise out of the grave to enact his vengeance for rings of power.
Tolkien once commented that he hoped that a movie version would be faithful, but recognized that it would be problematic due to the scope of the books. He then added that if it couldn't be faithful, he hoped that it would at least be successful. From that point of view, I think he might have been ok with them.
Not sure of that at least at first. His estate had to sue them because they claimed the movies made no money:)
@@mikearchibald744True, but the estate is worth half a billion dollars, so I think he might consider it successful. On, the other hand, he did regret selling off the rights to Lord of the Rings in 1968, so who really knows.
@@ejd53 well, it was said the only reason he sold it was for tax money, and that part of the reason he sold it was expecting that it NEVER would be made as a movie.
In fact its possible that the way he describes the balrog is an example of him writing something that COULDN"T be made in to a movie. You read his description of it and really cant make heads or tails of what it looked like. A flaming tail?
@@mikearchibald744 I believe you are correct about the taxes. As far as I know, he did indeed sell the rights because of tax problems.
I think your comment on the Balrog description is an interesting idea, but I'm fairly certain that he wasn't really thinking about movie adaptations in the 1940's when it was written. There is also the fact that his concept of what a Balrog was and it's description evolved over the years. For example they were originally not Maiar and there were at least a thousand of them in his first stories. This changed into them being Maiar and, as their power increased, their numbers were reduced to the point of "at most seven" ever existing (although Tolkien did talk about Morgoth having a "host" of Balrogs in 1958). Thus, It may not be a conscious act on his part, but his changing conception of them that relates to the ambiguity of their descriptions.
@@ejd53Well, that just popped into my head as I was writing, so I certainly wouldn't try arguing to make the point:) You could also argue the opposite that he's SO descriptive of the environment that he was consciously thinking about what it could look like on screen. Keep in mind that while movies were 'new', they were HUGE. When he was growing up (I think) were the first movie houses. He kind of intentionally DOESN"T describe the physical appearance of characters, except that they are 'tall and blonde' or 'short', etc.
So as long as he's short and fat with a beard and yellow boots ANYBODY could play Bombadil, whereas new novelists will often have actors in mind as they descriptively write them out.
Either way it doesn't matter that much, the balrogs are no doubt 'mental creations' of Morgoth, which is partly why like Sauron his own physical power decreases as his 'army' increases (to the point where a singing chick can put him to sleep and steal a silmaril).
Fearon fought about seven of them didn't it say, and finally lost to seven of them. Glorfindel beat one, but oddly enough while elves seem to have LOST power, the Balrogs seem to have kept the same level of power. Glordindel was an elf, as is Legolas, but the notion in the LOTR is that Legolas wouldn't have a chance in hell of beating him.
So that 'fading power' is an interesting notion, there seems FEWER balrogs, and yet they are still strong enough to kill Gandalf, a 'sort of' Maier, but at least at THAT point not one with that much strength. Setting a spell seems to have worn him out.
But they seem to have disappeared rather quickly, wasn't there only one at the siege of Gondolin? But there is something of the notion that maybe at the end of the first age when the gods 'cleaned house' they got most of them.
I first read the books in the 70s and was disappointed in all the various adaptations over the years. When Jackson's films were in production I followed all the news out of New Zealand with cautious optimism. When they finally came out I was overjoyed and it rekindled my appreciation of the books. Since then I watch the movies and reread all the books every year. I forgive and ignore the changes in the films, knowing the truth is in the words.
As for the good professor, he might have appreciated the care, dedication, and love that went into creating the sets, costumes, weapons. And the music. Maybe.
He probably would have loved Viggo Mortensen adopting the horse he road.
Wow, it's great to hear my thoughts stated so well! I, too, was an (early) 70's kid who found them probably before I was old enough to really read them, except the hobbit. Thanks!
He would have liked the movies as an adaptation but Rings of Power he would have punched out the showrunners or worse!
The lazy, received opinion. How could he have reacted so to a work that is legally forbidden to replicate anything beyond a few pages...
@@kvaltone that is irrelevant, its still his characters, his world that were totally bastardised and the worst of all they added modern politics and allegory to his works. The things he he hated the most. What an absolutely tone deaf comment. Shame on you.
I think Tolkien would have appreciated some very subtle things (knowing when to remind the audience that the Hobbits are quite small) but more obviously I think he would have appreciated how much of the original writing was used in the script and that the languages he created were spoken but not only spoken, sometimes with or without translation, like the books.
Tolkien watches the LOTR movies:
"I didn't like them"
Then watches The Hobbit
"Well, actually the LOTR adaptation was not so bad"
Watches Rings of Power
"Actually, LOTR movies were a masterpiece"
He would weep to see how RoP perverted the moral philosophy of his work. Bad writing can be forgiven; but not just rejecting the philosophy that underpinned the entire Legendarium, but replacing it with the exact opposite? Essentially turning his life's work into something that would be considered evil in his Ea?
He and Christopher are rolling in their graves.
@@tom.m stop complaining. It makes perfect sense 9 thousand year old Galadriel acts like an immature and arrogant teenager who lies and contradicts herself.
Feanor would be proud of Galadriels blind search for vengeance.
I kinda liked RoP. And I had a lot of fun with the hobbit movies. Not Masterpieces but a good excuse to spend more time in a version of middle earth.
@@tom.m I think there's some aspects of RoP that feels more in tune with Tolkien vision than other adaptations, obviously it is ridiculous in so many ways and has all the issues you could have against the movies and then some but the depiction of Elves and Dwarves rivalry that would not devolve into war due to individual strong friendships feels kind of right and the scenes focusing on the forging of the rings (I call it craftporn) may please him way more than any battle scene from the other adaptations.
I actually liked the idea of an arrogant, and rebellious youth Galadriel. But the writing was bad; the social wokeness and propaganda was so gross, and the hubris of the cast was just too much
I have this conversation with my girlfriend quite often. My answer, to put it shortly, is no; however sometimes while watching a bit, we pause and say: "He'd like this song", or "this piece of music" or a specific story beat.
That is a good point. He'd definitely love the look of the shire and of minas tirith.
I think he would absolutely love howard shore's orchestration. I can definitely see him in the audiance looking proudly. His world genesis is centered on music and he would appreciate the complexity and reverence that Howard Shore demonstrated when composing the soundtrack for The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
@@callnight1441I disagree. He probably ask where Minas Tirith got all its food from and why it’s perpetually summer in the Shire.
@@ryancruz1876
What is Aragorn's tax policy, hmm?
I think Tolkien would love moria and the ending to fellowship.
I think Tolkien would have been particularly unhappy with some of the character distortions (e.g. Faramir), power-dynamic alterations (e.g. Gandalf vs the Witch King), invincible hero cliches (e.g. Aragorn vs hordes of Uruk Hai, or Legolas), and deus ex machina moments (e.g. the dead at Minas Tirith). But hopefully the score, and the scenery, would have helped cool his ire!
Why do people constantly say he would like the scenery? The parts of Middle earth presented in the books were mostly inspired Northern Europe and more broadly Europe generally. Not New Zealand. Completely different character
Yeah i would actually think Tolkien would quite dislike the scenary, Middle Earth nature was always "Northern European" in his mind, and i don't think he would have liked a New Zealand Middle Earth
@@TA-yw7ce
Because he would have liked the scenery... that's why people constantly say it.
But more specifically, listen to what was said in this video. A major concern for Tolkien is that a fantasy world is a real and believable reality outside our own. If you watch the movie, and you see the sweeping vistas, and the amazing cinematography, the incredible detail put into the wardrobes of the various cultures, the detail and quality of the towns and cities, the effort put into special effects of the non-human peoples... Middle Earth *feels* real. You can be immersed into the world, and your suspension of disbelief can easily be fooled into thinking "this was filmed *in* a world different than our own".
Tolkien _might_ be bothered that this second world wasn't quite Middle Earth... and he would definitely think that the "actors from this alternate world didn't portray Faramir's character properly"....
But he would be impressed how the movie addressed his concern with "drama".
The movie would address his requirement that you could "believe that the secondary world was real"
I agree that Tolkien would have been unhappy with what was done to many of the characters. As well as Faramir being turned into almost a different character, many were turned into caricatures rather than characters (Denethor, Theoden, Gimli, Elrond). Considering what Tolkien said about needing to be able to get to the heart of what a story was about when adapting it, I really think the way so many characters were treated would have upset him. For the same reason, I don't think Tolkien would have liked the extra bits that Peter Jackson drew in from other stories.
