"Tolkien Estate Not Happy With Movies" Topic

First interview in 40 years…
"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie…"

link

Past statements have suggested that Chris doesn't really get the whole movie thing.

But "Movie 53" hasn't even been released yet!

Action Movies? Clearly the first Hobbit film should put his fears to rest.

Have to say I'm with Christopher Tolkien – the films wren't made for those who loved the books.

Commercialism did not seem to bother Chris when he published his "Yet More Unfinished Tales" junk.

I don't think he's getting a cut. That can lead to a lot of bitterness.

Hollywood accounting at its best: Cathleen Blackburn, lawyer for the Tolkien Estate in Oxford, recounts ironically, "These hugely popular films apparently did not make any profit! We were receiving statements saying that the producers did not owe the Tolkien Estate a dime."

Lesson to be learned – don't ask for a share of the "profit", 'cause there won't be any!

Yes, any Hollywood accountant that allows a film to show a profit is buried under the latest freeway expansion.

Christopher Tolkien and his brothers were the original audience for "the Hobbit." Christopher, in particular, worked very closely with his father and has a good understanding of how things should be.

I think the only thing he didn't get about movies is that their creators are crooks. He probably gets that now.

It sounds like somebody wants a few more million.

"Those movies are absolute garbage"
"Here, how about $10 USD million"
"Did I say garbage, I meant the best thing ever"

"Have to say I'm with Christopher Tolkien – the films wren't made for SOME OF those who loved the books."

I fixed that for you… I loved the books, and so did my family and friends. There isn't one of them who didn't love the movies as well.

The Christopher Tolkien thing is all about a sour, bitter, talentless son of a very famous and talented person getting all upset because he had no control over what was done with his father's work. Too bad, so sad. Create something yourself, ya punk, and THEN you can complain when it isn't done "right"!!

But I'm sure they helped book sales where they will get a profit from.

"I think the only thing he didn't get about movies is that their creators are crooks"

Harsh, bitter, unrealistic and simplistic. You might like to expound on that statement, with particular reference to Peter Jackson.

Christopher Tolkien is as entitled to his own opinion as much as the rest of us; his big mistake is apparently believing that that opinion matters to anyone else.

I always shed a tear when people who did nothing get the shaft.

The rights were sold for what was at the time a considerable amount of money.

What 20thmaine said.

The world is full of authors who sold the rights to Hollywood.
Some, like Donald Westlake or Tim Powers cash the checks, and realize that they are lucky if Hollywood uses more than the title.
Some, like William Goldman or George RR Martin, are involved in the production, and know where there need to be changes.
And then some get upset if the third verse of Tom Bombadil's poem is dropped for time. This guy isn't even the author, just "an heir".

"Heirs" are the ones who commission hacks to write sequels to Gone with the Wind, in spite of the clear wishes of the author that no such thing be written.

I might point out that Paris Hilton is an heir too.

The Tolkien clan will be laughing all the way to the bank. Oh wait they wanted a share of the 'profits' – morons – you ask for a share of the revenue!

When you sell the rights, you sell the rights. That means unless your contract states differently, you have NO say in what happens to the story (or anything else) and NO share of the money made because you were already paid for it. You NO LONGER OWN the property in question. It's no different than if you sell the family farm. What happens to the land after that is none of your business, nor do you get any profit if somebody builds Disneyland on it. You already got your share of the "profit" when you sold it.

Now, that's not to say that Hollywood can't or doesn't manipulate contracts, or that the biggest works of fiction in LA aren't the studio books. But let's face it, Christopher has likely made a nice little chunk of change off the movie options for his father's books, and if he didn't, he had a lousy agent. (Don't sell the rights, sell the option. That's how you make money.) So complaining that he hasn't gotten more money on top of the money he was already paid is more than a bit disingenuous. Dad set him up quite well… like Bilbo, he's living in the house his father built, and he keeps going down into the family vault to pull out more of the family treasure, and that's fine and dandy by me.

