The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)

[Black Wizard]

Okay, the battle in the last Hobbit film was long.

The whole film was the battle. It was only five pages of the book!

 

[Forostar]

It was only five pages of the book!

Too short!

 

[Perun]

I realise that I don't really have any business in this thread, seeing how I am not a Tolkien fan and haven't seen the Hobbit films yet, but I did want to answer to this:

Absurd, and an offensive money grab.

This is something I've seen as an argument against the Peter Jackson films and The Hobbit trilogy in particular. I agree that the LOTR DVD editions are quite extreme, and the Hobbit ones have gone even further, with a 15-DVD edition. I know how thin the original book is, and having it stretched out to three major films is something that may be seen as a cash grab.

While I don't doubt that the production in general was bent on making as much money as possible, I still think that their way of doing it is the least offensive one possible. They are actually producing value for money. They bothered to take the time and effort to create content for 15 DVDs, to squeeze the maximum amount of original content possible out of the book and the films. Sure, people are paying a lot for it, and Peter Jackson gets filthy rich for it, but at least they are paying for something that delivers a large amount of entertainment. The three films from the Hobbit exist, and they include 100 per cent original content, each of them.

I am pointing this out because the other big entertainment franchises of our time fail to do this. Okay, I don't know anything about Marvel, but look at Lucasfilm and Star Wars. The content produced for Star Wars is relatively small, yet the merchandise machine that just sells you the same toys all over again is enormous. You get Darth Vader cake toppings and C3P0-branded bananas. All without having any original content related to it, because there are no birthday cakes or bananas in Star Wars. The original content created is minimal by comparison.

At least Jackson sells movies first, and everything else later.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I am pointing this out because the other big entertainment franchises of our time fail to do this. Okay, I don't know anything about Marvel, but look at Lucasfilm and Star Wars. The content produced for Star Wars is relatively small, yet the merchandise machine that just sells you the same toys all over again is enormous. You get Darth Vader cake toppings and C3P0-branded bananas. All without having any original content related to it, because there are no birthday cakes or bananas in Star Wars. The original content created is minimal by comparison.

But George Lucas sanctioned all the other non-film stuff; he created Star Wars & this includes all the other shit you mention. Whether you like it or not, surely as the creator he can choose to create non-film Star Wars stuff?

At least Jackson sells movies first, and everything else later.

Jackson's films are in themselves derivative; the books gave Jackson the platform to make these films & the enormous profits they created. He's not Middle-earth's George Lucas. They are in no way "100 per cent original content, each of them". Peter Jackson is a film director & script writer; he didn't create anything, all he did was embelish & tarnish the glorious literary creation that someone else had painstakingly spent their life creating. The fact that Hollywoodland, with the aid of Jackson, monetised this is something that I find hard to applaud. George Lucas, on the other hand, can do what he wants with what he made up.

Why is everyone not content to simply let something be? Tolkien wrote some good books; enjoy them. Why did, and do, they need to be added to, embellished, changed, "improved" upon, etc?

 

[Perun]

You've completely missed my point, Cried. All I was talking about were the films and how much original content they generated that could be sold. How much it has to do with the books or what Lucas' and Jackson's claim to the material is has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. All I said was, if you're going to sell stuff, let it be value for money. Whether you think it's shitting on Tolkien's memory is a different subject.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

You've completely missed my point, Cried. All I was talking about were the films and how much original content they generated that could be sold.

Did I? You made several points, including...

I am pointing this out because the other big entertainment franchises of our time fail to do this. Okay, I don't know anything about Marvel, but look at Lucasfilm and Star Wars.

Your point seems to be that these franchises failed. I don't think they did. I think bringing up George Lucas as an example of a created world that is only about the films isn't a very good example. Those franchises are just that; franchises. Star Wars toys & books etc are part of that world; since George Lucas, who made up Star Wars, played a part in creating them. These aren't derivative elements of the Star Wars universe. You seem to be claiming, on the other hand, that Jackson didn't do any of this; as he had no part in the non-film stuff, the "original content" as you put it. My point is that Peter Jackson & his work are themselves derivative; as derivative as the Star Wars action dolls you state to be failed elements of Lucas' Star Wars creation.