With a long enough exposure to movies as an art form, Tolkien may have come to appreciate that Peter Jackson made a great movie trilogy, but I don't think he would have thought that it was a good adaptation of his story.
@@davidsinclair1288 I don't expect the author of Beowulf would have been too happy if he saw how much Tolkien nicked off him.
I think you're probably right. Tolkien was an English professor who lived in the early to mid-20th Century. Big, loud action adventure movies would probably not have been his thing (his son Christopher certainly didn't care for them). If anything, Tolkien might have appreciated the visuals of the movies - the beautiful New Zealand landscapes and the special effects which had come so much further than in his day. These might have added the extra layer of suspension of disbelief that Tolkien felt was needed for fantasy in a visual medium. He likely would have hated the violent action sequences and changes to plot and characters though.
I wonder how many critics of Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's novel have ever read The Iliad, and the shocking levels of violence in that first of all Western epics. Tolkien was very aware of the variety of artistic expression over the ages of Western fiction in all mediums--prose, stage, dance, etc. I think he was learned enough to know that, by 1999, artistic expressions would differ once again from his own era.
What does the Iliad have to do with anything? He was not the professor of the classics or ancient greek. At least pick examples from Anglo-Saxon and related fields. The whole point is illogical. Are you referring to Iliad the movie he saw during his lifetime, that had violence just to look cool or what is the point?
I wonder if you’ve actually studied or done a deep reading of the Iliad, since you’d know there are actually self-reflective moments in the story such as Hector’s last moments with his family, which highlight the sadness of war and the victims of war, humanising those involved.
Regardless of that, your point is completely irrelevant.
@@kvaltone he nicked a lot of stuff from Beowulf.
The violent scenes really lend to the severity of the situation though. It puts it into perspective the scale of the danger our heroes are in.
I've thought about this topic A LOT. Some of the changes Peter Jackson made in his adaptations still don't sit right with me even after almost 20 years (the two most notable being the radical changing of Faramir's character and the omitting of the Scouring of the Shire). And yet, I still absolutely love the movies - for these three reasons: 1) PJ's love and respect for Tolkien's story and vision come out in every frame of the movies - as a viewer you really do feel as if you are stepping into Middle-earth and that is a thrill that I've experienced with no other film adaptation; 2) the casting of the movies is absolutely perfect: just before the movies came out, I, as a Tolkien geek, had strong reservations about how faithful PJ's adaption was going to be; but when I went to see the Fellowship, I was absolutely blown away: the cast looked EXACTLY as I had imagined them in my mind when I first read the books many years before (this is particularly true of Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn and Ian McKellen's Gandalf); this is again something that I rarely experience in other film adaptations; 3) and perhaps most importantly, Peter Jackson's LOTR moves zeroed in with almost uncanny precision on the heart of the story (something that cannot be said of his Hobbit movies) - by focusing on the power of the Ring, PJ was able to give his LOTR movies a unity and cohesion that renders many of the other questionable changes forgivable. That is why I and my family now have the tradition of re-watching the LOTR movies every year during the week between Christmas and New Year's!
100% agreed with all you said.
I don't think there is a respect for Tolkein, given Faramir was in a way his self insert and a deeply personal representation of the man's thoughts on war given his experiences there and ptsd.
To be fair, you liking the cast does not make it objectively perfect
I do believe that Tolkien would have had qualms with certain changes and moments, and with things like the way the opening half of Fellowship was turned into a high-octane chase sequence or with other such adaptational changes, but I don't believe he would have been even as critical of the thing as a whole as his son Christopher was-Christopher's comments being somewhat motivated by the elevated memory of a deceased loved one and the resulting protectiveness of that, compounded by feelings relating to how the movie rights were acquired. Being a writer myself, though, I have a feeling that seeing his creations brought to life in such a cinematically revolutionary way (the films far out-did any fantasy fiction in a visual medium that had been done to that point) would have delighted Tolkien even as some portions discomforted him; and where the story would have disappointed him in certain places, I think the craft of the production itself would have impressed him. I would have loved to hear Tolkien's thoughts on the music and art design, in particular. A lot of people do seem to forget that Tolkien also did some drawing, though he under-sold his own talent for it.
One thing that I think is worth bringing up here is that people place far too much importance on "he would have liked them" and "he would have hated them," even though Tolkien was a man who was very capable of having a mixed opinion on a larger thing, and of articulating what about the larger thing he liked and disliked. Tolkien is about as far removed as one can be from the kind of "THIS MOVIE IS TRASH" kneejerk social media screaming that permeates much of mainstream pop-culture "analysis." He wouldn't sum up his thoughts in a two-hundred-word headline or Tweet; he would write a goddamn essay, and by the end of it the reader would probably have to stop, scratch their head, and go back for a re-read before they could even figure out whether he said more positive things about the films than negative things.
I do think he and Christopher would have agreed that trilogy was far too much of an action-adventure affair, but I also think some people overestimate his dislike of action (Tolkien would describe some good action sequences here and there, he just wouldn't lean into them the way modern fantasy-action writing does). I also think his comments about the limitations of "drama" versus the written word for fantasy storytelling need to be interpreted firmly within the production limitations of his time, which would have required much more suspension of disbelief than the Peter Jackson movies do.
But then, had Tolkien been alive for those films, I don't believe he would have refused to meet Peter Jackson, and while we're talking about what-ifs, I don't think Peter Jackson would have ignored or sidelined his concerns about specific story choices, either. There might have been some things that turned out infeasible to implement, but he would have been listened to, and I think that would have colored both the final product (it probably would have come out feeling quite different overall) and his opinions of it afterward.
Very well-written and presented, indeed.
This is a problem I have with this take, it is too binary, and too indiferent to changes in the medium over time. All his letters really tell me he is that he likely wouldn't be as crazy about it as some fans were/are. But that doesn't imply disliking the movies altogether, a 5.1/10 review is still liking, just not a lot.
One thing I come back to is the Scouring of the Shire. Tolkien likely would have HATED it's exclusion. But by the same metric I think he would have liked the scene where Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin were in the Green Dragon. I think as a WW1 vet he could appreciate the melancholy of veterans returning from war to not feel like they fit in anymore. Like you said, he'd hate some things, love others, be ambivalent about some and mixed on others. Hell, I think the scene where Theoden says "no parent should bury their child" he'd both like the sentiment but be annoyed at the language used as he likely would have preferred him to say "No father should bury his son."
@@MUSICLOVER23429 I think the Scouring of the Shire arc was essential to him, it is the moment where coming back from their adventures the hobbits become masters of their own world it is very significant and I really miss it in the movie as they are personnally.
Great take! And wholeheartedly agree. I’m no disparager of the PJ films and am glad they exist. I do think there things that could’ve been done better (mainly in Two Towers).
It’s also interesting that PJ and the crew would’ve had access to Tolkien’s Letter 210 breakdown of Zimmerman’s treatment yet still went forward in making choices and decisions Tolkien explicitly disliked and rejected (Nazgûl screaming, leaving Bree at night, etc…). Curious to hear or read if PJ ever addresses that letter specifically and why he decided to include them.
I don't think we can boil this down to a simple "yes" or "no." Tolkien was famous for his nuanced assessments of things. He might well like certain aspects of the film - like the opening with Bilbo reading from his book concerning Hobbits - or some of the portrayals of the Rohirrim. But of course he'd probably be shocked and horrified by some of the graphic violence, not to mention Jackson's occasionally brutal character-arc building (Frodo kicking Sam out of the quest, a-HEM!). But the thing we must remember is that Tolkien wrote his book for all time, and it remains because its lessons and perspectives continue to shape our time and culture. Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, on the other hand, is a reflection of our time as it is today - which Tolkien would find difficult to comprehend or appreciate. But that doesn't make the film trilogy bad - any more so than Maeterlinck's inability to comprehend Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande would have made it a bad opera. Sometimes the content moves beyond the author.
And Tolkien was well aware that stories grow in the retelling and move beyond their origins. That is a feature of all mythology and shows how successful he was in creating a new English mythology in the Lord of the Rings.
Excellent point, especially in light of the fact that your last reference went completely over my head, and yet I still agree with you 😂
He would have been in a froth over Denethor's death. Of all the characters, he got dealt the dirtiest by the films, in my opinion, and he did not deserve that clownish nonsense when the death scene in the book was not only simpler, but grand and memorable. (Positively Shakespearean, one might say if Tolkien didn't dislike Shakespeare so much.)
