To have gotten a Trilogy which did not absolutely slaughter the source material is a miracle, if you know anything about Hollywood. Count your blessings.
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 Watch the maplefilms hobbit edit. Cuts the trilogy by half and edits out all the pointless scenes that are not faithful to the book. Even though I loved the white counsil parts.
I have never understood this saltiness from the Tolkien estate towards Peter Jackson's movies. Jackson was a fan who put his heart in the movies and never intended it as a half-thought, cheap cashgrab. Something as extensive as Lotr could never be perfectly adapted but the movies were extremely good and almost single handedly introduced an entire generation to Tolkien's works. If that's not a fitting tribute, I don't know what is.
They had economical troubles (they even went to court over money). So I guess they want to discredit him somehow. Also Christopher and his gransons are more conservative on LOTRS than Tolkien himself. They grew up with this stories so they are very protective of them and thus project their own opinions on what they think their ancestor would have liked or thought but probably even themselves would be surprise. I honestly think he would have been pleased or liked them somehow.
And movies made would have introduced a new generation. Yet somehow generations found the Hobbit and LOTR through another medium...books. Movies based on books are generally never going to be as good as the book(s). I personally thought the Hobbit trilogy was atrocious and overdone. A fantasy story being overdone says something. Whether it is the storylines for characters and relationships that never existed or the Jacksonian over the top CGI (eg the worms) it was a horrible trilogy. The LOTR trilogy were passable as movies in their own right. I think the reviews and sales speak to how far short of the mark the Hobbit movies fell.
I've long felt that the best person to adapt Tolkien, especially The Hobbit, would have probably been Jiří Trnka. His animation would have perfectly captured the mix of childish imagination and heavy themes. That, of course, will never happen. But the ultimate cinematic version of Middle Earth in my mind looks rather like Trnka did it.
@@Alejojojo6 That's not true at all. The late professor was famously critical of adaptation of his works. Whilst there were some few exceptions, he was generally of the opinion that his stories were not well suited for film. The most known and entertaining example of this stance is his letter critiquing (or rather completely destroying!) the infamous Zimmerman scripts. Tolkien had said about adaptation that he approved of it as long as it preserved the core of the original. I would say Christopher for the most part agreed with this sentiment, as he worked with many different artists to illustrate the volumes of HoME, Beren and Luthien, Children of Hurin etc.
I think it's a mistake to assume Tolkien would have hated everything about the new movies. I read once he had an artist paint Frodo and Sam (iirc) and when shown the picture we clearly quite moved and surprised, saying 'There they are ... there they are.' under his breath. That suggests to me, at the very least, he'd have had amazing moments of 'oh! there they are' at various times throughout the movies. (I'm sure he'd not approve of all the changes to the plot -or maybe any of them- though.)
Than again he's such an intelligent person that I'd think he'd understand some changes to the plot at certain places due to his understanding that you simply cant depict on screen what you can write in a book.
I don't think he ever said he would have hated it. He just responded to her question of whether he thought he would like it, with no. That's fair. How many times have you heard people that love a book hate the movie. Then go from fan to author. It would be difficult at the very least to see someone else's depiction of your literary opus. Especially LOTR. It wasn't just a story. He developed languages, dialects, histories, geography, races, anatomies, and least not the personalities of each character. That's just a fraction of what he built in his imagination. No one could satisfy on film what he saw in his own mind's eye.
I have reason to believe not everyone in the Tolkien family shares the same opinion. Aside from Simon - Royd Tolkien, whose a great-grandson of JRR, is an actor, and actually cameo'ed in two of the Jackson films. (why doesn't this guy get more press?)
Sorry for being late lol I kinda understand why other Tolkien family members don't necessarily agree with Christopher. His father used to tell him that stories, even before The Hobbit was finished. Every night JRR told him stories about the Valar, Melkor, Bilbo, Gandalf and so on. He must've had the most amazing, beautiful and fond memories of these moments. When you see someone kinda "corrupting" those memories, it's understandable if just get pissed off. On the other hand, his brothers, sisters, daughters, nephews and nieces didn't have this experience with his father. Maybe this made them more open to changes
@@Xanadu424 Do you really think that Ian Mckellen’s Gandalf really acts like Tolkien’s Gandalf? For example, Michael Hordern is the best Gandalf that we will ever get. Ian Mckellan kind of does look like Michael Hordern, but again, Jackson’s interpretation of Gandalf is still trash. The casting for Gollum was spot on, and that scene where he is climbing up into the cave, and looking right and left, at the very beginning of The Return of King, is exactly how I picture Gollum. The CGI Version of Gollum, and all CGI, never works because it automatically takes away all imagination, unlike actors and actresses who are in costumes. But, when Gollum is with Faramir, Sam and Frodo, he acts like a Disney Character, (Tolkien hates Disney). Then, in many other other scenes, he is unforgivable. Peter Woodthorpe’s Gollum is perfect.
Tolkien would of hated Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn because he does not look like Aragorn at all, nor does he act like him at all. In the books, Aragorn wants to be King, has a lot of grey moments, just like Faramir, and when he does want to be king, he is not as bad an Orc. Sam Elliott has the perfect voice for Aragorn, and he looks exactly how Tolkien described him. Viggo Mortensen should have played Faramir because he looks like a Númenorian, and Mortensen’a voice is calmer than Elliott’s.
I think the part of the films that Tolkien would have liked the most would have been Howard Shore's music. Tolkien was a linguist and Shore's incorporation of Tolkien's written songs and Tolkien's various Languages in the Score would have been appreciated I feel.
They literally use his languages to make songs with deep meaning like the mourning of Gandalf in Lothlorien. He would have been thrilled at that! Its something only people who love languages as much as he did (and neither christopher nor his grandson) would understand.
Agreed about the music but I think the shire would have been a bit of a let down though. The shire should look English with deep greens, roses and oak trees, what we got was New world blandness with its yellow grass, it wasn't that bad tbh but it could have been much better.
@@chatteyj the thing about new Zealand is that it does feel a lot like England. The North Island at least, which is where the Shire was shot. The climate, the rolling hills. The actual location of the shire feels like a micro version of typical English landscape.
@@onthevergeoftears not even good diversity. I'm 100% fine with a female protagonist and a black main character, in fact I want that. But characters like Rey and Finn were written with literally nothing in mind, and without any character arcs at all. Also imagine if gay people existed lol
Ezra Tross Read one of Tolkien’s notes about him reviewing the 1950’s lotr script with the Weathertop scene. It is because that Weathertop scene is just as bad as Jackson’s version, and the rest of his fight and battle scenes. It is a huge disservice to what both of the directors did with all of the action, and that there is no character development at all. This is because the author fought in World War One, and was a Devout Roman Catholic.
Anybody might have hated the movies adaptations, but I got to know Tolkien after I saw the movies. I read the LOTR & now I'm almost done with the Silmarillion and I thanked Peter Jackson for bringing the Middle Earth to me as I'm not an English and English is not my first language and I wouldn't have known this world if it was not because of the movies.
I love the movies, but I can't help think how different they were in pacing, in believability, in some aspects of the feel (relating to those things), even if in other ways they were just right (since of wonder and sometime mystery). Movies, of course, are much more visual, and in a since more visceral -- they lend themselves better to action and less to depth -- to ignore that would have ruined the movies.
Is Lord of the Rings not translated into your language? It's one of the most popular books of all time, and has been translated into many different tongues. If you like reading I would have thought it's hard to avoid it :)
greyztone depending on his language, the translations available could vary wildly in quality. Tolkien's writing is so informed.by his phonological profession that translating it properly is a massive undertaking.
@@valentinomiller6251 Did you guys even here what he said? He said that Jackson and the other filmmakers put too much action in each of the films, (even though he KIND OF likes Fellowship). So there is no character development at all. They made each of the films into Bollywood versions. Every time I tell people this, I lose brain cells because, sadly, most of you guys still do not even understand Tolkien, or his book.
@@MoniVenSmit I don't think it's jealousy, but rather observing people giving status to those who have done nothing. It's more of a lament for human nature.
The fact that Sir Christopher Lee approved of them is the highest guarantee that Tolkien would have liked them. Lee saw the hard work that went into everything and I'm sure Tolkien would have appreciated even more.
@@PraetorianG2004 And? Christopher is a good son but he cant be a good Judge, Tolkien Father will be pleasure and maybe things will change in the films but Christopher didnt help PJ because he didnt want.
@Amaze Wolf Did you know Tolkien personally? Christopher was his son so I would say that being a son he would have a pretty good idea of how Tolkien felt about things. You know, cause he grew up with him. Talked with him etc.
Tolkien's dream was to make a new mythology, for his stories to be held in the hearts of people as myths, as far as I'm concerned, seeing a dedicated fan take great steps to retell his stories would have thrilled him, no matter how he felt about the depiction of his work.
@@thesalanianJust because Tolkien valued his readers does not mean he would've wanted his mythos to be bastardized and made a fast-paced action sequence
@@thesalanian I agree. The battle of helm's deep was so badass, really evoked emotions in me! Also gimli not being tall and falling down, haha, really made me laugh. Also his uncanny knowledge about anatomical terminology! And pippin hahahah he's so stupid merry's the smart one rofl.
Tolkien was fine with other people doing pictures and paintings based on his work, and, surprisingly, was okay with the idea of people running with his ball. He understood that people would want to dig further into his legendarium and put flesh on the bones of his sketched ideas, and said so quite explicitly in one of his letters. He'd probably not have liked Jackson's elves very much, and would have found the vulgarisations distasteful, but I think he would have appreciated the amount of effort and detail that went into the films.
I think he would have at least liked parts of it. Some of the moments that would get it right as he imagined or close to it, or some actors doing an amazing job at portraying the character properly. A writer would have to be very bitter and spiteful to not enjoy anything at all from adaptations of their work, especially if it is done as elaborately as Lord of the Rings. It's still your world that is brought alive. Seeing how he gave Christopher Lee his blessing to play Gandalf I am sure he would have loved his portrayal of Saruman too. And likely of several others as well, and seeing some of the scenery. I mean, even if it did not get everything right as in the books and many things would be different than he imagined, the moments that where right are bound to do something to the writer of that work.
He would probably have enjoyed most of the visuals and costumes. They were meant to resemble the book illustrations, which, I believe, have been approved by Christopher, who has been eager to criticise anything about the adaptations, that he believed wasn't faithful enough.
Also Tolkien was a pretty brilliant guy. If you talked to him about the nature of film adaptations and how they are never going to be perfectly accurate and basically warned him that these are adaptations not translations I think he would be smart enough to understand and see the movies for what they are.
@@terragthegreat175 He wasn't too keen of the early scripts for the adaptations planned during his life though. He said they had too much needless fighting and weren't focusing on the right things. I wonder if he wouldn't think the same of Jackson films.
Whether Tolkien would have loved or hated these films, let's not forget that he wanted the books made into movies! Yes! He saw the potential of making money, so in the end, who cares....I loved both....
Jimmy Parker I didn't like them as much as I wanted. Changes in the personality of the characters, two chapters of battles turned in to two hours (at least) of battles. The longer versions though, were much more Tolkien's LOTR. I get that the books are no source for an action triology, but still.
LOLno. Nonononono. You fucking liar. Nope. When offered a movie adaptation of Lord of the rings starring The Beatles, He shut the door to an adaptation tight. It was his children that greenlit the Ralph Bakshi cartoon version, which was later used as inspiration for the live action movie.
@@flugsven I cannot watch the theatrical versions of the movies, always have to watch extended. The extended version strikes a very good balance. Theatrical is just straight up lacking.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care much for the films themselves, but I'm certain he would've been impressed by the level of artistry, passion and love that went into making those movies. To see his words transformed into most amazing sets, costumes, models, miniatures (or bigatures), paintings, drawings and of course the music. The people involved in those movie lived and breathed Tolkien's work for years. The amount of artistic value those projects produced is simply astonishing.
The films received massive critical acclaim and huge award recognition. How many other fantasy films can boast about that? I’m not even a big fantasy fan, but Peter Jackson’s trilogy is on a whole other level of quality.
ye i agree. in my personal opinion peter jackson improved upon the boocks or at least made them viable for a movie adaptation. most of the 3 lotr books are descriptions of appearance and lore. if you put that to film 1:1 you get a bunch of wandering location shots and narration. hardly anyone would enjoy that kind of movie. and tolkien didnt have talent for writing battle scenes although they are an important part of his world and responsible for much of its shaping and changing. the battle for minas tirith for example was embarassing. "they rode and the orcs retreated".... riveting storytelling tolkien, really.