All I said was, if you're going to sell stuff, let it be value for money.

I don't see how this is relevant to anything. When money is being made by one person from the fruits of another; that, to me, is the important issue, not whether it's value for money.

Whether you think it's shitting on Tolkien's memory is a different subject.

I don't think it's a different subject. They're clearly linked.

 

[Forostar]

Why is everyone not content to simply let something be? Tolkien wrote some good books; enjoy them. Why did, and do, they need to be added to, embellished, changed, "improved" upon, etc?

Why do adaptions exist? This is getting philosophical. Why are you not content and simply let the adaption be? It is something else, isn't it?

edit:

Peter Jackson is a film director & script writer; he didn't create anything, all he did was embelish & tarnish the glorious literary creation that someone else had painstakingly spent their life creating.

Writing a screenplay is something else than writing a novel. Writing a screenplay and directing are activities leading to a result. Thus, he created something.

In Jackon's case he made an adaption:

A screenplay or script is a written work by screenwriters for a film, video game, or television program. These screenplays can be original works or adaptations from existing pieces of writing. In them, the movement, actions, expression, and dialogues of the characters are also narrated.

So, he did do this, he created the screenplay. @CriedWhenBrucieLeft are you in need of a law that bans screeplays if they are adaptions from existing pieces of writing? Only screenplays allowed if they are original works?
That's madness. Some of the best films in history are adaptions.

 

[Brigantium]

Doable to make for sure. But I honestly wonder how the scenes would be distributed over the passages in the book. I'd know which scenes I would make different or even cut out completely, but to be honest, I did like some of the "outside The Hobbit book scenes". They provided more ground for some extra dark touch. Not sure if I would like to have all that out.

Let's take the riddle scene with Gollum. How long did that take? It did follow the book pretty well didn't it? But that passage itself is a highlight in the book as well. Some of the other shorter passages in the book are probably not that good to do in that same literal manner. I guess Jackson (but probably also other directors who have own ideas of what suits film) saw these passages as opportunities to do more with it.

Spoiler

The Fraggle Rock scene with that Goblin King (and the escape) was annoying. He did too much with that. A ridiculous rollercoaster-like scene. But other scenes, like Mirkwood, were too short. So if the Mirkwood scene was made longer, the film would have been longer as well.

In the end I guess I really don't mind having lengthy films (more than one) if they are largely exciting or just impressive (again: Erebor and Dale and the surroundings are so stunning!)

I rather enjoy these elements than mutter about how other Tolkien work was used in the film, instead of only the Hobbit.

I'm seriously worried what you've got against Jim Henson productions, both Muppets and Fraggles!

I say Hobbit fills in the gaps in the sense that those who haven't read the books watched LOTR and wanted to find out more. The Hobbit gives that grounding.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Why do adaptions exist? This is getting philosophical. Why are you not content and simply let the adaption be? It is something else, isn't it?

Why do you think? This is all being discussed in the context of this thread, which is titled "The J.R.R. Tolkien Topic (publications and adaptations)"; yet most of the discussion is about Jackson's films, with very little knowledgeable commentary on the books that Tolkien wrote. Jackson is discussed in the same context as Tolkien (although, to be fair, hardly anyone even mentions Tolkien or his work...) as if his own personal achievements & skills are evenly faintly comparable. I don't believe they are.

I believe Tolkien created something massively more important, interesting, absorbing, instructive, & complex than anything Jackson (or anyone else for that matter) is ever likely to create; something original. I would guess this is something that most people would recognise & accept. Problem is, it doesn't really come across that anyone thinks this; which is concerning. The message I get from the tone & content of most of the discussion (here & online generally) is that the films are the logical primary vehicle for discussing the creative world that Tolkien invented. The two have become almost totally conflated.