@@Serai3 Tolkien's personality clearly wasn't one to ever get "in a froth", and he showed his displeasure, as was his wont, through his use of words, not personally displayed emotions. I remember reading the books containing so many of his letters to fans, as well as his reactions to some of the seedier screenplays he rejected. He could use his words viscerally and as incisive as Legolas' long knife, but he was an English gentleman, not a vulgarian who loved to display his feelings in public.
@@rikk319 Sure, because anyone who knows how to write well cannot POSSIBLY ever get mad over what might be done with what he writes. Could you be a little more clueless? They can't hear you up in the cheap seats.
I think part of humanity's wonder at storytelling is what even an attempt to be as accurate as possible to an adaptation ultimately becomes an interpretation by the creative minds behind it. Some capture the essences better than others but it's probably why Tolkien is among those who spearheaded modern fantasy, because he like many others opened the road for continuous interpretation. Having heard his comments on secondary creation were particularly heartwarming.
I hard a musician talk about the meaning of their music once and they said that the intended meaning doesn’t matter for multiple people the same song can mean many different things. A song that makes you think of your partner, a song that reminds you of when you were younger, a song that helps you though loss, a song that makes you think of your favorite vacation spot. When an artist puts their work out into the world that art now belongs to the people that interact with it. Lord of the rings is something that means something to each of us and we all interact with the franchise in different ways and in different levels. The original artists intent is only important to a certain extent. It’s really up to us to determine what these stories mean to us.
Yes. This is precisely what Tolkien said in explaining his distaste for allegory.
JRRT would’ve definitely loved Legolas skateboarding with a shield down the steps. 😂
Or killing the mumakil / oliphaunt
or Gimli talking about Uruk-Hai nervous systems
"Rad" - Tolkien
Noooo
Yeah that was a little too far even for me.
I remember reading some notes Tolkien made on a proposed Lord of the Rings script from the late 50s that was never made, ( though I could never find the website again) and he seemed very upset that the Weathertop sequence was apparently to much of an action scene, so yeah he probably would hate the movies that we eventually got.
I'm currently rereading the books, and i am quite astonished how little action there is, given the amount of battles and conflicts taking place
The Lord of the Rings films are arguably the best fantasy movies ever made. I went into the films only having heard of the existence of Tolkiens work, so I really enjoyed the films with all of my heart. Knowing what I know now it is true that the films Are pretty severe distillation of the source material, but I think they did a reasonably good job of capturing the heart and themes that Tolkien was going for, that, and the quality of production, the quality of acting is objectively only true honor and respect to Tolkien, and his works.
They're arguably the best films ever made. Regularly feature very near or at the top of many polls and such.
"Best fantasy movie" though is a bit like bringing a limbo pole to a high jump contest! Sadly, too many of them cling to Tolkien's tropes without the greater depth.
The number one thing that struck me wrongly about the movie was the appearance of the Hobbits. They didn't look at all like Hobbits as I imagined them from Tolkien's writings.
I appreciate your perspective on his stories through our culture through time. My hippy parents raised me on the books and I discovered D&D and the Rankin & Bass The Hobbit on TV, I loved it. I also couldn't wait for the Bashki's Lord of The Rings and wanted it completed. While gaming, our crew did sing, "Where there's a whip, there's a way." Naturally, I loved the Jackson films, even the Hobbit trilogy, if I think of it as a child's amusement park ride. It will only continue.
HI Jess, you have a similar grasp of the stories - as I did long ago. I think it's wonderful! First read the books (all 4 major works) as a teen - in 1974! Living in the Santa Cruz mountains, I made believe part of the story could have been made there. Peter Jackson has opened doors to so many to read the books, that never would have otherwise. And, I still believe in the little folk... Thanks so much!
1:30 "...and unfortunately it is considered lost media and I want very very badly to find it."
Hahaha, of course you do! 🤣
In all fairness though, I think JRR Tolkien would have appreciated Peter Jackson's version of a Balrog. It is such a beautiful monster design in the movie and so much better than I personally had imagined in the books before I saw the movies. I think it was also beyond JRR Tolkien's imagination and I think it would have blown his mind, when he would have seen it on screen.
This is the scene that immediately comes to mind for me as well.
@@stardusth2o it is so iconic, isn't it? In the LotR books I imagined some large orc wizard with leathery wings, but Peter Jackson turned King Kong into a dark demon with shadow wings & fiery furnace within and called that beast a Balrog. My jaw was on the theatre floor, when I saw that behemoth for the first time, hahaha. 😄
...even though they give it WINGS?!
Except the balrog doesnt have wings in the books...
your channel is a revelation, as a long term LOTR/Tolkien fan. i love to see a well thought out and passionate analysis of these topics from someone who learned about Tolkien in a different way than I did. 🙏
I *_love_* the movies, but I do like the books more. I also have in the past been drawn into arguing against the notion that Peter Jackson made no changes to the story and characters other than changes that were strictly "necessary" to adapt them to the screen. I think that is demonstrably false. Some of what Jackson did were improvements though, like Theoden's mourning at Theodred's funeral and the "My friends, you bow to no one" scene (which is sort of adapted from the Fields of Cormallen, where "Praise the [two, Frodo and Sam] halflings," and "Praise them with great praise" was said a couple times). On a few other things, I was not as much of a fan (like the ambursh on the way to Helm's Deep and Aragorn's falling off a cliff).
The "you bow to no one" is exaggerated and ridiculous. In the books the elevation and praise is woven into the protocol and traditions, liie Frodo carrying the crown, Merry and Pippin at Rath Dínen. Utterly ridiculous everyone would suddenly bow at them. Might as well let them pass around the crown at the same time. It also takes away from the importance of the restoration of Gondor.
@@kvaltone I wouldn't gainsay your opinion, and it certainly is out of keeping with what would be realistic in a medieval setting that Middle Earth otherwise mirrors, but I found it touching.
Now for undermining of moments...turning the Army of the Dead into unstoppable killing machines and putting them into the Battle of Pelennor Fields undermined the effort and sacrifices of the Rohirrim, who rode for days and lost many lives only to basically delay Sauron's army for about 20 minutes. Then the unstoppable Army of the Dead arrived and killed every enemy. I suppose the Rohirrim delivered Eowyn and Merry to where they needed to be...but they wasn't the reason Rohan anseered the call.
@@kvaltone
You are quite pathetic, aren't ya?
Having Gollum and Sméagol arguing with each other - and neither being a 'good' side - was a wonderful novelty. It holds up too!
I wrote to the Tolkien estate some years back, thanking them, and Particularly Christopher for their hard work in preserving and publishing Tolkien's original work. I haven't yet, but have thought about, writing again now that Christopher has passed to than them again, but also include the idea that "Mythology " lives on and tends to grow newer, more popular versions. I'm sad that we don't have the earliest versions of Greek Myths. Wish they were preserved. But I'm also fascinated at how they've changed and grown over the ages
I read LOTR in my youth in the 1970s. I really enjoyed it. I saw the cartoon adaptation that came out in the late 70s, and was happy that the second film never made it to the screen! Peter Jackson's movies are, as you say Jess, a 'pretty good adaptation'. Certainly, as film adaptations of books go, it's really good. And I think that is mainly because of the deep knowledge and respect for the books that Jackson had. Where he took the plot away from the books, it still worked well enough for me to not get too grumpy. The books and the films both work well.
It's an uncommon opinion, but I see Bakshi's as closer to the book and the better adaptation. Borimir immediately accepts Aragorn as Isildur's heir, Elrond doesn't moan about the worthlessness of men, Gimli is not a clown, etc. All versions make changes, it just comes down to what bothers us more.
@@vedrengrabelox3231 As much as I have a soft spot for Bakshi's attempt, what he did to Sam was way worse than what Jackson did to Gimli.
@@vedrengrabelox3231 It is closer to the book... sometimes word for word, rather than the schlock that Jackson put on screen... look at the Moria sequence as a prime example... the animated film actually creates tension and foreboding, while Jackson just has insane amounts of orcs crawling everywhere... honestly, it's stupid.
Deep knowledge and respect... based on what? PJ clearly either did not know, understand or care about central aspects.. The ring, Frodo, Aragorj, Faramir, Elves, Gimli.. need I go on?
1:40 i think my grandfather has an old radio version of lotr from around that time on a record. But i might be wrong and its just the brian sibley version from the 80s
Now I can’t help but picture Tolkien watching a performance of A Midsummer’s Night Dream and being utterly unimpressed whenever the fairies show up.