If Tolkien wouldn't have enjoyed the Jackson films then Rings of Power would have killed the poor old bugger. That said I don't trust a word Simon says, he doesn't strike me as having the best interests of his Grandfather's legacy at heart
Disney did try to buy the rights for making a Hobbit film if I remember correctly, they just weren't succesful as the Tolkien family didn't think they would do it justice even though it is a childrens book. Bare in mind I could be wrong here but I think I've read that somewhere a few years back.
I grew up with them and they have stood out in my heart more than any other media I've seen. I may have not even read the LOTR books (or any Middle-Earth Literature) if it weren't for the films. It always irks me when fans of the series can't live life and enjoy both as they are in unison.
The books were extremely popular before the films came out. The cartoons were so much better because of character development. The problem with most people like you reading the books because of Jackson’s trilogy is that you guys are forced to have his interpretations in your heads, and not your own.
New Zealand is Middle-earth, but it is too small and new compared to Northern and Western Europe. And, CGI never ever helps unless nobody even notices it. It is a huge disservice to J.R.R. Tolkien when Jackson and the filmmakers put in way too much action. This is because the Author fought during World War 1, and killed the Nazis to defend himself, his friends, and other English Soldiers. All but one of his friends died. Tolkien, his friend, and the other soldiers obviously had nightmares, and did not want to kill another person again. They hated seeing that the good and evil soldiers were murdered and killed. This is what happens when soldiers, or characters, are in war: it changes you and you change with it. This is why he created the Scouring of the Shire Chapter. When he was nine, he saw national socialism and communism or industrialism come into Italy, Germany, Russia, and his home: England.
Well, while I haven't the patience to read LotR, I understand why those who have may not appreciate the films. The books are seriously beloved, and when something is held that closely by so many, deviating from that source, as greatly as the films did, can cause an understandable uprising. I love the films, but also have never read the books. I do, however, understand there is a great deal with which the films take liberties and omit. For me, the same is true with my childhood religions, "Transformer" and "X-Men". Those films are not only blasphemous to the original cartoons, but for the most part, one-watch throwaways. If you loved them, great, but don't get irked when I don't. Meh.
I just came from the future and can confirm what Simon Tolkien always has been: a clown. His rants about Jackson not being truthful with his grandfather’s work were no more that envy; and now that has his claws in the estate, allows Prime and Bezos to destroy Tolkien’s legacy and turn it into a giant piece of manure. Not even Judas fell this low.
A clown is a nice way of putting it. "I think he would have known what an elf would look like, and it wouldnt have looked like Orlando Bloom". So what would it have looked like Simon?......
nah, the grandson is right. It was too faithful. Jackson should have made it his own. He could have done what other filmmakers do and made the film more diverse, or used it to help audiences understand modern day politics better (which is a good thing). Missed opportunity.
@@CKyIe I disagree, the beautiful thing about the story is it takes you away from the modern political and social issues of the day and looks deeper at moral and philosophical truths
@@warriorpoet667 My original post was meant to be ironic, but it probably didn't come across that way, because there probably are people who think that, haha. I agree with you, don't worry.
@@warriorpoet667 Jackson, his wife, and Fran Walsh put a ton of far-left crap in each of their lotr films. It is just a lot more blatantly clear in movies and tv shows today.
I think Tolkien would have been somewhat humbled by the films. I always perceived him as a rather humble and kind man. The LotR films have had a huge impact on many people who otherwise maybe would never have picked up the books. Films are a different form of art and they certainly can’t pick up everything that was written, but the trilogy was beautifully done and rather close to the text. Tolkien would most likely have appreciated that. Nevertheless, it’s idiotic to assume things. Neither his descendants nor we can assume what he would have thought.
@@guneytopal1713 That and the Two Towers... (ha both Saruman related) and while we're at it, now that I'm thinking about it, a very important detail in Fellowship was also changed at the end, one that was excusable but actually changes the deeper meaning of everything.
@@FlanaFugue I’m glad they removed the whole Shire/Saruman plot. Reading the books that whole plot just seemed pointless. The books build up to this objective of destroying the ring and then spend more time talking about side plots it forgot to wrap up properly. Jackson provided the best adaptation that could be done as truthful to the original source material. Only exception is the removal of Glorfindel. His role was given to Arwen which seemed odd. They could easily put him in and give. The audience the reason of him not joining the fellowship for secrecy reasons.
They run everything by the Tolkien estate, first with the pitch for all 5 seasons, and subsequently the outlines of each season, including each episode, before they start production.
@@stina.munoz.dance1 There is so much weirdness going on in those series, if current leaders of tolkien estate agree with those, it's all gone up in the air
One of the best things about the movie trilogy is its soundtrack: it’s perfect. Reading the books by itself is already magical, but reading them with the songs from the trilogy playing in your head is a unique experience. Imagine reading Tolkien describing Rivendell with the theme of the city, it is an indescribable sensation.
The main point of the books were to create an English origin myth which had been lost due to the Norman conquest (something Tolkien described as being the worst thing to happen to England). Almost all European countries have creation myths such as Charlemagne or Siegfried, and Tolkien felt sad or disappointed the English had lost theirs, so a medium which portrayed his books in a respectful and loved way I'm sure he would've appreciated, "liked" is another story though
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +7
And then Simon goes on to executively produce Rings of Power :)
@@CursedMarkMedia He'd spit in Peter Jackson's face if he saw what Peter did to his works. The Amazon series is doing exactly what Peter did to Tolkien's works. They deviated from the source material, both reduced the works to action sequences and both were deathly boring. Real reason people don't like Rings of power is that they feel threatened that non-White people are featured in it.
@@CursedMarkMedia This doesn't change the fact that comment section on the amazon trailers when they first came out feature angry comments that had over a 100k likes talking about how the franchise is being destroyed due to wokeism and talking about "die-versity". Channels such as the Nerdrotic, Mauler, The Quartering, Just some guy whose entire content is talking about how straight White men are being persecuted, also lament the inclusion of non-White people. On the flip, we have the Tolkien universe content creators like Nerd of the RIngs, Men of the West, The Red Book, In Deep Geek, to name a few, have positive or apathetic reviews of the series being viciously attacked in their comment section about how they're sell outs to Wokeism or must be getting paid by Amazon. Just as a clarification, I hate the rings of power because it's an abomination as I do the Peter Jackson films.
I feel like the title is a bit of a click bait. The point Simon made was that it would be unlikely that his grandfather would have enjoyed ANY film of his work based on the inevitable deviations from the visions in the writer’s mind and what would be released on screen from the director’s personal vision.
What an Elf looks like: like a human, except he's between 180cm and 210cm tall and 'tremendously strong', has a permanent reflection of a starry sky in his eye (the most important Elvish feature, not represented in the movies except for Galadriël for some reason) and glows in the dark (in the movies, except for Legolas for some reason), naturally beardless with few exceptions, extremely beautiful and well dressed in varied, rich, and ornamented clothing that also glows, fair (generally grey) eyes, generally dark hair, and a pair of discreet 'leaf-shaped' (in Tolkien own words, in the Etymologies) ears, which probably mean small and delicately pointy ears, which aren't really noticeable, to the point they aren't brought to attention in any single book. I generally imagine Legolas with light brown hair (due to his father) and blue eyes.
I think Tolkien was a smart and kind enough man to not say “it doesn’t stay loyal 100% of the time so it’s trash”. I think he would’ve enjoyed it as a separate entity, just like fans of both the books and the movies do. I think he would’ve been happy to see his characters and locations brought to life. To see Gandalf fight he balrog in Moria. To hear the wonderful soundtracks. Boromir laying down his life for merry and pippin. Of the great battles and duels etc etc etc.
Ralph Bakshi’s lotr, the B.B.C. version, and The Lord of the Ring Online are obviously not 100% loyal to the book. But they are all a lot better adaptions then each of Jackson’s films. Most of Shore’s music is perfect. But Jackson, ripped off the monster in the Diablo Game with the “Balrog,” and he ripped off a lot of other games and movies. Him and the other filmmakers also proved Tolkien’s point countless amount of times about exaggeration. All of their battle scenes are not even close to the ones in the book, and all of the cgi is trash.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 The CGI is only an issue in the Hobbit films, and I don’t think it’s trash. It’s just not hyper realistic. At least his balrog didn’t look like some Lion thing with butterfly wings. That thing was ridiculous. I still don’t think he’d hate them at all. I think he’d love to see the way Jackson told his story. To see the people snd places he described brought to life. Someone brought up how amazed he was when he saw a fans depiction of Frodo and Sam. I can’t imagine what he’d say when saw them act out everything on the big screen.
@@connorgolden4 What I meant to say is that the special effects are trash when you can see it. And it only works properly when nobody can see it. Jackson ripped off many video games and films. The Balrog is supposed to be a twelve foot tall demon man who is filled with shadow. He is also a lot smarter in the book when he brakes one of the stone doors when Gandalf ties to shut it with one of his spells. When Gandalf cries, “The Dark Fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun!”, this means that the Balrog’s fire can no longer protect him, so more shadow comes out of his spirit. Well, in the illustration, Frodo definitely does not look like Elijah Wood. Ian Holm is Tolkien’s Frodo. But I do agree with you that the illustration of Sam looks exactly like Sean Astin.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 Wait, Jackson ripped off games and films? So because someone else adapted LOTR before him he's not allowed to do it himself? Gosh that's stupid. Honestly I don't get the whole thing with complaining about how the characters look different. So long as they look similar to the basic description and don't get a race or gender swap it shouldn't matter. What should matter most is the portrayal of the character. Maybe Elijah didn't look exactly like the illustration, but he did an excellent job with the acting of Frodo. You must not have ever enjoyed a single adaption in your life, there are ALWAYS going to be differences with how the characters look. That's just what happens.
Imagine criticising what is commonly considered a perfect adaptation of your grandfather's magnum opus by saying it was "too faithful" to the source material. Bet he loved Rings of Power.
I think the books will always be there for people who prefer the stories in their purist form, and the movies will always be there for people who prefer a more streamlined and trimmed down version that focuses on action and scope. I love both depending on what mood I'm in. What people don't understand is that not all cuts from book to movie adaptations are for time constraints. Some things literally do not translate to the silver screen well if at all. This is literally just Jackson's version of middle earth and I thought it was excellent in it's own way.
I;d say Martin Freeman first, followed by the rest. He was amazing as Bilbo. Too bad that towards the later part of the 1st movie (& onwards) he became more of a secondary character. He was so so good. Especially when he was doing those small things with his face, like twitching his nose, & etc. It all added to the charm of the character. If anything both trilogies, have brought Tolkien's works into my attention, and I look forward to reading them. After the LOTR trilogy, I believe, that the sales of the books skyrocketed, so I don't think that professor Tolkien would've been that much displeased with the movies.
First I saw the two trilogies (Hobbit and LOTR) and I loved them and after that I decided cu read the books, all of them about Middle Earth. I loved the books. I think Peter Jackson made a wonderful work. I felt that all what he added or changed was very tolkienish. The actors fitted perfectly. Now I hope that Peter Jackson will do another Tolkien trilogy (or movie) very very soon.
In retrospect, with Simon as a consultant on the Rings of Power, I know where to put Simons opinion and judgement on what JRR would or wouldn't have liked. Interesting how his mind works, instantly saying 'or hated'.
See for me I love how grand and thrilling the films are and how calm and bohemiun the books feel. I love the books but there's a reason so many people that loved the excitement of the films couldn't get into the books and it's because there is such a slower pace, the world washes over you and it's almost a meditative experience for me. I actually think the changes Jackson made were dead on, keeping the action moving, but giving us just enough of middle earth that people want to go and learn even more about the lore.
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 Its because of over stimulation, the human brain isn't made to be bombarded by as much stimuli as we have today which can make more mundane things seem boring. Its especially important to limit the amount of stimuli when your childs brain is at the most important part of development. Especially electronic devices like tvs. ADD is a disorder so the environment you grew up in plays a large role.
There's a surface placidity to English (from England) prose that takes some time to adapt to. Once you submerge yourself in them, the intensity and gravity of the work shows itself.
I think people are missing the point. Simon Tolkien is not bashing the films in any way, he just doesn’t think his grandfather would’ve enjoyed them personally. Even the most faithful adaption wouldn’t have matched Tolkien’s vision, it’s nothing against the films or Jackson. Peter Jackson himself has said several times he doesn’t think Tolkien would’ve liked several aspects of his movies but he hopes he would’ve appreciated the efforts nonetheless.
This aged poorly. Now Simon is receiving money from Jeff Bezos to destroy his grandfather legacy in a monstrous nonsense that claims to be based on Tolkien’s world, but turned out to be a higher insult to his legacy.