On the other hand, if he truly feels that his father's artistic vision hasn't been treated with respect or understanding, that's a different argument. I disagree, but he's free to make it. Of course, my eyebrow goes up when I consider the other attempts to film the books (not to mention the absolutely dreadful "authorized" children's play of The Hobbit), none of which came even close to matching Peter Jackson's efforts. PJs might not be the best that could be made (that's a different argument), but they are certainly far better than anything anyone else has ever attempted, and frankly far superior to what I think Hollywood itself would probably have done with it all.

So, I'm not really going to give CT much of a hearing on either point.

Just read the article.

Sorry, but I come away from it thinking that Christopher is more than a bit of a snob.

He definitely seems to have an axe to grind…

Yeesh, I couldn't cut my way through that jungle of 'journalism.' Whatever CT's issues are, they will remain forever obscured by the pretentious prose poured out upon the unsuspecting and disinterested reader.

I loved the books, at least the LotR series, I always thought the Hobbit was a bit of a kid's book. I thought the movies matched up very well with the books in that respect. I loved the first ones and thought the Hobbit was a bit of a kid's movie. I still liked it.

Harsh, bitter, unrealistic and simplistic. You might like to expound on that statement, with particular reference to Peter Jackson.

You are right. Movie producers are quite honest.

I've never been impressed by Christopher Tolkien. His daddy said "Never examine the bones from which the soup is made". And what did his son do? Publish that torpid series "History of Middle-earth", and give "fans" all the bones to examine that Christopher could dredge up and paste together. I do like the Silmarillion; that was a worthy addition to his daddy's mythology. But he totally lost me when he went into that 12 volume series of "history" books. I think his daddy would disapprove.

Would J.R.R. like the movies? Yes and no. He would agree with most of the visual interpretation I'm thinking. He'd like the characterizations for the most part. And I think he'd approve of the plot delivery AS movie interpretations, for the most part (but holding some serious objections too, about what got left out and what got put in to replace what got left out). But he would deplore the gratuitous cliff-hanger crap, and think that there is waaaay too much fighting.

Would J.R.R. regret selling the movie rights when he did? I think so. That's what annoys the family estate; they missed out on the huge bucks….

The money they were paid then would be about 2 million dollars in todays cash. Not as much as they could have gotten. But who knew about marketing movie products back then?
Planet of the Apes got all that started. Plus it took about 25-30 years to make a LOTR movie.

Thanks,

John

3 Movies for one book. Tells you all you need to know…

3 Movies for one book. Tells you all you need to know…

Not just one book, but stuff from the other works too, so I'm okay with three movies.

<Harsh, bitter, unrealistic and simplistic. You might like to expound on that statement, with particular reference to Peter Jackson.>

It may well be that Sir Peter would agree. He did sue New Line for (what he considered to be) his fair share of the profits from LotR. Actually, forget fair, I mean ‘contractually obligated'. I think he won too.

Blimey if he thinks that making them action movies was bad, wait until he finds out a miniatures wargame was created around the story too!

Not just one game, either.

I never saw the films as an adaptation of the books. More of an illustration really. I went to see them with low expectations and I wasn't disappointed. But I wasn't surprised either. It is telling that most of the people I know that love the movies have never even read the books.

I can imagine that viewing the movies as an adaptation of the books can be a shocking experience. The subtelty that I always admired in the books certainly is hard to find in the movies. So I share his feeling.

It is telling that most of the people I know that love the movies have never even read the books.

Not really. That's anecdote. I, for one, love the films as well as the books, and appreciate both for what they are. So I undercut your assumptions rather handily.

For the record, I lost count of the number of times I have read The Hobbit at 30— and that was back in college. For The Lord of the Rings I lost count at 25. And I still periodically pull out both and read them yet again. I tend to watch the films once a year also. Also for the record I was an English major (Creative Writing) with my elective courses focusing on Medieval Literature and the history of the English language (rather similar to Tolkien, in fact). I had an informal minor in drama and film study (Vandy didn't actually support "minors" in my day). So I'm rather well equipped to evaluate both the books and the films intelligently and with an above average basis of knowledge.