I'm not worried about who likes it and who doesn't. What I don't like are those elitists of the films who call them the "definitive Tolkien experience." I fire back on them and tell them that Tolkien would NOT have liked them, and thus, they cannot BE the "definitive Tolkien experience." Especially because that is what the books are. As for why I think he wouldn't have liked the films? I think he would have liked some parts of them. He would probably have seen some elements and smiled and said, "This was very well done, I liked this. It's not as good as I could have imagined, but it's better than I thought it would be in film."
What I think would have made him dislike the films is the... extreme abundance of character assassination. Turning Gimli into comic relief. Making Merry and Pippin a couple of dimwitted delinquents. Making Theoden a petty coward. Leading people to think that Denethor, even in his addled state, would EVER forsake Rohan, or think that Theoden had betrayed him. Making people think Frodo is so affected by the Ring that he would EVER turn on Samwise like he does in the film. Or that Sam would EVER abandon Frodo. This isn't even everything. A lot of the personality changes were ENTIRELY unnecessary. The Battle for Helm's Deep did not need to be half of the second film, but it was. I'm sure Tolkien would have thought that was an excessive amount of time spent on that, when it could have been over in 10-20 minutes.
So, I think there's a LOT that he would not have enjoyed. I think he would have made it known too. So, when I see people talking about how PERFECT the movies are, I think they have no idea what's actually in the books. The average person neither needs to know, nor cares, if Tolkien would have liked the films. They just either enjoyed them, or they didn't. But you've got to watch out for those elitist jerks who want to pretend the books never existed, and that the only thing that should be enjoyed are Jackson's films.
I was thinking about this, just the other day.
I'm sure he'd loathe many parts, like others, but in general be more indifferent than many people might expect.
I don't think he'd feel the need to actually see his works "brought to life" on the screen, in the way people these days have become conditioned to do.
For him, the true form of his work was that which exists in the mind and the imagination.
However, I do think that he'd like to see many of the reactions here on TH-cam.
Many of them end with the reactors in tears, visibly moved in a deep and profound way.
I think it would warm his heart to know that, even in this day and age, mythology still has the power to touch the core of what makes us human, and that his own created mythology stood as equal to any of the "real" myths.
In short, that he'd succeeded in his goal.
He literally couldn’t stand early Disney films and you think he’d like modern Hollywood blockbusters ?
@@TA-yw7ce Is that really what you think I wrote?
@@TA-yw7ce
Alt-account.
as someone, who worked in an archive of a German public broadcasting firm (NDR - northgerman broadcast), it is pretty likely, that there are some tapes left in some stinky cellar, that one day a student like me has to carry out and sift through. Or maybe we will have a story similar to the restauration of Metropolis and suddenly discover the radio version on the other side of the planet. Maybe in Indonesia or India or something like that.
The Scouring of the Shire is probably the biggest hurdle to adapting the story to the screen in a way that Tolkien would have approved of. I believe Tolkien said that was the most important part of the story, and it is obviously omitted from the movie. Its personally my favorite part of the books - something about Bill Ferny trying to arrest the hobbits and they're just like "no" really tickles me. Despite liking that part of the book, I also see that its really hard to put into a movie. In the form of a movie, that whole episode would feel anticlimactic after everything else that happens.
My favorite chapter. But Tolkien would have hated the destruction of Faramir.
@@JoshuaLivie Yeah. I can live with the scouring and Tom Bombadil being omitted, and the dozens of other small changes to tighten things up for a movie.
That's the one thing where I have to say "no Peter, you did bad and you should feel bad." That change doesn't tighten up the script, but it does completely undermine a key character.
I think you’re spot on in your conclusion that stories change, grow and adapt with culture and those who retell them.
No the culture has deteriorated to the point here Hollywood was happy with the ridiculous Hobbit trilogy. Culture has not grown, it has morphed into a pornographic loving shell of its former self.
What I think Tolkien would hate:
- Gimli being a comic relief in the movies;
- Tom Bombadil's absence;
- The entire runaway from the Shire being resumed to some 30 minutes;
- Saruman being a lot more present in the movies;
- The Balrog having wings.
Balrog wings, are sweet.
and faramir...
Some of the art design by weta workshop is quite breathtaking. I'd like to think Tolkien would have been impressed by some of Alan Lee's depiction of beauty. Arwen and Aragorn on the bridge in Rivendell for example with the Flake music in the background.
Maybe, although there is a big difference between stage practical effects and the CGI of Gollum. Nevertheless, I think there are several reasons Tolkien would not like the films, largely because they do many of the same things Zimmerman did. For example:
"He has cut the parts of the story upon which its characteristic and peculiar tone principally depends, showing a preference for fights; and he has made no serious attempt to represent the heart of the tale adequately." It's hard to say Peter Jackson did not do this also.
"Gandalf, please, should not 'splutter'. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity." If Tolkien did not like this, I doubt he would like Gandalf beating up Denethor with a stick, for example. He also probably would be unhappy with Ian McKellen impersonating himself in his dialogue (no offense to Tolkien).
"The disappearance of the temptation of Galadriel is significant. Practically everything having moral import has vanished from the synopsis." This is also true for the most part with Peter Jackson-not to mention many other moral lines, such as Aragorn's words to Éomer. Most of the theme of mercy was sacrificed for cheap angst, and Aragorn randomly commits a serious war-crime when it is quite clear he will not in the book.
I think overall he focuses most largely on characterization, theme, and tone. As a result, if anyone acted out of character in any way, I think Tolkien would point it out. And that is pretty much every major character in The Lord of the Rings, together with Peter Jackson apparently mistaking Frodo's "kindness for blindness" and making him extremely gullible, Sam actually agreeing to go home on that account somehow, Pippin and Merry being thieves, Legolas being stone-faced serious, Gimli being an utter joke, Aragorn being filled with self-doubt, Gollum being a master manipulator, Théoden not wanting to help Gondor (his own mother's people), Treebeard being unconcerned with the world, Denethor being a cartoon villain, and Faramir being the opposite of everything the character is and stands for in The Two Towers. I have the feeling some people will disagree with that assessment, but I hope you know what I mean, and judging from the Zimmerman script, I think that is what Tolkien would say, among other things.
He would also be opposed to anything that felt "silly" that was not in line with the book. For example, everything about Gimli and much of Treebeard, to name a few examples. Also, I am not sure he would like certain stunts of Legolas if he feels too much like a superhero, but I am not so sure about that so I will not speak on it.
With this in mind, personally I think he might not mind the 1978 film.
Great vid topic Jess. Like you I was introduced to Tolkien through the Jackson trilogy. In fact I was taken to Fellowship opening week for my 15th birthday. When I got back to school after break I immediately signed Fellowship out of the school library
I just subbed today because I saw you on Today's Tolkien Times with Alan Sisto!
I think a lot of fans conflate their own opinion of the films with what they think Tolkien's opinion would have been. I think the closest we'll get to what Tolkien would have thought is what his own son thought. And we all know what Chris Tolkien thought of them...
My personal opinion of the films is that the parts closest to the books were very, very good. The parts where they made up their own stuff...were not so good.
That is fair. Christopher's criticisms do, in my mind, seem rather reminiscent of Tolkien's letter in the Zimmerman script.
00:32 I don't know what reasons you have yet and am very curious but, my reason is simple - Tolkien has added to my life and I'd want him to be happy in general. 🙂❤🧡💛💚💙💜 Love your stuff, Jess.
I wonder would Fëanor dislike the Phial of Galadriel as an imperfect imitation of his Silmaril. Like "Yeah, you captured the light, but you're totally missing all of my soul I poured into the shape of the gem and the intricate beauties of the light you can only see up close."
Fëanor would swear a oath to destroy the phial of Galadriel because it's a imitation of a Simaril. And his sons would be all for it.
@@c.antoniojohnson7114 Tears. Unnumbered.
If it's not all about him and his family, then it's not worth his attention
Most comments: "I think Tolkien would have appreciated this bit from the films that I happen to like very much."
Yeah, fat chance.
If the man didn't even care fore Shakespeare, Jackson's movies have no chance.