I think not all people are bashing Simon Tolkien but in generala sense the Tolkien estate and mainly Christopher Tolkien who said some harsh words. Because Simon is at least respectful to Peter Jackson even though I do not agree with his view. But I think people are angry because it is weird that the movie trilogy lacked support from Tolkien estate when you can see how much love, effort and work went into the movies. And eventhough it is simplified and more action movie than maybe Tolkien would want I think it captures the atmosphere and essence perfectly and it is amazing how many people brought it to reading Tolkien. So I think your last sentence captures it perfectly, even though Tolkien would not probably enjoy the move he would appreciate the effort, which generally Tolkien estate cannot comprihend and especially Christopher which is just shame. I get why the family would not like it, but I get why people are angry that the family could not even open their mind even a little and look at the movies seperately and enjoyed it as love letter to Tolkien even though it is different from the how they pictured it.
Well I mean Stephen King hated Kubric’s version of the Shining. So it kinda makes sense why an artist would have a much different opinion of their work being recreated than others. Just saying.
The films were incredible. It’s impossible to fully recreate the imaginative capabilities of a book, as it’s purely imagination. However, it’s easy to appreciate how good the LOTR trilogy was, solely as films not as an adaptation. They were incredible. Their quality is made even more clear, as both films and an adaptation, when compared to The Hobbit films, which aren’t great at all.
What pure hypocrisy, i.e. an elf would never have looked like Orlando Bloom when reading the below this was said about Simon Tolkien :- 2022 - In an exclusive report by Devan Coggan, Entertainment Weekly confirms the grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher’s oldest child Simon, as a consultant on AP’s Rings of Power series. In his very own words to EW: “I have enjoyed assisting Amazon Studios in connection with the series, and in particular providing input to JD Payne and Patrick McKay on matters including my grandfather’s original writing.” Showrunner Patrick McKay had this to say about Tolkien’s influence on their work: “His insights, attention to detail and passion for both the characters and the overall architecture of The Rings of Power are woven throughout the pages of our story.” Considering the absolute sell out i.e. Woke and black elves, Simon Tolkien after his comments on the radio show in 2012 shows in truth did not give a damn about his father's legacy and just sold his father out.
Shadow of War: "Shelob can become a sexy goth lady and did nothing wrong, she was just misunderstood and heartbroken" Tolkien: *Spinning in his grave fast and constantly enough to give mankind perpetual energy*
second game was made this way to have some connection with LOTR First game didn't have any elements from LOTR movies except Gollum character on both games
Christ... I knew the games were taking liberties just from watching the trailers way back then. But are they actually that.... goodness, I cant think of a word to describe that.... c.c
I wonder how much JRR would despise the attrocity that this same Simon caused by selling out to Amazon and enabling them to literally vomit all over Tolkien's lore and legacy.
Listening to this interview is quite strange. Simon claims the LotR movies were too close to the books (why this is a problem is beyond me), and then you have Christopher Tolkien saying they were really weren't much like the books at all. Very odd, to say the least.
Then we have the dark lord Simon selling the rights to amazon and u know very well how that went too. Christopher should understand that books can't be re-create 100% into movies, but at last they were enough faithful and great too, best trilogy ever made too.
@@loonowolf2160 I never watched a single minute, outside a TH-cam clip or two, of RoP. I've never witnessed a show with zero appeal before. Dull, colourless, and lacking any character. The shots in the preview make GoT look like a cheery Disney production.
The movies are the reason why I read the books and got into learning about the legendarium. Yes, I know it's hard for older people to accept this, but a new generation of fans is nothing to scoff at.
They did such a good job of capturing so much magic in JRR Tolkien’s stories I have nothing but respect , maybe the best trilogy’s ever made. Peter Jackson nailed it.
It's easy to say that Tolkien would have hated the movies, though you have to take in to account the time that he lived. If you used the techniques and special effects that were available in the 50's 60's or 70's the movies would have almost certainly have been horrendous. If he were alive at the time they were created he may have seen that it would be much easier to portray his world and could have taken part in it so that it wouldn't be ruined. But Tolkien was not immortal so he couldn't, and he left his legacy with his son and sold his rights to The Hobbit and LotR. His son isn't an exact clone of him, so he couldn't accurately add on to his father's works. Christopher decided to take to alienating himself from all the people that wanted to adapt his father's works. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place because he couldn't accurately help replicate what his father's works would have looked like on mediums like film and games due to the fact that he only had his father's written works to base it off of (which is just words), rather than the treasure that his father's mind could have imagined.
it could of been ok if the effects were managed well. Wizard of OZ was really good for its time, I think it's ok for now too actually.And it was done better in lotr than the hobbit.
The real issue is that Tolkein is a curmudgeon. He knew his world was to big for a screen, and almost to big for his book, so he knew he could not like what he saw.
Tolkien would've hated the movies because they did not respect his own vision: he was against _unnecessary_ change in plot or story, changing characters, giving lines to the wrong characters... And I could name plenty of examples of all those things from the PJ movies. Why do I think that? Because Tolkien tore appart a script proposal in one of his letters. One of the criticisms was that his account at Weathertop was completely rewritten: from an atmospheric and haunting clash that was over before you knew it to some swinging of swords and action like that. Sounds familiar? But what people need to realize that this is not the only thing Tolkien didn't like about the visual medium. He argues that literature is far superior to any visual medium in terms of fantasy. This is because in literature makes the audience into an actor. The reader needs to imagine the world for himself, based on the words the author uses. If the author says bread, everyone will have a different picture in his head. With literature, you can effectively create a second world within the minds of people. An unique and individual world for each of those readers. Meanwhile, in a movie it's the directors image that is forced into the minds of the audience. So technological progression won't help you in this case.
Tolkien estate was super zealous about protecting the source material. Simon is the one that isn't. His father would have NEVER allowed this. Amazon literally waited till Simon's dad/ Tolkien's son died so they could make this monstrosity. Meanwhile, Simon hates his dad and likely is partly doing this as a FU to his dead father. Plus for the money of course. Simon is a sell out. Talking about how Tolkien wouldn't have liked the movies (which might be true, he couldn't stand people changing his story or characters, you can read about how much he hated it in his letters talking about another film script for LOTR) But meanwhile he is allowing Amazon to literally sodomize the franchise lol
@@3choblast3r4 Stop lying. If the Tolkien Estate cared an ounce about protecting the source material they would NEVER have allowed the Peter Jackson's bastardisation action film trash to be produced. By the way, Amazon procured the rights to the film adaptations in 2017 and it was signed by Christopher, not Simon. Tolkien would have spat in Peter Jackson's face for having turned his works into those monstrosities. Simon was spot on about how Tolkien would have reacted. Amazon didn't do anything to the franchise that Peter Jackson hadn't already done to it already. If anything, Amazon doing what it did was doing exactly what Peter Jackson did. You only don't like it because it's got non-White people in it. That's the real gripe here.
The only thing Amazon proved was that the "protecting the source material" nonsense is just an excuse used by these so-called fans angry that they featured non-White characters and more prominent roles for women in the new series. The Peter Jackson films were just as much if not more of a bastardisation of Tolkien's work, deviated from the source material and turned it into another zombie action film. You just enjoyed the Peter Jackson trash because it didn't have non-White people in it and cast White men. Anytime you deviate ever so slightly from this, the angry nerds get upset and start talking about "protecting the source material", as if the source material wasn't being violated already. Your comment is a perfect demonstration of this - you didn't have any issues with violating the source material and thought it too zealous until the evil SJWs got their hands on it. Could you be more transparent.
It may not be a fun insight to hear for a fan, but as much as I love the films, I also suspect that JRR would not have enjoyed watching them. He did not make these stories for a visual medium. He used to say his Mass in Latin even after the Church switched to common language. He was a rather “rigid” personality, and I can respect that conviction from an artist. Simon is making an astute speculation about how his grandfather would’ve reacted
i respect what he said, but at the same time hed have to be happy that his universe is shared, because anyone who has gone threw what it takes to create such an amazing piece of work woul dlove to have othr people enjoy it also
Tolkien doesn't particularly like film. He never said he hated film, but he doesn't like it. He especially hates Disney. Tolkien has expressed in an interview that literature and film are too different things that express completely different things, unable to be translated from one form to another.
Art in all it's forms are open to interpretation. I really have no idea if he would have enjoyed the films, but at the very least, I think he would have appreciated them as one interpretation of his work. It would have been an insight into how a lot of people imagined the characters and the world as they read the book, and I fully believe he would have respected and appreciated that.
I think Tolkien would've enjoyed the novelty of seeing his world on screen, and the friendship of Sam and Frodo. He probably would've hated Gimli's characterization and the removal of the Scouring of the Shire though
He's quite correct. Based on everything we know about J.R.R. Tolkien (from letters, interviews, biographies, etc.) there's absolutely no doubt that he would have hated the Lord of the Rings movies (and absolutely loathed the Hobbit movies). But he'd have been delighted by the money they have made for his descendants (especially now that top U.K. marginal tax rates are so much lower than they were when he was alive). He was a very practical man in a lot of ways, and sold both the manuscripts of LotR and the movie rights to it at a time when the books were still only moderately successful and his earnings as an Oxford professor were pretty low.
Based on biographies and such that I've read of J.R.R. I agree that he probably wouldn't have enjoyed the films. I do think however that he would approved of three things. Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn, Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and the music for the films
@@truesoundchris I think so because he was a fan of classical music or at least Wagner. And the scores for the movies are very touching, and they also sound classical as opposed to stuff that he probably didn’t consider music like the Beatles. One thing he probably would’ve loved is if the scores had the lyrics he wrote in songs and if the characters sang the songs attributed to them.
@@joncrane7661 Oh, yeah! Those films where most of the audience do not have their own imagination when they read the book, and it is much harder to read it after they have watched all of the movies? The lotro game is much better than all of Jackson's films!
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 That is a gross generalization. I have read the books and still love the movies. They are two different forms of media, what works for a book might not work for a movie. You have to put some separation between the two. Most people aren't willing to sit in a theater for 3+ hours so they cut it down to be more theater friendly.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 At the time a TV show with those Production values was impossible, in fact at the time a movie with those Production values was seen as impossible and yet they somehow did it. Don't ask something harder to a Production that was already seen as impossible. And no, the games are not better, go see a video analysis on script, direction, music, Production and direction of actors and keep saying that.
I was 9 years old when I first saw the Fellowship of the ring that movie prompted me to read the books and I fell even more in love with the books and the movies I been obsessed ever since I’m about to be 30 tomorrow these books and movies mean everything to me
I think it's irrelevant whether or not the Tolkiens would have liked the films. I've seen those three films touch so many lives in the greatest ways. Those films ARE life, and thanks to them, so many readers, myself included, took interest in the books.
If someone did a film of one of my works that was half as great as Peter Jackson's original trilogy, I would be thrilled. I wouldn't have to see the movie, because I have already lived those stories, and I imagine that JRR Tolkien would not have needed to see the movie either, for the same reason. He has already lived those stories like I have mine. But I would be thrilled that so many people would get to see that movie who hadn't lived it like I did! I can only hope I have realized in writing the vision that inspired my own works a tenth as well as Peter Jackson realized Tolkien's vision!
It's so quaint now, the luxury of nitpicking Jackson's movies. You look at movies now and what they've become and it's hard to believe the industry was ever capable of producing something so good.
Too faithful is exactly what I wanted having grown up reading the books. I commend Jackson who stayed true to the material (for the most part). Had it been another director the movies would have stunk.
He invented a character without interest only to please modern public. How is that faithful to the books ? His movies are not faithful at all, the soul of the books is not there, respecting the books would implie to go against today's blockbuster standards... and peter jackson didn't want that.
@@aaaaaa8656 But I have a similar impression with a lot of aspects of LOTR, the movies do not have the soul of the books, maybe it was inevitable but I think that Peter Jackson wanted to make a blockbuster as the trend wants it
Man .... Lord of the Rings and the Tolkien estate would seek for attention without Peter Jackson triology, sure there would be a hugh fandom still but the movies had and have such a hugh impact. Games, series, Tabletop, merch, just millions and millions of dollar for the tolkien estate they should be so greatfull for his masterpiece triolgy.
The world has changed. I feel it in the water, I smell it in the air and I see it in the films. Tolkien would have been devastated with the state of England and the world. The Jackson films would have epitomised the virtual complete loss and understanding of the essence of the magic, wonder and mystery of a bygone time.