Do the films reach the same level as the novels?

No. There are many missteps and flaws in the films. But there are also moments of particular effectiveness as well, and overall I *do* think they carry across both the story and the themes that Tolkien was exploring in his books. And they are enjoyable in their own right as films, especially if you can avoid being nit-picky about the flaws, which IMO are largely minor.

Are the books the greatest forms of literature in the modern era?
No. The flaws are many, from the obvious literary excesses (Tom Bombadil) to characters that come and go for no reason (Glorfindel) to somewhat flat portrayals of women. Even the high style can get a bit old. But they are still beautiful and evocative stories, with rich themes, startling imagery, and a setting that is unparalleled in its depth and complexity while still carrying a feeling of both myth and history. That's no small achievement, and most modern fantasy fails to reach such levels.

I think some think too poorly of the one and too highly of the other, whichever way that comes from.

Well said!

Some, like … George RR Martin, are involved in the production, and know where there need to be changes.

Yet that twerp can't end his own damn series and keep fans like myself still buying despite realizing he's stretching things out. What a maroon!
--
Tim

I'm with Christopher Tolkien. Additionally, I'm very disappointed with the two major villains of this 1st film – poor CGI and screen presence. Still, I thought the movie was a magnificent disaster and I'll own it.

Oh well…

While anecdotal, my observations are still what they are. That aside, I see no need to disagree with you. Like you, I read both books dozens of times and saw the movies several times. The books are not the best books ever written (what a thread THAT would be!) and the movies do not measure up to the books as far as their storyteling virtues are concerned.

I liked the movies but I can imagine someone being passionate about the books -like Christopher Tolkien is likely to be- having trouble with them when viewing them as an interpretation of the books. As that, as we both seem to agree on, they fall short. As an epic fantasy movie however, they are top notch. And while Jackson's liberties with the story are IMO often superfluous and rather shallow, he still paints a lovely and impressive picture with his films.

He is most likely a far better film maker than he is a storyteller. Then again, if he would have left that entirely to Tolkien we would have had movies with lots more Elven poetry. We are spared that, which is no mean gain….

:)

Is P. Jackson a better film-maker than J.R.R. Tolkien is a story-teller? That is a fun question; sort of like comparing apples to oranges, since story telling is the "fruit" being discussed, but the mediums are very, very different….

Is P. Jackson a better film-maker than J.R.R. Tolkien is a story-teller?

That's not what I said. I meant that I think Jackson is better with creating images than with telling a story and that Tolkien is (by far) the better storyteller of the two. I base this on the clunky nature of those parts of the story that PJ added to it, compared to the original storylines. E.g. the Endless Azog Pursuit Plot, Radagasts rabbit sled, Gandalf conjuring a key out of nothing and looking mysterious and PJs alleged plan to have Sauron and Aragorn fight a duel before the gates of Mordor….

Since Tolkien never tried his hand on movies, a comparison between the two on that front is not possible.

I know you didn't ask that question: I did. It grew out of your question….

P.J. is a great film maker. Tolkien was a great story teller; even if he did too much of the "travel log" thing and was a bit spare in his combat details for modern tastes. I think the modern detailed combat scenes popular today (e.g. Cornwell) are gratuitous and excessive. And this has spilled over into P.J.'s movies. Action is what sells, more than plot and character development….

In a clash between creators (or their heirs and family members) and the movie business, my natural instincts are going to be to place my sympathy with the creators or their estates. Without whom there would be no product to argue over. The Tolkien family has my respect as the source of the literature without which no movies would have been made; Hollywood, in essence, is merely pimping.

I'm not bothered the History of Middle-earth series -- nobody forces anyone to buy these, but for die-hard fans and scholars and researchers, ready access to this material is a blessing. Hundreds of years from now, academics will feel similar gratitude. Today's scholars only wish they had something comparable for writers of the past. The professor may have denigrated the process by which he came to write his masterworks, but literary historians beg to differ.