Its hard to distance myself from the experience of seeing these movies in theaters as a high school student who just finished reading them for the first time. But I think you are right. The media are just too different for a film to capture Tolkien fully. Yet, Jackson did do things that advance some points in the different media, and some (lack of the scouring of the shire) which did not in my opinion. Faramir has pretty little screen time before showing to let Frodo go, building the weight of the choice Tolkien communicates succinctly in the Two Towers. The change in media demands some changes in the story to tell it well... But there it is... It has to change it, and even with the best of intentions, reconstructing something is never going to be perfect and will lose part of what made it so special. Anyways, great video, and I look forward to the next!
Besides the obvious over the top action scenes like Legolas surfing on a shield, or Gimli being used as comic relief, I suspect he might not have liked the overt sentimentality that many viewers enjoy. And I think I can say pretty confidently that the quality of at least some of the added dialogue would not have been met with approval. Now, as for the Hobbit - I think he just would have walked out of that one!
Best Frodo: the 1978 movie.
Best Gandalf: the 2001 movies.
Best Aragorn: 1978
Best Sam: 2001
Best Galadriel: 1978
Best Saruman: 2001
Best Balrog: 2001
Best battle at Helm Deep: 1978
Each movie/movies has its strengths and weaknesses. I do not know which parts of which movies Tolkien would like.
Best Bilbo: the 1977 movie
Radio plays were good too.
I completely agree, but I might add:
Best Pippin:1978
Best Merry: 1978
Best Elrond: 1977
Best Thorin: 1977
Best Bombur: 1977
Best Bilbo: 1977
Best Thrush: 1977
Best Denethor: 1980
Best Gollum: 2002
That said, I think Tolkien's favorite film, were I to guess, would be the Bakshi one.
As long as you don't say best Sam 1978 lol.
Bakshi's Aragorn seemed somewhat lacking but then so did Jacksons, nobody has really ever gotten Aragorn right, though I think Viggo really gave it his best effort.
I used to work at mediaplay. In 2003, when we had a cardboard book display with movie based covers of the LotR books, featureing a standee of ian mckellen as Gandalf the grey, well, lets just say at the end of the promotion the wandering wizard took up residence at my house and hes still there. I didn't save the empty book containers, but Gandalf, such as he is, is on my wall. Life sized. Only missing the lower right quarter, due to they were never there in the first place because thats where the books were.
When one reads LOTR, the world is imagined in the mind (medium hot), When one just sees the movie LOTR then the imagination lies dormant as you are fed what the world looks like (medium cool). I have read the book LOTR 22 times so far in my life and watched (extended edition) innumerable times. But it gets worse for me as I have also toured most of the outdoor locations for the LOTR movie in News Zealand, and even climbed Mt. Sunday or Edoras as it is known. Now when I read the book, not only do I imagine that world, I REMEMBER it as if I was there back in the 3rd age. I once had to listen to a die hard LOTR fan complain about the movie because it cut a lot of the book out. I pointed out that if it had been exactly true to the book that you would have a 30 hour long movie that would have bored it's audience to tears. 'Nuf said. Great video Jess, yet agin!
Well that’s retarded. Since middle earth was never inspired by New Zealand at all. New Zealand’s terrain is striking and nothing like Europe, particularly Northern Europe, which actually inspired Tolkien’s vision of middle earth
That's what a lot of book fans seem to forget. A direct 1:1 adaptation would take a week to watch and would be boring beyond words. Lengthy static dialogue scenes work amazingly well in books, but just drag out in films. Imagine a 2 hour council of Elrond. Everyone would hate it, as amazing at it is in the source material.
I absolutely love what you said about the stories “living in us!” This is it precisely!
There is a young Tolkien scholar who said something very similar to your words…he described Middle Earth and all its stories like “The River Anduin.” It’s a part of us and flows through us and doesn’t go away just because someone decides to adapt something. He used a metaphor of Jackson putting a stone or moving a stone in the river and then also mentioned ROP. But the point was the River exists and is a part of us forever. The movies brought me back to the books and since I grew up hearing Tolkien poetry quotes in my house it was such a lovely experience to share seeing the movies with my family. I would argue that Tolkien might come to face his own words “Even the wisest cannot see all ends.”
My feeling is that he set an impossible task in his imagination for how his stories should be developed. I don’t doubt he might want a word by word by scene because everything ties into a bigger picture. I’m not sure he would have liked any adaptation.
I have no animosity against Christopher Tolkien and I appreciate all the effort he put into bringing out more of his father’s writings. But I disagree with his take on the film. I understand he grew up with these stories as a tiny boy and so knows his father’s heart on the matter.
However, I felt there was beauty within these movies (yes I had quibbles) but it felt so easy to dream in the landscape of middle earth! I know what you meant in another video about the feeling of deep emotions for sure! And then of course I was adding back what was missing in the movies in my imagination. But speaking of landscape, that might be another element Tolkien would have been stubborn about. New Zealand is not England and he would take issue I think. Even though I felt it worked beautifully with the movies. Yet, Christopher perhaps felt that the movies were “too big,” even with the landscape. I understand Tolkien wanting to work on those deep personal and mythic themes and yet his work in our imaginations does something very much like those NZ vistas, whether Tolkien intended that or not. But how can it not? Especially when Tolkien is talking about secondary worlds and songs of the Ainur in his writings?
After all his spoken dislike of allegory and applicability, I remember he suggested that applicability gives us as readers more freedom. What I really love about Tolkien is how he almost contradicts himself. You have probably seen one of those black and white interviews, where in one instance, he speaks of mapping out the world and languages, very true. But also admits to the writing being a mess; that he didn’t know what he was going to write until he got there, and sometimes he had to write backwards to correct things. And there are other interviews where he speaks of the story being written through him. So definitely higher inspiration muses there! I think he was a bit like Gandalf the Gray himself! And we love that! As for things never being quite what you imagine them to be once they are on the screen…Christopher Tolkien’s comment on Legolas in the movies is quite telling. He said something apparently to the effect that his Father knew what an elf looked like and that wasn’t an elf. That might surprise some.
But it makes one wonder what did Tolkien really see in his mind?
I would have argued instead, that so much poetry and other light hearted moments were cut out of the movie for time, that not all the dimensions of the elves were shown. And they weren’t always stoic as you and others have pointed out. But now it makes one wonder…perhaps to our surprise Tolkien May have wanted all his elves to have curly raphaelite angel hair? Or be stronger in body even if lean. Maybe more Gene Kelly than Fred Astaire? Or maybe he didn’t want the pointed ears at all, though I don’t remember that being an issue in the cartoons. I think it would be fascinating to see how Tolkien would have responded to the movies. Or found something he grudgingly liked about them. I know the things he wouldn’t have liked including Sam and Frodo fighting.
But would he have secretly felt those other moments of beauty? Or would he have said it was all some magic show and not true art?
I would have been more impressed if Tolkien had watched Behind the Scenes and all the love and effort the artists put into this.
They are not merely making some contraption devices like Saruman. Would he pause long enough to appreciate that craft? My guess is deep inside something might resonate with him, but he would never admit it to us.
I also think part of the reason for his strong feelings is how much LOTR and all that work was not only part of all his knowledge and life experience and languages, mythology and his spirituality. But also was a deeply ingrained part of his psyche. And I think it really does come down to the vision in Tolkien’s imagination was so strong, that he could not imagine seeing someone else’s interpretation of that, even though he entertained the thought a few times. Ok enough, I’ve gone ent again. Laugh. I love your well thought out take on this! Thank you!
As an aging (yeah... Aging...) Tolkien fan who has changed perception and appreciation, I wish I could say that I'd read the books first, etc. I feel deprived that I did not make the decision to read them sooner, but I have a deep appreciation for the LOTR books and Silmarillion. The Hobbit to me would be ideal if re-done to suit the same audience as his LOTR , but I still enjoy the Hobbit. I got into it first with the books. Being a kid at heart, my first exposure to Tolkien (deliberately) was the movies. I was 27. I of course had heard of it, as I'd played many RPG games on computers and played a little D&D, and I knew it was inspired by Tolkien, but that's that. I didn't know the story until I decided to read the books after watching the first movie. I skipped past the poetry, and skimmed everything to get to the "good stuff". I know read everything and savor it, and love it, and find something I missed with each new reading, and I'm fine with that. My views of virtually ALL of the characters in the Tolkien Legendarium has evolved based upon my philosophy and values changing.
The parts I think Tolkien would have enjoyed the most would probably be the Shire and Bree scenes. I suspect he would have been awed to see Rivendell, but probably sad to see the council of Elrond so abbreviated. I suspect he would have liked the scene outside of Moria. Had been touched by the death of Boromir, Sam chasing Frodo on his boat.