@@ComicRaptor8850 Indeed, and the inclusion of the elves at Helm's Deep and the alterations to Faramir's behaviour. I watched all six films again recently. I have the extended versions of all of them and I think I might not have seen the Hobbit extended versions before. I did feel a little more sympathetic to some of the changes he made with the films, even if I wouldn't necessarily have made them myself, but some of them still don't really seem to be that necessary. Overall, I still enjoyed and enjoy the films and it cannot be underestimated what a huge job they did and what they achieved in terms of locations, cast, costume, and staging of many of the big pieces. However, 'too faithful' still seems like an odd response, to me.
@Joshua Foley They often do but there is no written rule which says they have to. Most changes are because of the change in medium. I watched an interesting video about the scene in which Gandalf greets Frodo as he comes back to consciousness as Rivendell and how they needed to place him differently in the room to make the shot work. It's a subtle difference and one which people are unlikely to notice ( I know I didn't ) but totally understandable. Other changes, such as the alteration to Faramir's personality, seem less necessary, particularly as Tolkien had set out his character in a particular way for what would seem like a specific reason. But my response about 'too faithful' is merely to say that, irrespective of whether or not you agree with the changes, they are numerous enough and significant enough to make me wonder how on earth the adaptation could be thought of as 'too faithful'.
I think Tolkien might have enjoyed listening to the BBC radio adaptations, they were faithful to the books for the most part and had some excellent performances.
J. R. R. wouldn't like the films for exactly what Simon said: films must exists in their own right, and J. R. R. wouldn't appreciate this. And though, according to Simon, they follow the books too closely, they do exist in their own right to some extent. J. R. R. would expect them to be more like what he himself had in mind, and would be disappointed. But any good film must vary from what the book author had in mind: they must exist to at least some extent in their own right. In other words, whereas Simon thought they followed the books too closely, J. R. R.'s problem with the books would have been the exact opposite.
@@MoonwalkerWorshiper He was known to be a bit perfectionist and quibble over slight things. It is possible he would have enjoyed the films but based on everything he would have been dissapointed by everything a film just can not be.
@@imaloser5689 Or he would've been positively surprised how much they did manage to incorporate into the film as a visual medium from his complex books, since the probability for getting so much right is low and he would watch it with low expectations. In fact I think it's likely Tolkien would've discovered new feelings associated with his Middle-Earth. It would expand his fantasy, not work against it. Tolkien's mind was so much more intellectual and understanding than any of these bickering self-important "fans".
Look, Peter Jackson had extreme courage to make this movie because no one else was going to take the challenge, no one else was going to do it, just saying... I'm black and I loved every second of the movie and not many blacks know of the movie's existence. These films are my dad's favorite movies. He still watches them back to back. Chris Tolkien almost ruined my respect for his father's legacy when Ive learned he didnt like the films but whatever!
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud48213 movies, 4 hours long each, 1:30 hours at most of action in each movie. Complains there is no character development, so the other 2:30 hours where about what?
@@thomasbarbosa625 The action in The Fellowship of the Ring Film takes up two thirds of the time, and in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, there is fifty percent of talking and action.
When the book was written it was literally unadaptable and Tolkien couldn't have imagined the advancements in film making technology I think he would have been pleasantly surprised what Jackson was able to do
I guess this guy's answer was just out of frustration being compared to his father and grandfather all the time. But J.R.R would have'd love the movies except some criticism here and there, but over all will like it. Christopher no the other hand, he will have a lot of criticism like one third of the over all movies. This guy isn't just into his grandfather work as his father did, but over all if the older tolkiens' could see what is happening to their works they would definitely wouldn't allow amazon to do it.
I thank Peter Jackson for the LOTR trilogy! From seeing it the first time when I was five years old in 2001 and finishing the last movie when I was 7 in 2003. It sparked my passion into Tolkeins works. I have read the LOTR trilogy five times over now, I have read the children of Hurin recently and now I'm working my way to the end of the Silmarillion. I've practically seen the movies well over 100 times each. It may not be an exact adaptation but Peter hit on most of the major points. He cast the characters perfectly and imo he nailed ALL of the characters personalities except for Denethor. All of my love for Tolkeins works is due directly to the films. Whether or not JRR would have liked them I truly do not know but I do know LOTR would not be nowhere as popular today without those movies.
This is the problem with adaptations because film will never be what the true fans and author and his family imagined. Peter Jackson and most of the people who worked on it, including most of the cast were not fans of Tolkien. If you read the book only five times and watched the films one hundred, then you are not a fan of the author because you like the action more than nature, character development, amazing battle tactics, History, and Christianity. The whole point of the lotr book is so that the Hobbits can save the Shire! But, it does not matter that it was cut out because all of them have little to no progression. Merry and Pippin are retarded for most of the films. Most of Sam's character is different, and Frodo is not fifty years old which means that he is not even close to being as wise and bravo as he is in the book. He is not even thirty three years old! You are definitely right though about Denethor! But, the only characters who are the most human, or who progresses the most are Bilbo and Boromir, even when Jackson sadly did not understand most of their characters. And, about all of Howard Shore's music is the best part of the films. Tolkien would not have liked the films because he read a lotr script in the 1950's, and tore it to pieces because the Weathertop Scene had more hacking and slashing than tension and character development. Does this sound familiar to you? Literally every battle scene in Jackson's movies are all about hacking and slashing, which are much longer than the conversations, especially with the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Peter Jackson made the films, including The Fellowship of the Ring, for millennials, who are the most rebellious group of people, and for the majority of society who do not want to keep the Commandments.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 I mean you cant make a movie adaptation fit the script exactly. Each book is around about 16-19 hours and the movies were limited to 3 hours each. I thinks its foolish and unfair to say the movies were bad because they didnt stick 100% to the books. Theres just to much material to not take shortcuts. And I've watched the movies so much more because they're much shorter. The books take much longer to read and I dont always have time to sit down and read 2 or 3 hours at a time.
@@TheBravesfan30 You are correct for the most part! They could have made it into a tv show, and filmed most of the locations in Europe. Who cares about tv shows having lower budgets then movies? Yes, Game of Thrones failed because the show was made for today. Today, most films are being butchered by identity politics. In the 1990's most films were not being destroyed by swjs. But, all of the lotr films were!
@RoachDoggJr Some of us have watched a lot of adaptations so we would prefer something new and creative since we know the source material already. Joker.
What I think is that J.R.R. Tolkien would have liked certain parts of the LoTR films. He would have disliked other parts and even loathed some parts, and it would have been a difficult experience as it is for all authors who have seen their works and worlds interpreted and put to film. Simply saying that he would have liked or disliked them isn't nuanced enough of an answer. One thing I can say about Tolkien is that he had a very analytical mind, and he would have had a lot to say about Jackson's trilogy. I certainly would have enjoyed reading those reviews if he'd still been around to write them. I think one thing that would have favoured the films is the fact that they open with a prologue, which is one of the trilogies strongest moments. I believe Tolkien would have been surprised to hear the film's first words be a narration in English and Elvish. The prologue of the Fellowship of the Ring captures the spirit of Tolkien's world extraordinarily well for a film.
I don't think Tolkien would have particularly liked them no, but I think he would have appreciated him, and acknowledged that they are probably the best adaption that we will ever get.
Just imagine how many people were introduced to Tolkien’s books because of the movies. I can’t imagine a movie that does the books more justice than Jackson’s LOTR.
To have gotten a Trilogy which did not absolutely slaughter the source material is a miracle, if you know anything about Hollywood. Count your blessings.
Super Bamse Hollywood slaughtered the hobbit
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 Yep
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 Watch the maplefilms hobbit edit. Cuts the trilogy by half and edits out all the pointless scenes that are not faithful to the book. Even though I loved the white counsil parts.
@@bambostarla6259 he made a seperate fan edit called ‘children of durin and the hill of sorcery’ that has the white council stuff. It’s very good.
@@sweetryte2027 Oh thanks I'll check it out! :D
I have never understood this saltiness from the Tolkien estate towards Peter Jackson's movies. Jackson was a fan who put his heart in the movies and never intended it as a half-thought, cheap cashgrab. Something as extensive as Lotr could never be perfectly adapted but the movies were extremely good and almost single handedly introduced an entire generation to Tolkien's works. If that's not a fitting tribute, I don't know what is.
They had economical troubles (they even went to court over money). So I guess they want to discredit him somehow. Also Christopher and his gransons are more conservative on LOTRS than Tolkien himself. They grew up with this stories so they are very protective of them and thus project their own opinions on what they think their ancestor would have liked or thought but probably even themselves would be surprise. I honestly think he would have been pleased or liked them somehow.
@@Alejojojo6 same
And movies made would have introduced a new generation. Yet somehow generations found the Hobbit and LOTR through another medium...books. Movies based on books are generally never going to be as good as the book(s). I personally thought the Hobbit trilogy was atrocious and overdone. A fantasy story being overdone says something. Whether it is the storylines for characters and relationships that never existed or the Jacksonian over the top CGI (eg the worms) it was a horrible trilogy. The LOTR trilogy were passable as movies in their own right. I think the reviews and sales speak to how far short of the mark the Hobbit movies fell.
I've long felt that the best person to adapt Tolkien, especially The Hobbit, would have probably been Jiří Trnka. His animation would have perfectly captured the mix of childish imagination and heavy themes.
That, of course, will never happen. But the ultimate cinematic version of Middle Earth in my mind looks rather like Trnka did it.
@@Alejojojo6 That's not true at all. The late professor was famously critical of adaptation of his works. Whilst there were some few exceptions, he was generally of the opinion that his stories were not well suited for film. The most known and entertaining example of this stance is his letter critiquing (or rather completely destroying!) the infamous Zimmerman scripts.
Tolkien had said about adaptation that he approved of it as long as it preserved the core of the original. I would say Christopher for the most part agreed with this sentiment, as he worked with many different artists to illustrate the volumes of HoME, Beren and Luthien, Children of Hurin etc.
I think it's a mistake to assume Tolkien would have hated everything about the new movies. I read once he had an artist paint Frodo and Sam (iirc) and when shown the picture we clearly quite moved and surprised, saying 'There they are ... there they are.' under his breath. That suggests to me, at the very least, he'd have had amazing moments of 'oh! there they are' at various times throughout the movies. (I'm sure he'd not approve of all the changes to the plot -or maybe any of them- though.)
Than again he's such an intelligent person that I'd think he'd understand some changes to the plot at certain places due to his understanding that you simply cant depict on screen what you can write in a book.
I don't think he ever said he would have hated it. He just responded to her question of whether he thought he would like it, with no. That's fair. How many times have you heard people that love a book hate the movie. Then go from fan to author. It would be difficult at the very least to see someone else's depiction of your literary opus. Especially LOTR. It wasn't just a story. He developed languages, dialects, histories, geography, races, anatomies, and least not the personalities of each character. That's just a fraction of what he built in his imagination. No one could satisfy on film what he saw in his own mind's eye.
rockheimr do you know the name of the painting? I want to see it!
I think it's a mistake not to trust the word of the man's grandson and believe you understand Tolkien's mind better.
@@dragonofepics7324 Seconded!
Wow... Simon's opinion of the films seems to be the complete opposite of how Christopher feels.
I have reason to believe not everyone in the Tolkien family shares the same opinion. Aside from Simon - Royd Tolkien, whose a great-grandson of JRR, is an actor, and actually cameo'ed in two of the Jackson films. (why doesn't this guy get more press?)
+NickonAquaMagna And Christopher Tolkien renagede him for this.
Christopher would never lower himself to go on 5 Live
Nick on Planet Ripple the father and Simon didn’t get along at all and actually hardly talked to each other.
Sorry for being late lol
I kinda understand why other Tolkien family members don't necessarily agree with Christopher. His father used to tell him that stories, even before The Hobbit was finished. Every night JRR told him stories about the Valar, Melkor, Bilbo, Gandalf and so on. He must've had the most amazing, beautiful and fond memories of these moments. When you see someone kinda "corrupting" those memories, it's understandable if just get pissed off.
On the other hand, his brothers, sisters, daughters, nephews and nieces didn't have this experience with his father. Maybe this made them more open to changes
I'll never know for sure but I feel he would have loved Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn.
Tolkien did meet up with Saurman in real life . and he did tell him that If A movie set up he wish he could be a wizard
I would think (and hope) the same for Ian Mckellen and Andy Serkis
@@Xanadu424 Do you really think that Ian Mckellen’s Gandalf really acts like Tolkien’s Gandalf? For example, Michael Hordern is the best Gandalf that we will ever get. Ian Mckellan kind of does look like Michael Hordern, but again, Jackson’s interpretation of Gandalf is still trash.