I would like it if people could simply appreciate & enjoy reading Tolkien's published work without the films; which are corrupted, simplified, coarse, uncultured versions of much richer, superior originals. They arrogantly misinterpret most of what was important to the author of the books in which their films are based; augment the apparently insufficient story-telling with their own crass, vacuous ideas, which are totally incongruous to the original; and generally elevate everything that is apparently of interest to modern film viewers to the fore, at the expense of anything that can't be understood in two seconds, or by a child, or by the feeble minded & dense amongst us. It's entertainment for the masses. Film doesn't need to be like this.

I want people to stop name-checking these two guys as if they are on an equal footing; I want people to stop exaggerating the skill involved in tinkering around the edges of something that is already highly successful & respected --& presenting this as the towering achievement of someone else, other than the creator of the original idea(s). I don't like to see people attach great importance to an industry that sucks in some of the creative, talented minds of this world --to meet purely commercial & monitory ends, because of the obvious compromise(s) this inevitably involves. The art at the end of it is sub-standard & doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Writing a screenplay is something else than writing a novel. Writing a screenplay and directing are activities leading to a result. Thus, he created something.

I understand that. He didn't invent Middle-earth though.

So, he did do this, he created the screenplay. @CriedWhenBrucieLeft are you in need of a law that bans screeplays if they are adaptions from existing pieces of writing? Only screenplays allowed if they are original works? That's madness. Some of the best films in history are adaptions.

I'm not asking for bans or for rules preventing adaptations. I'm asking for respectful, sympathetic adaptations from people genuinely immersed in the creative works of whoever they are adapting. I don't want to see this influenced & controlled by corporate multinationals who have no interest beyond profit & their own reputation. You want to make money as a creative person, as an artist? Create your own work. Write your own original screenplays. You want to make money out of someone else's creative output for your own personal gains? I'm not interested in this. Instead of spending decades crapping on Tolkien's literary reputation Jackson could have created something that was his own; created his own legacy, with something original & worthy of praise & admiration.

Perun said:

Whether you think it's shitting on Tolkien's memory is a different subject.

A subject worthy of discussion I'd suggest.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

There's no reason adaptations should be slavishly bound to the original material, generally speaking. The original isn't always good.

 

[Forostar]

I'm not asking for bans or for rules preventing adaptations. I'm asking for respectful, sympathetic adaptations from people genuinely immersed in the creative works of whoever they are adapting.

He delivered. You don't happen to like it. But he did what you ask, in the eyes of many.

I don't want to see this influenced & controlled by corporate multinationals who have no interest beyond profit & their own reputation.

Making huge movies that happened to be based on huge authors like Tolkien, happen to draw attention. From many people. Many people have been interested in a visual portrayal of what they've read. Who says Jackson had no control over the result? What was done against his liking?

You want to make money as a creative person, as an artist? Create your own work. Write your own original screenplays. You want to make money out of someone else's creative output for your own personal gains?

First of all: it's not his own gain. It's the gain of all the people who worked with him (many!) and the people who saw it and liked it (many!).
Second: Why per se write an own original screenplays? He probably had done that before. Look, believe it or not, he is a fan of Tolkien, it was his desire to do this.

I'm not interested in this.

Yes, I am aware of that.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

He delivered. You don't happen to like it. But he did what you ask, in the eyes of many.

He delivered the money. The Hobbit films may have been a commercial success & liked "by many"; but they are utter failures in terms of adaptation.

Making huge movies that happened to be based on huge authors like Tolkien, happen to draw attention.

Come on!, the budget and scope & projected audience was global, in intention. These were huge films because they made them huge films.

Many people have been interested in a visual portrayal of what they've read.

And? This doesn't counter anything I've said. Loads of people are interested in funny internet videos of cats. What of it?

Who says Jackson had no control over the result? What was done against his liking?

I have no idea. If it was his own decision making then this is just as bad.

First of all: it's not his own gain. It's the gain of all the people who worked with him (many!) and the people who saw it and liked it (many!).