I cannot help but think his outrage would exceed mine at the character assassination of Faramir. I believe Tolkien inserted himself into the book with Faramir, perhaps more with Frodo, but I sense him strongly in Faramir. That was an utter disgrace. He probably would have scowled at the Elves at Helm's Deep, though I enjoy their addition to the defense. I like switching Glorfindel with Arwen, and he might have taken serious issue with that. He definitely would have been apoplectic with rage at the beheading of the mouth of Sauron. It made for good cinema, but is appalling in terms of rules of parlay. You do not under any circumstances kill the herald. That is anathema.
I would like to think Tolkien would have shed a tear over the legendary Ride of the Rohirrim, and enjoyed the Ents trashing Orthanc. Sorry this went so long.
I had never heard of the books until a friend dragged me to see the first movie. I was not impressed but somehow he convinced me to see the 2nd movie and I’ve been a fan ever since. I’ve read the LOTR, Hobbit and Silmarillion. The movie’s introduced me to a world I didn’t know I needed in my life.
It's funny - I read the books almost annually for decades, so when I first saw the movies I actually had several problems with them. However, now that I've watched them more times than I could count, I've forgiven a lot of issues because I realized that Jackson was a filmmaker and that certain aspects had to be edited/changed; it's simply a different medium, and requires a different mindset. But there is one scene that, to this day, I still don't like - and that is Gandalf literally knocking out Denethor with his staff and taking control of the army. I mean I get it, with the way the movies set everything up, he had to do something; and Gandalf also takes charge in the books (along with Prince Imrahil and others), although much more subtly. But IMO, having Gandalf act so disrespectfully to the Steward is probably one thing that Tolkien would have had a major problem with.
True, but of course in the books Lord Denethor is not portrayed as cowardly arseholes, but as a man stricken with grief over the loss of both of his sons and influenced by Sauron through the Palantir.
I also didn't like the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff. The Witch King was no match for Gandalf, especially the new and improved version.
I read the books almost annually for decades as well.
I will never understand why books have to be changed for film.
It makes zero sense to me.
Take care.
Dumbing down narrative for lowest common denominators to make money
@@The1Elcil Only so much can be adapted for the sake of runtime, with books you have so much more room to stretch your legs with vivid descriptions of locations and also to develop characters. After 3 or so hours in a cinema people tend to shift around a bit.
in the book Gandalf takes charge just becouse Denethor says to soldiers that he wants to be left alone and they can listen to whoever they want - even grey wizard - or smt of that sense I remember. :) So they were able to show it that way, maybe after some dialogue between Gandalf and Denethor that Gandalf tells him that he also is a steward. I wished this dialogue was in the movie becouse its important to understand the distance of rank of Denethor and Gandalf. Denethor obviously knew it but we as audience should be told that Denethor knows who Gandalf realy is and still choses not to listen to him ! The movie has more brawl than bain :D though we can understand most of these changes into "action movie" becouse that way it is 3h 30 minutes long and not 7 h long :D And IMO Gandalf, being the steward of Valars - so being above any steward, prince and king - got this right to smack Denethor :)
“Peter Jackson eviscerated my father’s legacy” - Christopher Tolkien
Most movies and videogames today are so much focused on violence of fighting. Tolkien did not put as big focus on at as most of modern movies and games so thats why I believe Tolkien would not like it.
Well, it's why I don't like them as well, so I think you are right. The movies definitely don't stand up against Tolkien's prose.
Among the many things I disliked about the films was the extended battle scenes. Tolkien paced his battles carefully. In the first book there were skirmishes. In the second book, there was one medium-sized battle. In the third book, there was one major battle. When I saw the Battle of Helm’s Deep going on endlessly in the second film, I dreaded what would happen to the Battle of Pelennor Fields.
Tolkien would be an Undertale fan
@@ellagage1256 happy Tolkien reading day
I still haven't seen the movies (I technically saw Two Towers in theater as a very small child tag-along, but I obviously could not remember anything but my fear of Smeagel), and while it's on my future to-do list, I had the opportunity to read one of the most influencial pieces of fiction, untainted by movie visuals (except Smeagel and maybe the image of Gandalf's face), and I took that opportunity willingly two years ago. I love the vision in my head and I shall be glad to sit with it for a while longer.
Also, I told my friend that my favorite chapter is the final one where they return to the Shire and cap off the thematic character development of the hobbits. I said I was eager to see it in movie form. She, uh... frowned... and told me the truth... It dampered my enthusiasm to see the films a bit, so I don't mind taking my time before watching, but I own them, so it'll probably be a "me and the girls" movie night thing. Lol
I think Tolkien MAY have been absolutely enthralled by Jackson’s films at first. He could not have imagined the ability of modern film and computer graphics to create an alternate reality. So he would have thought them “magical” and astounding at first. But as they went on, and he became more accustomed to the technical elements, he would begin to notice the departures from his own tale and imagination and he would have become estranged to them.
The best idea presented in this video is that 3+ hour long movies should have 2 intermissions.
Would Beethoven have danced on a Walter Murphy's music? Would Mark Antony consider his speech in the play Julius Caesar good? What would Vermeer think of the photograph of a real girl with a pearl earring?
If the Tolkien from the 60's had seen Peter Jackson's trilogy, maybe he would have been amazed by the technological achievement, or maybe the modern cinematography would have seemed alien to him. If Tolkien had lived long enough to see Peter Jackson's trilogy, he would not have been the Tolkien from the 60's. His ideas and opinions would have changed, or on the contrary he would have become allergic to modern cinema.
I am not saying that as a criticism. On the contrary. It is really an interesting question, and a non-literal answer is expected (and, I would say, an educated answer like the one presented is also very interesting and intellectually satisfying.) But I still wonder... Would Beethoven have danced on disco? Mmh... With good hearing aids maybe...
As I've noted elsewhere in relation to Tolkien's thoughts on drama, it's incredible to think how much SFX moved on, even within a decade of his death. Star Wars, Jaws, Close Encounters Of the Third Kind, ET, Alien, The Thing... I can see the point he makes about having to put that effort in to suspension of disbelief in to the theatre, but I don't believe that to be true with films these days. It's so much harder to see the join than in the days of Harryhausen etc
It's purely a thought experiment, but my guess is that if an artist or composer were to travel into the future -- especially if that happened to them in their old age -- they would likely not like the style/styles that their art had evolved to. That could depend on a lot of things, though.
well youre right. and most propably no one would like an adaptation of their work. People are hard against new things, and stubborn when it's related to their vision.
This is interesting.
You’d be surprised. Igor Stravinsky of “The Rite of Spring” fame was apparently down with James Brown.
I think that would be a hell no! Christopher Tolkien saw that the Peter Jackson movies would lead to more and more fan fiction and that is one reason he hated them. He also didn't like the sensationalization of the movie adaptations. Jackson then made the fan fic Hobbit movies. This really blew up the legacy of Tolkien and led us to the Rings of Power.
I adored the Peter Jackson movies when they came out and if you asked me a month ago I would still love them. But on my most recent reread of LOTR this month I have soured on them. They do some things rigbt but I realized almost all my favorite things from the books simply don’t survive adaptation. And I’m not talking about Tom Bombadil or Ghan buri Ghan. Those cuts made perfect sense tbh.
Faramir!
I can tell you what he WOULDN'T have liked.... the goddam Amazon series ... he'd have loathed it.
Tolkien would have HATED Legolas skateboarding!!!
I think he would like how Gollum was treated. As a sad heart wrenching story about someone very far gone from his use of the ring and rejection by society finally feeling the smallest ounce of love and mercy from Frodo.
I think he’d like it for that but obviously have his own little nitpicks of his own.
But Gollum and Sméagol were unimaginably important characters for Tolkiens Christian themes and messaging which he took very seriously.
I think his biggest problem would be Peter Jackson’s characterization of Isildur and Elrond in the intro sequence. They didn’t exactly know what the ring was they knew it was immensely powerful, but it had only been in Sauron’s possession at that point. Gandalf took decades to figure out wtf it even is and was literally the wisest person in middle earth.
I love these explorations. Of course the author knew the "books were better than the movies." That's not a cliche, it's a truth. But, having first read the trilogy in the '70s, I can say the movies did an amazing job at capturing the friendship, the commitment, the essence, and...yeah... the action.