The casting for Gollum was spot on, and that scene where he is climbing up into the cave, and looking right and left, at the very beginning of The Return of King, is exactly how I picture Gollum. The CGI Version of Gollum, and all CGI, never works because it automatically takes away all imagination, unlike actors and actresses who are in costumes.
But, when Gollum is with Faramir, Sam and Frodo, he acts like a Disney Character, (Tolkien hates Disney). Then, in many other other scenes, he is unforgivable. Peter Woodthorpe’s Gollum is perfect.
Tolkien would of hated Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn because he does not look like Aragorn at all, nor does he act like him at all. In the books, Aragorn wants to be King, has a lot of grey moments, just like Faramir, and when he does want to be king, he is not as bad an Orc. Sam Elliott has the perfect voice for Aragorn, and he looks exactly how Tolkien described him. Viggo Mortensen should have played Faramir because he looks like a Númenorian, and Mortensen’a voice is calmer than Elliott’s.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 Be gone with you. Tolkien would’ve hated YOU, sir. Lol.
I think the part of the films that Tolkien would have liked the most would have been Howard Shore's music. Tolkien was a linguist and Shore's incorporation of Tolkien's written songs and Tolkien's various Languages in the Score would have been appreciated I feel.
They literally use his languages to make songs with deep meaning like the mourning of Gandalf in Lothlorien. He would have been thrilled at that! Its something only people who love languages as much as he did (and neither christopher nor his grandson) would understand.
Agreed about the music but I think the shire would have been a bit of a let down though. The shire should look English with deep greens, roses and oak trees, what we got was New world blandness with its yellow grass, it wasn't that bad tbh but it could have been much better.
@@chatteyj the thing about new Zealand is that it does feel a lot like England. The North Island at least, which is where the Shire was shot. The climate, the rolling hills. The actual location of the shire feels like a micro version of typical English landscape.
Let's all be thankful Disney didn't get it.
Yeah.
wholeheartedly
Disney would have included die-versity
@@onthevergeoftears not even good diversity. I'm 100% fine with a female protagonist and a black main character, in fact I want that. But characters like Rey and Finn were written with literally nothing in mind, and without any character arcs at all. Also imagine if gay people existed lol
There are a lot of far-left politics in each of Jackson’s lotr movies. It is just a lot easier to see it in movies and shows, today.
I’m getting tired of hearing from other people what Tolkien would and would not have liked
Ezra Tross Read one of Tolkien’s notes about him reviewing the 1950’s lotr script with the Weathertop scene. It is because that Weathertop scene is just as bad as Jackson’s version, and the rest of his fight and battle scenes.
It is a huge disservice to what both of the directors did with all of the action, and that there is no character development at all. This is because the author fought in World War One, and was a Devout Roman Catholic.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 so you are gonna reply to every comment or what???
@@fingolfin3439 Why is that a problem?
Are you going to keep on yelling, “ReEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEe!”?
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 you are the one who is yelling in the comment section not me.
@@fingolfin3439 I am not yelling because I am only putting periods and not explanation points.
Anybody might have hated the movies adaptations, but I got to know Tolkien after I saw the movies. I read the LOTR & now I'm almost done with the Silmarillion and I thanked Peter Jackson for bringing the Middle Earth to me as I'm not an English and English is not my first language and I wouldn't have known this world if it was not because of the movies.
+Zeynep P. same,reading silmarllion atm
I love the movies, but I can't help think how different they were in pacing, in believability, in some aspects of the feel (relating to those things), even if in other ways they were just right (since of wonder and sometime mystery). Movies, of course, are much more visual, and in a since more visceral -- they lend themselves better to action and less to depth -- to ignore that would have ruined the movies.
Is Lord of the Rings not translated into your language? It's one of the most popular books of all time, and has been translated into many different tongues. If you like reading I would have thought it's hard to avoid it :)
greyztone depending on his language, the translations available could vary wildly in quality. Tolkien's writing is so informed.by his phonological profession that translating it properly is a massive undertaking.
Always best to read a story in its native language if you can.
“Too faithful”. God this guy would be the worst at parties.
I swear 😂👌
Totes lol
"too faithful to the book" -- seriously? With all the book details that are NOT in the films, right?
@@valentinomiller6251 Did you guys even here what he said? He said that Jackson and the other filmmakers put too much action in each of the films, (even though he KIND OF likes Fellowship). So there is no character development at all. They made each of the films into Bollywood versions.
Every time I tell people this, I lose brain cells because, sadly, most of you guys still do not even understand Tolkien, or his book.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 and you do?
imagine being able to live off your grandads work for your entire life
many people did that for few thousand years now
Yup, they've created nothing themselves.
Lol are you jealous?
@@MoniVenSmit ummmmm Yes.
@@MoniVenSmit I don't think it's jealousy, but rather observing people giving status to those who have done nothing. It's more of a lament for human nature.
0/10, too faithful.
- IGN
They were not faithful at all
@@zzuklaa5699 I mostly agree with you.
@@zzuklaa5699 I'll take Simon's opinion over yours, internet expert man.
@@Divinemakyr what
@@zzuklaa5699 How were they not faithful?
The fact that Sir Christopher Lee approved of them is the highest guarantee that Tolkien would have liked them. Lee saw the hard work that went into everything and I'm sure Tolkien would have appreciated even more.
@@PraetorianG2004 And? Christopher is a good son but he cant be a good Judge, Tolkien Father will be pleasure and maybe things will change in the films but Christopher didnt help PJ because he didnt want.
Why? Because he read Lord of the Rings once a year? 😅
Tolkien wasn't a fan of movies, and the movies bastardize the books so much
@Amaze Wolf Did you know Tolkien personally? Christopher was his son so I would say that being a son he would have a pretty good idea of how Tolkien felt about things. You know, cause he grew up with him. Talked with him etc.
@@sol9059 exactly, Tolkien likely would have hated the movies
Tolkien's dream was to make a new mythology, for his stories to be held in the hearts of people as myths, as far as I'm concerned, seeing a dedicated fan take great steps to retell his stories would have thrilled him, no matter how he felt about the depiction of his work.
As far as I'm concerned, you're wrong.
@@aaaaaa8656 well that's me told then, well done.
@@thesalanianJust because Tolkien valued his readers does not mean he would've wanted his mythos to be bastardized and made a fast-paced action sequence
@@aaaaaa8656 if you think that's all the films are, i can't change your mind. I can only pity you.
@@thesalanian I agree. The battle of helm's deep was so badass, really evoked emotions in me! Also gimli not being tall and falling down, haha, really made me laugh. Also his uncanny knowledge about anatomical terminology! And pippin hahahah he's so stupid merry's the smart one rofl.
Tolkien was fine with other people doing pictures and paintings based on his work, and, surprisingly, was okay with the idea of people running with his ball. He understood that people would want to dig further into his legendarium and put flesh on the bones of his sketched ideas, and said so quite explicitly in one of his letters. He'd probably not have liked Jackson's elves very much, and would have found the vulgarisations distasteful, but I think he would have appreciated the amount of effort and detail that went into the films.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Why wouldn’t he have liked the elves
What was wrong with the elves?
There are pressing questions to be answered: what is wrong with Jackson’s elves? We have questions! We must have answers!
@@TheFlyingPilgrim Apparently nothing. He was using "big words".
Something I believe not even Tolkien would complain is the music. There's no way to top that aspect of the films.
I think he would have at least liked parts of it. Some of the moments that would get it right as he imagined or close to it, or some actors doing an amazing job at portraying the character properly.
A writer would have to be very bitter and spiteful to not enjoy anything at all from adaptations of their work, especially if it is done as elaborately as Lord of the Rings.
It's still your world that is brought alive. Seeing how he gave Christopher Lee his blessing to play Gandalf I am sure he would have loved his portrayal of Saruman too.
And likely of several others as well, and seeing some of the scenery.
I mean, even if it did not get everything right as in the books and many things would be different than he imagined, the moments that where right are bound to do something to the writer of that work.
Well put, I think he would have liked seeing Rivendell, Moria, the charge of the Rohirrim, etc
Maybe he would enjoy part of the effort put into it despite not being what he imagined.
He would probably have enjoyed most of the visuals and costumes. They were meant to resemble the book illustrations, which, I believe, have been approved by Christopher, who has been eager to criticise anything about the adaptations, that he believed wasn't faithful enough.
Also Tolkien was a pretty brilliant guy. If you talked to him about the nature of film adaptations and how they are never going to be perfectly accurate and basically warned him that these are adaptations not translations I think he would be smart enough to understand and see the movies for what they are.
@@terragthegreat175 He wasn't too keen of the early scripts for the adaptations planned during his life though. He said they had too much needless fighting and weren't focusing on the right things. I wonder if he wouldn't think the same of Jackson films.
Maybe it's true, as is true that Tolkien itself rewrite over and over his books for around 40 years because he did't like it. Was a complicated man 👌
I saw the behind the scenes of the trilogy. The work and passion put in these movies is beyond imagination. Tolkien would be amazed to see that.
Ten years later he would become advicer in the less faithful and relevant adaptation of JRR work to screen.
And that looks so massively boring. The advertising makes it look like everyone claimed Fellowship to be.
At least it hasn't had Elves skateboarding.
Whether Tolkien would have loved or hated these films, let's not forget that he wanted the books made into movies! Yes! He saw the potential of making money, so in the end, who cares....I loved both....
Your Lord Zeus Same. Those movies are classics.
Jimmy Parker I didn't like them as much as I wanted. Changes in the personality of the characters, two chapters of
battles turned in to two hours (at least) of battles. The longer versions though, were much more Tolkien's LOTR. I get that the books are no source for an action triology, but still.
@FREEDOM LIGHTRIDER That's hardly British.
LOLno. Nonononono. You fucking liar. Nope. When offered a movie adaptation of Lord of the rings starring The Beatles, He shut the door to an adaptation tight. It was his children that greenlit the Ralph Bakshi cartoon version, which was later used as inspiration for the live action movie.
@@flugsven I cannot watch the theatrical versions of the movies, always have to watch extended. The extended version strikes a very good balance. Theatrical is just straight up lacking.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care much for the films themselves, but I'm certain he would've been impressed by the level of artistry, passion and love that went into making those movies.
To see his words transformed into most amazing sets, costumes, models, miniatures (or bigatures), paintings, drawings and of course the music.
The people involved in those movie lived and breathed Tolkien's work for years.
The amount of artistic value those projects produced is simply astonishing.
10 years later, The Rings of Power TV show arrived with darkness from Melkor him self. May god help us all.
You're so dramatic for no reason
@@shadi6484no there’s very much a reason
I don't mind the show, season 2 is better then season 1.
The films received massive critical acclaim and huge award recognition. How many other fantasy films can boast about that? I’m not even a big fantasy fan, but Peter Jackson’s trilogy is on a whole other level of quality.
ye i agree. in my personal opinion peter jackson improved upon the boocks or at least made them viable for a movie adaptation. most of the 3 lotr books are descriptions of appearance and lore. if you put that to film 1:1 you get a bunch of wandering location shots and narration. hardly anyone would enjoy that kind of movie.
and tolkien didnt have talent for writing battle scenes although they are an important part of his world and responsible for much of its shaping and changing. the battle for minas tirith for example was embarassing. "they rode and the orcs retreated".... riveting storytelling tolkien, really.
If Tolkien wouldn't have enjoyed the Jackson films then Rings of Power would have killed the poor old bugger.
That said I don't trust a word Simon says, he doesn't strike me as having the best interests of his Grandfather's legacy at heart
Just consider yourself lucky Disney didn’t make it. I can’t even imagine.
Disney did try to buy the rights for making a Hobbit film if I remember correctly, they just weren't succesful as the Tolkien family didn't think they would do it justice even though it is a childrens book. Bare in mind I could be wrong here but I think I've read that somewhere a few years back.
Tolkien loathed Disney's work. He thought he made fairy tales too childish.
Everyone would be trans or gay and have different colors and sizes.
*Orcs get catapulted on top of Helm's deep*
Legolas: "They fly now!!"
Gimli: "They fly now!???"
Aragorn: "... they fly now!"
@@thesecretkey9845 does this make Sauron Kylo Ren? is Morgoth Vader?
I grew up with them and they have stood out in my heart more than any other media I've seen. I may have not even read the LOTR books (or any Middle-Earth Literature) if it weren't for the films. It always irks me when fans of the series can't live life and enjoy both as they are in unison.
The books were extremely popular before the films came out. The cartoons were so much better because of character development. The problem with most people like you reading the books because of Jackson’s trilogy is that you guys are forced to have his interpretations in your heads, and not your own.
New Zealand is Middle-earth, but it is too small and new compared to Northern and Western Europe. And, CGI never ever helps unless nobody even notices it. It is a huge disservice to J.R.R. Tolkien when Jackson and the filmmakers put in way too much action. This is because the Author fought during World War 1, and killed the Nazis to defend himself, his friends, and other English Soldiers. All but one of his friends died. Tolkien, his friend, and the other soldiers obviously had nightmares, and did not want to kill another person again. They hated seeing that the good and evil soldiers were murdered and killed. This is what happens when soldiers, or characters, are in war: it changes you and you change with it. This is why he created the Scouring of the Shire Chapter. When he was nine, he saw national socialism and communism or industrialism come into Italy, Germany, Russia, and his home: England.
Well, while I haven't the patience to read LotR, I understand why those who have may not appreciate the films. The books are seriously beloved, and when something is held that closely by so many, deviating from that source, as greatly as the films did, can cause an understandable uprising. I love the films, but also have never read the books. I do, however, understand there is a great deal with which the films take liberties and omit.
For me, the same is true with my childhood religions, "Transformer" and "X-Men". Those films are not only blasphemous to the original cartoons, but for the most part, one-watch throwaways. If you loved them, great, but don't get irked when I don't. Meh.
@@agachill5000 I've done both and am a fan of both
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 Aragorn has better character development in the movie than in the book
I just came from the future and can confirm what Simon Tolkien always has been: a clown.
His rants about Jackson not being truthful with his grandfather’s work were no more that envy; and now that has his claws in the estate, allows Prime and Bezos to destroy Tolkien’s legacy and turn it into a giant piece of manure.
Not even Judas fell this low.
A clown is a nice way of putting it.
"I think he would have known what an elf would look like, and it wouldnt have looked like Orlando Bloom".
So what would it have looked like Simon?......
cope and seeth
Z😊
I don’t think his grandson knows what he’s talking about. Seems a bit arrogant compared to his grandfather
nah, the grandson is right. It was too faithful. Jackson should have made it his own. He could have done what other filmmakers do and made the film more diverse, or used it to help audiences understand modern day politics better (which is a good thing). Missed opportunity.
@@CKyIe I disagree, the beautiful thing about the story is it takes you away from the modern political and social issues of the day and looks deeper at moral and philosophical truths
@@warriorpoet667 My original post was meant to be ironic, but it probably didn't come across that way, because there probably are people who think that, haha. I agree with you, don't worry.
@@CKyIe Ahahahajahshshahahahahhahhaha nice
@@warriorpoet667 Jackson, his wife, and Fran Walsh put a ton of far-left crap in each of their lotr films. It is just a lot more blatantly clear in movies and tv shows today.
I think Tolkien would have been somewhat humbled by the films. I always perceived him as a rather humble and kind man. The LotR films have had a huge impact on many people who otherwise maybe would never have picked up the books. Films are a different form of art and they certainly can’t pick up everything that was written, but the trilogy was beautifully done and rather close to the text. Tolkien would most likely have appreciated that.
Nevertheless, it’s idiotic to assume things. Neither his descendants nor we can assume what he would have thought.
But we could possibly assume that he might have been appalled that the endings of two of his books were completely changed in the films...
@@FlanaFuguewhat like the shire/Saruman plot?
@@guneytopal1713 That and the Two Towers... (ha both Saruman related) and while we're at it, now that I'm thinking about it, a very important detail in Fellowship was also changed at the end, one that was excusable but actually changes the deeper meaning of everything.
@@FlanaFugue I’m glad they removed the whole Shire/Saruman plot. Reading the books that whole plot just seemed pointless. The books build up to this objective of destroying the ring and then spend more time talking about side plots it forgot to wrap up properly. Jackson provided the best adaptation that could be done as truthful to the original source material. Only exception is the removal of Glorfindel. His role was given to Arwen which seemed odd. They could easily put him in and give. The audience the reason of him not joining the fellowship for secrecy reasons.
This interview didn't age well. This is the man who gave a blank check to Amazon to create RoP whichever way they liked.
They run everything by the Tolkien estate, first with the pitch for all 5 seasons, and subsequently the outlines of each season, including each episode, before they start production.
@@stina.munoz.dance1 There is so much weirdness going on in those series, if current leaders of tolkien estate agree with those, it's all gone up in the air
I mean he literally said that he thought that the films were too faithful and then greenlit a less faithful show to be made. How didn't that age well?
One of the best things about the movie trilogy is its soundtrack: it’s perfect. Reading the books by itself is already magical, but reading them with the songs from the trilogy playing in your head is a unique experience. Imagine reading Tolkien describing Rivendell with the theme of the city, it is an indescribable sensation.
The main point of the books were to create an English origin myth which had been lost due to the Norman conquest (something Tolkien described as being the worst thing to happen to England).
Almost all European countries have creation myths such as Charlemagne or Siegfried, and Tolkien felt sad or disappointed the English had lost theirs, so a medium which portrayed his books in a respectful and loved way I'm sure he would've appreciated, "liked" is another story though
And then Simon goes on to executively produce Rings of Power :)
Imagine if he was able to watch the Amazon series
Show him Amazon first and he'd be much more receptive to Jackson.
@@CursedMarkMedia He'd spit in Peter Jackson's face if he saw what Peter did to his works. The Amazon series is doing exactly what Peter did to Tolkien's works. They deviated from the source material, both reduced the works to action sequences and both were deathly boring. Real reason people don't like Rings of power is that they feel threatened that non-White people are featured in it.
@@CursedMarkMedia This doesn't change the fact that comment section on the amazon trailers when they first came out feature angry comments that had over a 100k likes talking about how the franchise is being destroyed due to wokeism and talking about "die-versity". Channels such as the Nerdrotic, Mauler, The Quartering, Just some guy whose entire content is talking about how straight White men are being persecuted, also lament the inclusion of non-White people. On the flip, we have the Tolkien universe content creators like Nerd of the RIngs, Men of the West, The Red Book, In Deep Geek, to name a few, have positive or apathetic reviews of the series being viciously attacked in their comment section about how they're sell outs to Wokeism or must be getting paid by Amazon. Just as a clarification, I hate the rings of power because it's an abomination as I do the Peter Jackson films.
I feel like the title is a bit of a click bait. The point Simon made was that it would be unlikely that his grandfather would have enjoyed ANY film of his work based on the inevitable deviations from the visions in the writer’s mind and what would be released on screen from the director’s personal vision.
Movie creators get hate if they don't follow the source material enough and apparently they get hate if they do, can't win I guess
What an Elf looks like: like a human, except he's between 180cm and 210cm tall and 'tremendously strong', has a permanent reflection of a starry sky in his eye (the most important Elvish feature, not represented in the movies except for Galadriël for some reason) and glows in the dark (in the movies, except for Legolas for some reason), naturally beardless with few exceptions, extremely beautiful and well dressed in varied, rich, and ornamented clothing that also glows, fair (generally grey) eyes, generally dark hair, and a pair of discreet 'leaf-shaped' (in Tolkien own words, in the Etymologies) ears, which probably mean small and delicately pointy ears, which aren't really noticeable, to the point they aren't brought to attention in any single book. I generally imagine Legolas with light brown hair (due to his father) and blue eyes.
Tolkien also used leaf-shape to describe a Celtic sword
I think Tolkien was a smart and kind enough man to not say “it doesn’t stay loyal 100% of the time so it’s trash”. I think he would’ve enjoyed it as a separate entity, just like fans of both the books and the movies do.
I think he would’ve been happy to see his characters and locations brought to life. To see Gandalf fight he balrog in Moria. To hear the wonderful soundtracks. Boromir laying down his life for merry and pippin. Of the great battles and duels etc etc etc.
Ralph Bakshi’s lotr, the B.B.C. version, and The Lord of the Ring Online are obviously not 100% loyal to the book. But they are all a lot better adaptions then each of Jackson’s films.
Most of Shore’s music is perfect. But Jackson, ripped off the monster in the Diablo Game with the “Balrog,” and he ripped off a lot of other games and movies. Him and the other filmmakers also proved Tolkien’s point countless amount of times about exaggeration. All of their battle scenes are not even close to the ones in the book, and all of the cgi is trash.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 The CGI is only an issue in the Hobbit films, and I don’t think it’s trash. It’s just not hyper realistic.
At least his balrog didn’t look like some Lion thing with butterfly wings. That thing was ridiculous.
I still don’t think he’d hate them at all. I think he’d love to see the way Jackson told his story. To see the people snd places he described brought to life. Someone brought up how amazed he was when he saw a fans depiction of Frodo and Sam. I can’t imagine what he’d say when saw them act out everything on the big screen.
@@connorgolden4 What I meant to say is that the special effects are trash when you can see it. And it only works properly when nobody can see it. Jackson ripped off many video games and films.
The Balrog is supposed to be a twelve foot tall demon man who is filled with shadow. He is also a lot smarter in the book when he brakes one of the stone doors when Gandalf ties to shut it with one of his spells.
When Gandalf cries, “The Dark Fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun!”, this means that the Balrog’s fire can no longer protect him, so more shadow comes out of his spirit.
Well, in the illustration, Frodo definitely does not look like Elijah Wood. Ian Holm is Tolkien’s Frodo. But I do agree with you that the illustration of Sam looks exactly like Sean Astin.
@@connorgolden4 And, yes, all of the Hobbit cgi, except for Gollum, is crap.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 Wait, Jackson ripped off games and films? So because someone else adapted LOTR before him he's not allowed to do it himself? Gosh that's stupid. Honestly I don't get the whole thing with complaining about how the characters look different. So long as they look similar to the basic description and don't get a race or gender swap it shouldn't matter. What should matter most is the portrayal of the character. Maybe Elijah didn't look exactly like the illustration, but he did an excellent job with the acting of Frodo. You must not have ever enjoyed a single adaption in your life, there are ALWAYS going to be differences with how the characters look. That's just what happens.
Imagine criticising what is commonly considered a perfect adaptation of your grandfather's magnum opus by saying it was "too faithful" to the source material. Bet he loved Rings of Power.
Actually hardcore Tolkien fans constantly nitpick every aspect of Jackson's LotR like Aragorn killing Sauron's messenger or omitting Tom Bombadil
@@night6724 Aragorn killing Sauron’s messenger was not in the final cut, so it’s not really a big deal.
I think the books will always be there for people who prefer the stories in their purist form, and the movies will always be there for people who prefer a more streamlined and trimmed down version that focuses on action and scope. I love both depending on what mood I'm in.
What people don't understand is that not all cuts from book to movie adaptations are for time constraints. Some things literally do not translate to the silver screen well if at all.
This is literally just Jackson's version of middle earth and I thought it was excellent in it's own way.
Never speculate whether JRR Tolkien would have liked or not . You never know !
probably not tho.
Read more human psychology papers . This is a scientific truth .
sanch Sanchayan what is?
You cannot extrapolate the thoughts of your family members just because you are genetically connected
sanch Sanchayan yeah but he probably would not have liked how they changed his story completely.
The only three things I liked about the Hobbit trilogy are Christopher Lee, Ian McKellan, and Benedict Cumberbatch.
I may sound like an old fuck, but the computer animations are just too much. I felt like watching a cut scene waiting for the gameplay to begin.
Gandalf, Saruman and Smaug*
@ClandestineOstrich???? You getting the actor confused or something. As far I recall he was always very serious in the movies.
Username “awkward timid autistic guy” is that an insult or not?
I;d say Martin Freeman first, followed by the rest. He was amazing as Bilbo. Too bad that towards the later part of the 1st movie (& onwards) he became more of a secondary character. He was so so good. Especially when he was doing those small things with his face, like twitching his nose, & etc. It all added to the charm of the character. If anything both trilogies, have brought Tolkien's works into my attention, and I look forward to reading them. After the LOTR trilogy, I believe, that the sales of the books skyrocketed, so I don't think that professor Tolkien would've been that much displeased with the movies.
First I saw the two trilogies (Hobbit and LOTR) and I loved them and after that I decided cu read the books, all of them about Middle Earth. I loved the books. I think Peter Jackson made a wonderful work. I felt that all what he added or changed was very tolkienish. The actors fitted perfectly. Now I hope that Peter Jackson will do another Tolkien trilogy (or movie) very very soon.
In retrospect, with Simon as a consultant on the Rings of Power, I know where to put Simons opinion and judgement on what JRR would or wouldn't have liked.
Interesting how his mind works, instantly saying 'or hated'.
Him being a consultant on that show tells you all you need to know about his intellect and level of taste
Lmao.
See for me I love how grand and thrilling the films are and how calm and bohemiun the books feel.