Thank you for delving beyond the "what" into the "why" Tolkien's seminal story matter. And, don't apologize for quoting the On Fairy-Stories book. I've bought a print copy solely because I want to explore Tolkien's perspective myself...anthropologically and in depth.
And, as always, Thanks!
thanks Jess, those were witty remarks and analysis... I knew the books a long time before the movies, and was so nervous and scared to see them translated, and indeed transformed, into movies. I think Peter did the best possible with it all, and deserves every single Oscar for it, that he and the whole crew got. Tolkien would in my view liked the extended version much more than the shortened cinema versions - reasons are obviously because in the extensions there's more space for the lore of the races, the more subtle notes on cultures, song and dance... these are very important to break down the action-ridden story lines of the movies. I think that the movies can't replace the books, so anyone who only knows the movies, will miss some important aspects and depths of the whole plot, but that doesn't make the movies wrong or bad - they are master pieces by themselves... I've heard many a times first watchers being desperate about reaching the end of the third one, but the good news is, there is so much to delve in deeper through the books, and further Tolkien scripts like the Silmarillion, that everyone can pursue a deeper dive afterwards... what an incredible gift, what a heritage... 💖
I started out as a reader of the books back in the 60s, when I was a child. So yes, I have head canon that no visualization can touch. Still, I approached the PJ movies with delight. I bought all of them, and watched them through with every commentary track and every "making of" feature. Practically wore them out. But I've shifted over the years since. One of my very close friends is a lover of the movies and has tried to read the books but never got past the opening chapter. I was angry with him. It forced me to examine how I would stack up books vs. movies, and I found more and more that I disliked all that PJ had to strip out-- Tom Bombadil, the poetry, the Scouring of the Shire, and how much PJ intruded-- Arwen as a girl boss, the small to immense alterations of every character, and a taste for the grotesque. PJ loves the books and kept them at hand when he and his team wrote the scripts. I know that. But I've come to resent all that he changed bc it drifted from what made the story great in the first place.
I think I was like that too. I think I originally loved the movies because they made me decide to read the books but now I kind of resent the differences.
I'm reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry who was basically not involved with the movies after the first one, and who was heavily involved with TNG at first, but eventually had to step back considerably, due to his failing health.
We know that he disagreed with some of the choices made with the movies (especially the sixth one, which premiered shortly after his death) and many people have pointed out the problems he would've had with, say, Deep Space Nine, which focuses heavily on a war in its later seasons.
And yet both Star Trek VI and Deep Space Nine are almost universally loved by Trek fans. In fact the episode "In the Pale Moonlight" seems to break all the moral rules Trek had established under Roddenberry, and yet its considered one of the series' best episodes.
Perhaps, at some point, an IP grows to the point where even the creator's approval need not be the final say, much like a child who chooses a different path in life than his parents would've liked.
We can thank the Tolkiens and Roddenberrys and George Lucases for the worlds they created, while still acknowledging that those worlds have grown bigger than what the creator would approve.
I recall my reaction to the movie Dragonslayer. My wife and I thought that the movie didn't deserve an Oscar for special effects because it was obvious that they used a real dragon! Similarly, I think that Tolkien would have at least respected the Peter Jackson movies because it looks so real. The movies are really long and there are three of them. I know that some things were changed to reduce the films to a more manageable size, and hopefully Tolkien would be impressed by what they were able to accomplish.
The only person who has really captured fantasy on screen is John Boorman with Excalibur. Fighters wearing plate armour that actually behaves like plate armour ie it’s very heavy and you could just about walk in it. Very slowly. And big iron swords are heavy, not flicked around as if they are made of wood (which of course they are as props). He also captured the mythic, mystical nature of magic and how it was connected to the Earth and its creatures. The scene where Merlin invokes the dragons breath and we see the centipede and owl shows that magic is not a conjuring trick, it’s the power of the land and it’s creatures.
This is what Tolkien portrays so brilliantly throughout his books, primarily with Gandalf and Tom Bombadil. And completely ignored by Jackson - who treats the former as an all powerful being (which devalues any tension) and excludes the latter. The rest is road journey with too many battles.
The first film was quite good because it at least captured some tension of the journey and the meeting with Strider.
The second and third not so good. Thought the Ents were done very poorly, and the sequence with Shelob not nearly as frightening as in the books - not up to Alien(s) level where it should have been (surely an inspiration for those films).
I think it actually pretty uncontroversial to say Tolkien would have disliked the movies. But I think he might have liked the landscapes, if there were anything he had liked at all.
No. He wouldn’t. People say that without even thinking. He had no though of New Zealand whatsoever when he was creating middle earth
@@TA-yw7ceNew Zealand looks fairly simular to Europe in most cases.
9:10 I have to disagree. I’m always extremely immersed into the movies. I don’t look at Orlando Bloom and think Orlando Bloom. I think of Legolas.
I think there mere fact that he would have been incapable of processing the concept of CGI makes this hard to answer. He may have felt drama was subpar and provided a lesser experience but he couldnt have possibly fathomed monsters that look straight up real crawling from his pages. He couldn’t have imagined it being possible to get 10k Uruk Hai to march on Helms Deep. I suspect he would have been flabbergasted by and enjoyed immensely Jacksons films (lotr not hobbit). Another big reason is Jackson gets the core of the story and spends a fair amount of time just showing us the world while panning over New Zeelands landscape.
I find it more likely that Tolkien would think CGI is demonic.
I don't think he would have cared about that as much as the story changes and increased sensationalism.
Love your content! It's clear you love the LOTR and are a very thinky person.
Yes, Tolkien wouldn't have liked them. But the films are great and I also was introduced into Lord of the Rings by the Fellowship film and became a slight critic of the films at the beginning 😂
The radio adaptation was very good. The guy who played Bilbo in the films was Frodo on the radio.
Edit: actually, I was thinking of a different radio adaptation.
{:o:O:}
The 2000's movies destroyed the ring improperly, with Frodo rising again to tackle Gollum. That's a deal breaker for me. I actually told my wife, before the last film debuted, that I dearly hoped that they wouldn't do that exact thing (have Frodo rise and tackle Gollum into Orodruin) to the greatest climax in Western literature. Yet they did exactly what I feared. In Tolkien's view (based on a letter) Iluvatar destroyed the one ring by nudging Gollum in.
Yes but how do you show that on screen. That may have worked in the books but in a medium like a movie something like that could easily fall into anti-climactic territory for a lot of viewers. Also I have to disagree with you and say that frodo only tackled Gollum because he too wanted the ring. Not because he wanted to destroy it.
I think it would depend a lot upon the scenario/set up of this hypothetical situation…
For example, are we assuming that professor Tolkien didn’t die in 1973, and was privy to the advances in filmmaking effects since then? If so… I think he would be disappointed with many of Peter’s choices, but I’m sure he would like the treatment of the hobbits, and I believe he would have approved of much of the casting.
Now, if we’re talking about waking the dead professor after 50 years and screening the movie for him… I’m not sure he would survive the experience, let alone have an opinion to render.
It was clear that Peter Jackson spent a lot of time on casting and the general look of Middle-earth which I appreciated. The times I almost walked out of the theater: In FOTR: Indiana Jones and the Mines of Moria, TT: Aragorn "fell" and the Last Last Alliance of elves and Men at Helm's Deep, the *travesty* the character assassination of Faramir ROTK: when Gollum framed Sam for eating "lembus bread" and Frodo sent him away. Those were pretty Unforgivable. There are times over the years that I've wished that the movies were never made. I used to compare it to being invited to a lavish banquet where everybody is in the most beautiful costumes and the hall is decorated wonderfully and then you are served hors d'oeuvres which tastes like dog poop. So you're in this wonderful rich picturesque environment but you can't get the taste of dog poop out of your mouth. Overall Peter Jackson's movies of The Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit, are cinematic masterpieces in terms of Cinema. I think the argument that the movies made more readers is not quite correct because on social media it's evident that most of the people that love for the movies never read the books and don't plan to. I'm sorry I didn't mean to go this long with this. But the books were world famous and translated into many languages before Peter Jackson came along.
@@slawaboga1433 Hahaha! That's pretty funny. I'm actually soured from all the stupid memes that glut social media. Specifically Denethor and the cherry tomatoes. Or they should have taken the Eagles to Mordor. You can literally hear brains leaking out of their ears.
Good examples.
I feel like this perfectly covers why I love anime and animation. It only requires the single suspension as once you forget its animated, there is no break between the characters, the magic and the world, it all smoothly blends together.