I love the books but there's a reason so many people that loved the excitement of the films couldn't get into the books and it's because there is such a slower pace, the world washes over you and it's almost a meditative experience for me. I actually think the changes Jackson made were dead on, keeping the action moving, but giving us just enough of middle earth that people want to go and learn even more about the lore.
Stuart Taylor No the true reason is ADD this whole generation is stuck in it
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 Its because of over stimulation, the human brain isn't made to be bombarded by as much stimuli as we have today which can make more mundane things seem boring. Its especially important to limit the amount of stimuli when your childs brain is at the most important part of development. Especially electronic devices like tvs. ADD is a disorder so the environment you grew up in plays a large role.
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 Boomer moment
I would still love to see a more relaxed adaption at some point.
There's a surface placidity to English (from England) prose that takes some time to adapt to. Once you submerge yourself in them, the intensity and gravity of the work shows itself.
I think people are missing the point. Simon Tolkien is not bashing the films in any way, he just doesn’t think his grandfather would’ve enjoyed them personally. Even the most faithful adaption wouldn’t have matched Tolkien’s vision, it’s nothing against the films or Jackson. Peter Jackson himself has said several times he doesn’t think Tolkien would’ve liked several aspects of his movies but he hopes he would’ve appreciated the efforts nonetheless.
This aged poorly.
Now Simon is receiving money from Jeff Bezos to destroy his grandfather legacy in a monstrous nonsense that claims to be based on Tolkien’s world, but turned out to be a higher insult to his legacy.
I think not all people are bashing Simon Tolkien but in generala sense the Tolkien estate and mainly Christopher Tolkien who said some harsh words. Because Simon is at least respectful to Peter Jackson even though I do not agree with his view. But I think people are angry because it is weird that the movie trilogy lacked support from Tolkien estate when you can see how much love, effort and work went into the movies. And eventhough it is simplified and more action movie than maybe Tolkien would want I think it captures the atmosphere and essence perfectly and it is amazing how many people brought it to reading Tolkien. So I think your last sentence captures it perfectly, even though Tolkien would not probably enjoy the move he would appreciate the effort, which generally Tolkien estate cannot comprihend and especially Christopher which is just shame. I get why the family would not like it, but I get why people are angry that the family could not even open their mind even a little and look at the movies seperately and enjoyed it as love letter to Tolkien even though it is different from the how they pictured it.
J.R.R. Tolkien had a one of a kind mind.
The likes of which we will never see again.
Well I mean Stephen King hated Kubric’s version of the Shining. So it kinda makes sense why an artist would have a much different opinion of their work being recreated than others. Just saying.
Yesh same with one flew over the cuckoo's nest as well
I think Mr Simon Tolkien’s answers are spot-on. Well done.
The films were incredible. It’s impossible to fully recreate the imaginative capabilities of a book, as it’s purely imagination. However, it’s easy to appreciate how good the LOTR trilogy was, solely as films not as an adaptation. They were incredible. Their quality is made even more clear, as both films and an adaptation, when compared to The Hobbit films, which aren’t great at all.
You hit the nail in the head. I completely agree. They are incredibly films and even transcend the fantasy genre.
What pure hypocrisy, i.e. an elf would never have looked like Orlando Bloom when reading the below this was said about Simon Tolkien :-
2022 - In an exclusive report by Devan Coggan, Entertainment Weekly confirms the grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, Christopher’s oldest child Simon, as a consultant on AP’s Rings of Power series. In his very own words to EW: “I have enjoyed assisting Amazon Studios in connection with the series, and in particular providing input to JD Payne and Patrick McKay on matters including my grandfather’s original writing.” Showrunner Patrick McKay had this to say about Tolkien’s influence on their work: “His insights, attention to detail and passion for both the characters and the overall architecture of The Rings of Power are woven throughout the pages of our story.”
Considering the absolute sell out i.e. Woke and black elves, Simon Tolkien after his comments on the radio show in 2012 shows in truth did not give a damn about his father's legacy and just sold his father out.
None o those people look like Orlando bloom though.
Shadow of War: "Shelob can become a sexy goth lady and did nothing wrong, she was just misunderstood and heartbroken"
Tolkien: *Spinning in his grave fast and constantly enough to give mankind perpetual energy*
second game was made this way to have some connection with LOTR
First game didn't have any elements from LOTR movies except Gollum character on both games
Christ... I knew the games were taking liberties just from watching the trailers way back then. But are they actually that.... goodness, I cant think of a word to describe that.... c.c
I wonder how much JRR would despise the attrocity that this same Simon caused by selling out to Amazon and enabling them to literally vomit all over Tolkien's lore and legacy.
Listening to this interview is quite strange. Simon claims the LotR movies were too close to the books (why this is a problem is beyond me), and then you have Christopher Tolkien saying they were really weren't much like the books at all. Very odd, to say the least.
Then we have the dark lord Simon selling the rights to amazon and u know very well how that went too. Christopher should understand that books can't be re-create 100% into movies, but at last they were enough faithful and great too, best trilogy ever made too.
@@loonowolf2160 I never watched a single minute, outside a TH-cam clip or two, of RoP. I've never witnessed a show with zero appeal before. Dull, colourless, and lacking any character. The shots in the preview make GoT look like a cheery Disney production.
I'm sure Tolkien would have respected the films but there's a difference with liking and respecting.
The movies are the reason why I read the books and got into learning about the legendarium. Yes, I know it's hard for older people to accept this, but a new generation of fans is nothing to scoff at.
They did such a good job of capturing so much magic in JRR Tolkien’s stories I have nothing but respect , maybe the best trilogy’s ever made. Peter Jackson nailed it.
It's easy to say that Tolkien would have hated the movies, though you have to take in to account the time that he lived. If you used the techniques and special effects that were available in the 50's 60's or 70's the movies would have almost certainly have been horrendous. If he were alive at the time they were created he may have seen that it would be much easier to portray his world and could have taken part in it so that it wouldn't be ruined.
But Tolkien was not immortal so he couldn't, and he left his legacy with his son and sold his rights to The Hobbit and LotR. His son isn't an exact clone of him, so he couldn't accurately add on to his father's works. Christopher decided to take to alienating himself from all the people that wanted to adapt his father's works. He was stuck between a rock and a hard place because he couldn't accurately help replicate what his father's works would have looked like on mediums like film and games due to the fact that he only had his father's written works to base it off of (which is just words), rather than the treasure that his father's mind could have imagined.
Agreed.
That is assuming the limitations of special effects would have been his only objection.
it could of been ok if the effects were managed well. Wizard of OZ was really good for its time, I think it's ok for now too actually.And it was done better in lotr than the hobbit.
The real issue is that Tolkein is a curmudgeon. He knew his world was to big for a screen, and almost to big for his book, so he knew he could not like what he saw.
Tolkien would've hated the movies because they did not respect his own vision: he was against _unnecessary_ change in plot or story, changing characters, giving lines to the wrong characters... And I could name plenty of examples of all those things from the PJ movies. Why do I think that? Because Tolkien tore appart a script proposal in one of his letters. One of the criticisms was that his account at Weathertop was completely rewritten: from an atmospheric and haunting clash that was over before you knew it to some swinging of swords and action like that. Sounds familiar?
But what people need to realize that this is not the only thing Tolkien didn't like about the visual medium. He argues that literature is far superior to any visual medium in terms of fantasy. This is because in literature makes the audience into an actor. The reader needs to imagine the world for himself, based on the words the author uses. If the author says bread, everyone will have a different picture in his head. With literature, you can effectively create a second world within the minds of people. An unique and individual world for each of those readers. Meanwhile, in a movie it's the directors image that is forced into the minds of the audience. So technological progression won't help you in this case.
I’ve always felt the Tolkein estate was too zealous about protecting source material but Amazon has proved me wrong.
Tolkien estate was super zealous about protecting the source material. Simon is the one that isn't. His father would have NEVER allowed this. Amazon literally waited till Simon's dad/ Tolkien's son died so they could make this monstrosity. Meanwhile, Simon hates his dad and likely is partly doing this as a FU to his dead father. Plus for the money of course.
Simon is a sell out. Talking about how Tolkien wouldn't have liked the movies (which might be true, he couldn't stand people changing his story or characters, you can read about how much he hated it in his letters talking about another film script for LOTR) But meanwhile he is allowing Amazon to literally sodomize the franchise lol
@@3choblast3r4 Stop lying. If the Tolkien Estate cared an ounce about protecting the source material they would NEVER have allowed the Peter Jackson's bastardisation action film trash to be produced. By the way, Amazon procured the rights to the film adaptations in 2017 and it was signed by Christopher, not Simon. Tolkien would have spat in Peter Jackson's face for having turned his works into those monstrosities. Simon was spot on about how Tolkien would have reacted. Amazon didn't do anything to the franchise that Peter Jackson hadn't already done to it already. If anything, Amazon doing what it did was doing exactly what Peter Jackson did. You only don't like it because it's got non-White people in it. That's the real gripe here.
The only thing Amazon proved was that the "protecting the source material" nonsense is just an excuse used by these so-called fans angry that they featured non-White characters and more prominent roles for women in the new series. The Peter Jackson films were just as much if not more of a bastardisation of Tolkien's work, deviated from the source material and turned it into another zombie action film. You just enjoyed the Peter Jackson trash because it didn't have non-White people in it and cast White men. Anytime you deviate ever so slightly from this, the angry nerds get upset and start talking about "protecting the source material", as if the source material wasn't being violated already. Your comment is a perfect demonstration of this - you didn't have any issues with violating the source material and thought it too zealous until the evil SJWs got their hands on it. Could you be more transparent.
@@hislord1 eyo thats the same wonky take as before my dude
@@barombolobombolo1501 Cool, doesn't address any of the points I raised. I suspect you can't refute them, so I accept your admission of defeat.
A Lesser son of greater sires
That last sentence was class :)
It may not be a fun insight to hear for a fan, but as much as I love the films, I also suspect that JRR would not have enjoyed watching them. He did not make these stories for a visual medium. He used to say his Mass in Latin even after the Church switched to common language. He was a rather “rigid” personality, and I can respect that conviction from an artist. Simon is making an astute speculation about how his grandfather would’ve reacted
i respect what he said, but at the same time hed have to be happy that his universe is shared, because anyone who has gone threw what it takes to create such an amazing piece of work woul dlove to have othr people enjoy it also
Tolkien doesn't particularly like film. He never said he hated film, but he doesn't like it. He especially hates Disney. Tolkien has expressed in an interview that literature and film are too different things that express completely different things, unable to be translated from one form to another.
Well, maybe he was pleasantly surprised. We can all change our minds!
Art in all it's forms are open to interpretation. I really have no idea if he would have enjoyed the films, but at the very least, I think he would have appreciated them as one interpretation of his work. It would have been an insight into how a lot of people imagined the characters and the world as they read the book, and I fully believe he would have respected and appreciated that.
I think Tolkien would've enjoyed the novelty of seeing his world on screen, and the friendship of Sam and Frodo. He probably would've hated Gimli's characterization and the removal of the Scouring of the Shire though
Sounds like George Lucas's opinion on the newer Star Wars movies.
Lucas liked Rogue One and The Last Jedi though
@@andresacosta4832 He called The Last Jedi beautifully made. Not that he liked it.
@@GoHawk70 he did like them though lol
@@zzuklaa5699 do you have a clip of him saying that? I've never seen him say that
@@GoHawk70 do you have a clip of him saying he doesn't like them?
He's quite correct. Based on everything we know about J.R.R. Tolkien (from letters, interviews, biographies, etc.) there's absolutely no doubt that he would have hated the Lord of the Rings movies (and absolutely loathed the Hobbit movies). But he'd have been delighted by the money they have made for his descendants (especially now that top U.K. marginal tax rates are so much lower than they were when he was alive). He was a very practical man in a lot of ways, and sold both the manuscripts of LotR and the movie rights to it at a time when the books were still only moderately successful and his earnings as an Oxford professor were pretty low.
Based on biographies and such that I've read of J.R.R. I agree that he probably wouldn't have enjoyed the films. I do think however that he would approved of three things. Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn, Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and the music for the films
@Caesar Australis How has Ian McKellen used these to promote LGBT?
@@truesoundchris I think so because he was a fan of classical music or at least Wagner. And the scores for the movies are very touching, and they also sound classical as opposed to stuff that he probably didn’t consider music like the Beatles. One thing he probably would’ve loved is if the scores had the lyrics he wrote in songs and if the characters sang the songs attributed to them.
Books will always be superior to movies you can dream yourselfs away in the books.
I was suprised of this until I read a book myself. Such a big difference between these two.
And there it is. The film can stand alone. Those intellectual nutheads two or three comments above can suck eggs
@@joncrane7661 Oh, yeah! Those films where most of the audience do not have their own imagination when they read the book, and it is much harder to read it after they have watched all of the movies? The lotro game is much better than all of Jackson's films!
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 That is a gross generalization. I have read the books and still love the movies. They are two different forms of media, what works for a book might not work for a movie. You have to put some separation between the two. Most people aren't willing to sit in a theater for 3+ hours so they cut it down to be more theater friendly.
@@garretth8224 Then, they should have made a tv show because you can do anything with a series.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 At the time a TV show with those Production values was impossible, in fact at the time a movie with those Production values was seen as impossible and yet they somehow did it. Don't ask something harder to a Production that was already seen as impossible. And no, the games are not better, go see a video analysis on script, direction, music, Production and direction of actors and keep saying that.
I was 9 years old when I first saw the Fellowship of the ring that movie prompted me to read the books and I fell even more in love with the books and the movies I been obsessed ever since I’m about to be 30 tomorrow these books and movies mean everything to me
I think it's irrelevant whether or not the Tolkiens would have liked the films. I've seen those three films touch so many lives in the greatest ways. Those films ARE life, and thanks to them, so many readers, myself included, took interest in the books.
That tool was the consultant for rings of power.
If someone did a film of one of my works that was half as great as Peter Jackson's original trilogy, I would be thrilled.
I wouldn't have to see the movie, because I have already lived those stories, and I imagine that JRR Tolkien would not have needed to see the movie either, for the same reason. He has already lived those stories like I have mine. But I would be thrilled that so many people would get to see that movie who hadn't lived it like I did!
I can only hope I have realized in writing the vision that inspired my own works a tenth as well as Peter Jackson realized Tolkien's vision!
1:39 he gives a decent argument, but then why did his grandfather even sell the rights for a film adaptation?
Money problems.
It's so quaint now, the luxury of nitpicking Jackson's movies. You look at movies now and what they've become and it's hard to believe the industry was ever capable of producing something so good.
I think he would have enjoyed them. All the passion put into the original trilogy would have been flattering tbh.
Too faithful is exactly what I wanted having grown up reading the books. I commend Jackson who stayed true to the material (for the most part). Had it been another director the movies would have stunk.
He invented a character without interest only to please modern public. How is that faithful to the books ?
His movies are not faithful at all, the soul of the books is not there, respecting the books would implie to go against today's blockbuster standards... and peter jackson didn't want that.
@@const6610 What character did he invent? Been a while since I watched the movies.
@@aaaaaa8656 Tauriel only exists to create a useless love story with no sense.
But let's be clear I like the movies as they are but not as adaptations
@@const6610 Oh, you were talking about the Hobbit, thought you're mentioning LOTR. Yeah, I get that. Just another bastardized hollywood love story...
@@aaaaaa8656 But I have a similar impression with a lot of aspects of LOTR, the movies do not have the soul of the books, maybe it was inevitable but I think that Peter Jackson wanted to make a blockbuster as the trend wants it
Man .... Lord of the Rings and the Tolkien estate would seek for attention without Peter Jackson triology, sure there would be a hugh fandom still but the movies had and have such a hugh impact. Games, series, Tabletop, merch, just millions and millions of dollar for the tolkien estate they should be so greatfull for his masterpiece triolgy.
Yes it's only about the money tolkien thought
The best person to have asked would have been Christopher Lee, for he was a big fan, met Tolkien and played in the trilogy
The world has changed. I feel it in the water, I smell it in the air and I see it in the films. Tolkien would have been devastated with the state of England and the world. The Jackson films would have epitomised the virtual complete loss and understanding of the essence of the magic, wonder and mystery of a bygone time.
Yup. Too few of us see it sadly ...
I'm struggling to understand how he thinks the films were 'too' faithful.
So faithful that they made the decision not to include scenes such as the old forest and the scouring of the shore due to pacing issues
@@ComicRaptor8850 Indeed, and the inclusion of the elves at Helm's Deep and the alterations to Faramir's behaviour.
I watched all six films again recently. I have the extended versions of all of them and I think I might not have seen the Hobbit extended versions before. I did feel a little more sympathetic to some of the changes he made with the films, even if I wouldn't necessarily have made them myself, but some of them still don't really seem to be that necessary.
Overall, I still enjoyed and enjoy the films and it cannot be underestimated what a huge job they did and what they achieved in terms of locations, cast, costume, and staging of many of the big pieces. However, 'too faithful' still seems like an odd response, to me.
@Joshua Foley They often do but there is no written rule which says they have to. Most changes are because of the change in medium.
I watched an interesting video about the scene in which Gandalf greets Frodo as he comes back to consciousness as Rivendell and how they needed to place him differently in the room to make the shot work. It's a subtle difference and one which people are unlikely to notice ( I know I didn't ) but totally understandable.
Other changes, such as the alteration to Faramir's personality, seem less necessary, particularly as Tolkien had set out his character in a particular way for what would seem like a specific reason.
But my response about 'too faithful' is merely to say that, irrespective of whether or not you agree with the changes, they are numerous enough and significant enough to make me wonder how on earth the adaptation could be thought of as 'too faithful'.
I think Tolkien might have enjoyed listening to the BBC radio adaptations, they were faithful to the books for the most part and had some excellent performances.
J. R. R. wouldn't like the films for exactly what Simon said: films must exists in their own right, and J. R. R. wouldn't appreciate this. And though, according to Simon, they follow the books too closely, they do exist in their own right to some extent. J. R. R. would expect them to be more like what he himself had in mind, and would be disappointed. But any good film must vary from what the book author had in mind: they must exist to at least some extent in their own right. In other words, whereas Simon thought they followed the books too closely, J. R. R.'s problem with the books would have been the exact opposite.
You have no idea what JRR Tolkien's problem would be.
No one does because hes dead
You fucking genius there.
@@MoonwalkerWorshiper He was known to be a bit perfectionist and quibble over slight things. It is possible he would have enjoyed the films but based on everything he would have been dissapointed by everything a film just can not be.
@@imaloser5689 Or he would've been positively surprised how much they did manage to incorporate into the film as a visual medium from his complex books, since the probability for getting so much right is low and he would watch it with low expectations.
In fact I think it's likely Tolkien would've discovered new feelings associated with his Middle-Earth. It would expand his fantasy, not work against it. Tolkien's mind was so much more intellectual and understanding than any of these bickering self-important "fans".
Look, Peter Jackson had extreme courage to make this movie because no one else was going to take the challenge, no one else was going to do it, just saying... I'm black and I loved every second of the movie and not many blacks know of the movie's existence. These films are my dad's favorite movies. He still watches them back to back. Chris Tolkien almost ruined my respect for his father's legacy when Ive learned he didnt like the films but whatever!
Look, Peter Jackson had extreme courage to make a mindless action trilogy with little to no character development! LOL!
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud48213 movies, 4 hours long each, 1:30 hours at most of action in each movie. Complains there is no character development, so the other 2:30 hours where about what?
@@thomasbarbosa625 The action in The Fellowship of the Ring Film takes up two thirds of the time, and in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, there is fifty percent of talking and action.
@@thomasbarbosa625 What I meant to say is that all of the action in the Fellowship movie took up a third of the time.
When the book was written it was literally unadaptable and Tolkien couldn't have imagined the advancements in film making technology
I think he would have been pleasantly surprised what Jackson was able to do
I guess this guy's answer was just out of frustration being compared to his father and grandfather all the time. But J.R.R would have'd love the movies except some criticism here and there, but over all will like it. Christopher no the other hand, he will have a lot of criticism like one third of the over all movies. This guy isn't just into his grandfather work as his father did, but over all if the older tolkiens' could see what is happening to their works they would definitely wouldn't allow amazon to do it.
wtf is going on in this comment section
Troll God nerds be changry
Troll God oy vey
PinkFloydrulez ?
Troll God You can blame me for the comment section of today.
Writing here, as Tolkien reincarnated, I think the apple has fallen someway from the tree, Simon. I love the films.
I thank Peter Jackson for the LOTR trilogy! From seeing it the first time when I was five years old in 2001 and finishing the last movie when I was 7 in 2003. It sparked my passion into Tolkeins works. I have read the LOTR trilogy five times over now, I have read the children of Hurin recently and now I'm working my way to the end of the Silmarillion. I've practically seen the movies well over 100 times each. It may not be an exact adaptation but Peter hit on most of the major points. He cast the characters perfectly and imo he nailed ALL of the characters personalities except for Denethor. All of my love for Tolkeins works is due directly to the films. Whether or not JRR would have liked them I truly do not know but I do know LOTR would not be nowhere as popular today without those movies.
This is the problem with adaptations because film will never be what the true fans and author and his family imagined. Peter Jackson and most of the people who worked on it, including most of the cast were not fans of Tolkien.
If you read the book only five times and watched the films one hundred, then you are not a fan of the author because you like the action more than nature, character development, amazing battle tactics, History, and Christianity.
The whole point of the lotr book is so that the Hobbits can save the Shire! But, it does not matter that it was cut out because all of them have little to no progression.
Merry and Pippin are retarded for most of the films.
Most of Sam's character is different, and Frodo is not fifty years old which means that he is not even close to being as wise and bravo as he is in the book. He is not even thirty three years old!
You are definitely right though about Denethor! But, the only characters who are the most human, or who progresses the most are Bilbo and Boromir, even when Jackson sadly did not understand most of their characters. And, about all of Howard Shore's music is the best part of the films.
Tolkien would not have liked the films because he read a lotr script in the 1950's, and tore it to pieces because the Weathertop Scene had more hacking and slashing than tension and character development. Does this sound familiar to you?
Literally every battle scene in Jackson's movies are all about hacking and slashing, which are much longer than the conversations, especially with the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Peter Jackson made the films, including The Fellowship of the Ring, for millennials, who are the most rebellious group of people, and for the majority of society who do not want to keep the Commandments.
@@saberhamlinconmaverickknud4821 I mean you cant make a movie adaptation fit the script exactly. Each book is around about 16-19 hours and the movies were limited to 3 hours each. I thinks its foolish and unfair to say the movies were bad because they didnt stick 100% to the books. Theres just to much material to not take shortcuts. And I've watched the movies so much more because they're much shorter. The books take much longer to read and I dont always have time to sit down and read 2 or 3 hours at a time.
@@TheBravesfan30 You are correct for the most part! They could have made it into a tv show, and filmed most of the locations in Europe. Who cares about tv shows having lower budgets then movies? Yes, Game of Thrones failed because the show was made for today. Today, most films are being butchered by identity politics. In the 1990's most films were not being destroyed by swjs. But, all of the lotr films were!
@@TheBravesfan30 All of the lotr films were crapped on by social justice warriors. There were some good scenes in each film, though!
He's right about the corporatism though. That part is a bit sad.
Tolkien would probably diss the movies
And then he would hit Rings of power writers with something heavy, multiple times
Oh you didn't know? Actually his relatives are ok with the TV series but against original trilogy
Hmmm, suspicious
The Lord of the rings movies are my favorite movies of all time.
"Too faithful"... how is that an issue?
Everyone doesn't like the source material being copy-pasted to another medium.
@RoachDoggJr Some of us have watched a lot of adaptations so we would prefer something new and creative since we know the source material already. Joker.
@RoachDoggJr yea sure
JRR Tolkien would have loved Rings of Power Season 2
What I think is that J.R.R. Tolkien would have liked certain parts of the LoTR films. He would have disliked other parts and even loathed some parts, and it would have been a difficult experience as it is for all authors who have seen their works and worlds interpreted and put to film. Simply saying that he would have liked or disliked them isn't nuanced enough of an answer. One thing I can say about Tolkien is that he had a very analytical mind, and he would have had a lot to say about Jackson's trilogy. I certainly would have enjoyed reading those reviews if he'd still been around to write them. I think one thing that would have favoured the films is the fact that they open with a prologue, which is one of the trilogies strongest moments. I believe Tolkien would have been surprised to hear the film's first words be a narration in English and Elvish. The prologue of the Fellowship of the Ring captures the spirit of Tolkien's world extraordinarily well for a film.
As an author, myself, I would certainly appreciate if someone had the passion such as Jackson to turn my novel into a movie 🎥 🤩
I don't think Tolkien would have particularly liked them no, but I think he would have appreciated him, and acknowledged that they are probably the best adaption that we will ever get.
th-cam.com/video/lZKlLrOctjo/w-d-xo.html need i say more
Just imagine how many people were introduced to Tolkien’s books because of the movies. I can’t imagine a movie that does the books more justice than Jackson’s LOTR.