Anime is animation. The Japanese don't make a distinction between the two.
There is a philosophical question here.
Let's talk about a single element - the "Party Tree".
As each person reads those words, an image of a tree crops into their heads. Arguably, for each person, the image will be different. Even if an author minutely describes the tree, short of implanting their image of the tree they imagine into the minds of every reader, each reader will still picture a slightly different tree.
And then comes a movie. The Director/Producer/ Location Manager must pick a specific tree. And even if that tree is identical to what the author describes, it's also going to be different to what a huge number of readers had pictured. However, because of the movie, future generations of readers will be limited in how they picture the tree, because, in a sense, the movie has canonized a Particular tree - and I think that was what Tolkien would have objected to...
This.
Speaking of the Party Tree: without the Scouring of the Shire, we can't have Sam replacing the cut-down Party Tree with a Mallorn from Lorien.
I would like to explore if Tolkien would like how the themes and messages of the movies and how they are viewed, like what would he think about the difference in Aragorn and if he could appreciate the purpose of the change.
I want to know if the movies keep the spirit of Tolkien's work, in many ways people believe the creation of rings of power does not.
Also I think he'd like the care that Howard Shore put into the music
He probably just wouldn't talk much about them but if he saw Rings of Power he'd have a heart attack
Jackson's movies lead us to Rings of Power.
"Let's hunt some orc" would have been considered vulgar.
The Tolkien family should appreciate that the films were a gateway into the books. Those 15-25-year-olds they disparaged became addicted to Middle Earth and wanted more of it, so they turned to the books and came to appreciate them for all their differences. The messaging from the estate tells me that they would rather JRR's series fall into obscurity and my generation NOT read them, because we got into it the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, and should know well enough without some movie getting us halfway there.
I think it was more of Christopher Tolkien who was so hardline against the films. He, like his father was very perfectionistic and given that the films are effectively treated as extensions of his father's legacy and tied to it, that combination was not a good mix. I doubt he'd been very receptive to any film from any producer just because of how perfectionistic he is and how he views the films should abide exactly as his father's works' heart was. And that he was in his lifetime the dominant spokesperson and representative and head of the Tolkien estate, it's understandable how what he stated became the estate's hardline public stance.
Better question would be: what PARTS of the movies would he like - music, casting, gollum, destinct architecture and rich cultures? What about setting the entire world in new zealand? What about sauron´s depiction, or Christopher Lee being saruman, and Ian McKellen´s Gandalf? Would he like how orcs look?? I doňť kňov. But I´m sure some of it would impress him for sure. You can deny accuracy but you cant deny passion.
I think he would have been completely overwhelmed by the Jackson movies. He died -73. Another kind of movie making, in almost every aspect, 30 years later.
Pretty sure he would have been angry and grumpy about them, before ordering the remastered Blue-rays in secrecy.
Dying in 73 I think makes for an interesting debate - what would have been the peak SFX he would have seen by that point? Then list the films within the next 10 years that would be considered landmarks in SFX development! I don't think he would have much regard for the writing in Star Wars, but it did represent a massive change in how movies could be viewed
@@neilbiggs1353 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jason and the Argonauts, Ben-Hur and Planet of the Apes were all in Tolkien's lifetime. I'd reckon a mix of the miniature work, stop-motion, costuming, sets and scale of those could end up with a LOTR adaptation, but the cost would have been extraordinary.
@@alexbruce9499 That's the thing that is impossible to predict - where Tolkien's sensibilities would be in regards to those. Even as a young person, the stop-motion of Harryhausen looked fake to me, and the facial prosthetics of the Apes franchise weren't convincing, but other people would be fine and wouldn't have their suspension of disbelief affected. If he was very critical, I don't think any SFX would satisfy him until the 90s
Your comment on the question is pretty exhaustive and as all I haven seen from you, nicely enlightended from various perspectives. I could not add much except a comment on my personal feelings on the movie. I discovered the LoR in 1987 in our church communtiy library at the age of 14. So I feel extremely happy having been able to build a mental image of middle earth and its inhabitants unbiasdly. I was however thrilled when I heard that there will be (another) movie adaptation. I enjoyed watching them a lot, and I highly appreaciate PJs efforts but for me these are almost two different worlds. A strange thing is that I like the movies the better the more often I read them. I keep exploring new destails which I usually think haven been done well by PJ and his team. Nowadays I am reading the LoR for my little 11y daughter. We finished the first part yesterday. My conclusion is that every medium and every adaptation may give you a new inspiration and new ideas. Even reading silent vs loud for others is a different experience. Keep up your great work, I appreaciate the depth of your analyses very much!
I think he would have liked the Peter Jackson movies.
However, the same cannot be said for Amazon's attempt!
The Jackson movies made the Amazon series happen.
He would never have liked his work turned to action movie
There are definitely elements he would love. Howard Shore's score in particular.
I am returning to a fantasy novel I started writing 41 yrs ago. I do not consider myself as skillful or brilliant as Tolkien, but I think I can describe what I would fear if, by some miracle, my novel(s) became popular enough to gain the attention of movie makers. There is a woven tapestry of events, people and culture in my novel. It is a secondary creation. I've covered many centuries, sometimes, in just a few worlds, sometimes putting some events and people under a microscope. Every thing and everyone is interconnected. I use words to paint the tapestry as I want it to exist. The threads of that interconnectedness can not be broken without destroying the story. I see it as a whole world. It isn't Disney cute. It is an adult story. There is also a great deal of philosophy and spirituality, as well, as a kind of magic. I wouldn't trust Hollywood with the story as I envision it. They could never do the tapestry, justice and Never understand why things happen as they must. Allowing them make a movie of my beloved novel (and I do love my Characters!) is like letting a 2 year old play with a sharp sword. It won't go well for anyone. It is better to leave it on the page and allow the words to do their magic. Maybe some people might read it. Maybe not. Hollywood is frequently where good stories go to die. I might guess that Tolkien felt the same way. He loved his work.
I think there are elements he would have liked a lot such as the design of the shire, edoras, helms deep and moria. But I think he would have scoffed at the changes and the cuts made.
I think it hardly matters. In some cases, movies actually manage to deepen your previous experience while reading a book, while in other cases they just kill the whole sensation you had while reading it. Jackson did a good job and I enjoyed watching his take on a story so well known, even though some of the magic has forever vanished after watching the movies. We all know that that’s a risk we take when watching movies, so we shouldn’t blame the director.
Another banger! Good work!
You cannot separate Elijah Wood and Sean Astin and Dominic Monaghan and Viggo Mortensen from their respective characters in my mind. Those folks and others gave amazing performances, once in a lifetime performances for them I bet, and, while I love the original text, I will always love those films too.
Dominic Monaghan was horribly miscast as Merry - nothing like Tolkien's character at all. I wasn't a fan of Elijah Wood as Frodo either. I will happily give you the other two.
@@brianthom6798 that’s pretty fair really. I read the books long after seeing the movies when I was younger, so they definitely color how those characters look to me.
I watched the films several times before I finally got to the books, but even still there was a lot I imagined differently while reading, chiefly the Balrog, but as far as the casting goes, no, I just couldn't see them any other way. Ian McKellen is another one for me though, absolutely perfect Gandalf.
Token may not have liked the films but he would have definitely liked the money he would have gotten from more people buying his books. I would also like to think that he would have enjoyed how the films brought his work to new audiences.
Honestly, I don’t see him disliking them. There’s no way for us to know. But what we do know is that Jackson respected the books. At least more than most would have. He fought for them to be made properly. The movie had a great sense of hope and I think that takes the films a lot further than we think. I could see him taking issue with Aragorn. No Tom Bombadil whatsoever. Obviously Sauron is a standout because he had no physical form. And some other issues of course. But in Hollywood, Jackson managed to get something done that will probably not ever be done again. And I would hope Tolkien would be able to see that. It’s a shame they never mention the creation of Middle-Earth. The story behind all that is just incredible.
Christopher Tolkien died after suffering for years from the "Dragon Sickness". In other words, "MINE - MINE - MINE!"
I love this video and you make very good points! all of us have our own worlds and ideas, and being that I am a writer, and lover of Tolkien I believe Tolkien's thoughts going into the Lord of the Rings was to give people something that they would remember, and take into their hearts and be inspired to tell their own great stories as well while also telling his story! And you see how the lord of the rings has become almost a foundation for great writers, whether that be through the movies or books, great work Jess!