You know exactly what I'm getting at. I'm not saying it's a big deal, I'm just saying loads of people are on the gravy train here. It's not that difficult a point to understand. I never talked about the "gain" in the context of how Jackson's gift to the world benefited workers & audiences. I was talking about studios getting rich & Jackson getting fawning praise; when people should have just gone out & bought the book & read that instead. We spend literally billions of pounds wrapping a gold nugget in tinfoil. We didn't need Jackson's tinfoil.

Second: Why per se write an own original screenplays? He probably had done that before.

Of course he has. I'm saying as someone creative, be original; do your own thing.

Look, believe it or not, he is a fan of Tolkien, it was his desire to do this.

I know, I've watched all the extended release stuff. This doesn't make any difference.
_________________________________________

There's no reason adaptations should be slavishly bound to the original material, generally speaking. The original isn't always good.

We're talking Tolkien here though. Are you saying The Hobbit movies are better than the book?

 

[Forostar]

For the record, I thought you were slamming all Jackson's projects. Is it convenient to suddenly talk about The Hobbit movies only again?

 

[Freeyyaa]

Which of you have ever read "Silmarillion"?

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

For the record, I thought you were slamming all Jackson's projects.

I'm not slamming Jackson personally; and by "Jackson" I'm kinda referring to the writing team of Jackson, Boyens & Walsh. My criticism is of their (& the studios) whole approach to adapting Tolkien.

Is it convenient to suddenly talk about The Hobbit movies only again?

Well, they're the ones just out. Do you want to get into LotRs too?
___________________________________________________

Which of you have ever read "Silmarillion"?

Me, many times. I have practically every published edition of it.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

Which of you have ever read "Silmarillion"?

I have. It's OK. Disjointed because of the way it was constructed, but there's not much Chris Tolkien could do since JRR never properly finished it.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I have. It's OK. Disjointed because of the way it was constructed, but there's not much Chris Tolkien could do since JRR never properly finished it.

Indeed. It's more of a window into Tolkien's Legendarium...

 

[Forostar]

Anyway Cried, I have addressed your general criticism on adaptation. When doing that I was talking about Jackson, in general, so I included his LOTR movies.
You are doing suggestions about Jackson's creativity and his relations with the studio. Attacking not just the result but also it sounded (in my ears at least) as if you are saying he (and/or his team) had no integrity, no passion for the original work. Bollocks, man, bollocks. It just turned out the way he wanted it to be. You may not like the end result(s) of whichever film(s) you are talking about, but you don't show enough knowledge to judge the process and the people who worked their ass off to do this.


edit:

Not enough to judge it.

 

[Forostar]

And your "I have no idea" comment is odd. Let's try again:

Who says Jackson had no control over the result? What was done against his liking?

This was my response to this:
I don't want to see this influenced & controlled by corporate multinationals who have no interest beyond profit & their own reputation.

Let's talk a bit further about this. First you say corporate multinationals have influenced and controlled (I assume the creative process), and later you say:
"I have no idea."

What kind of a reaction is this? It comes across as if you judge but then you (say you) suddenly don't know anything about it. Come on. How can I understand what (part of) your real problem is, if you and I don't know if it really happened?

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

First of all, Foro, I'm ranting; isn't this obvious?

But since you want to discuss this properly, let's be serious...

You are doing a lot suggestions about Jackson's creativity and his relations with the studio.

And your "I have no idea" comment is odd...

What kind of a reaction is this? It comes across as if you judge but then you (say you) suddenly don't know anything about it. Come on. How can I understand what (part of) your real problem is, if you and I don't know if it really happened?

First of all my response to your "Who says Jackson had no control over the result? What was done against his liking?" was as I wrote. Who? Specifically, I've no idea; just what I said. Is this important? The studios clearly influenced the marketing of the films & this had an impact/influence on, for example, the length of the films & even how many films there were, for both The Hobbit and the LotRs films. Is this not pretty well known? Jackson wanted LotRs to be two films; Miramax wanted one film; and New Line seemed keen on the trilogy idea. I've no idea what this tells you; it tells me all these discussions were about marketing & money (from the studio's perspective); and had very little to do with the creative tone of the adaptation. I'm not saying these conversations shouldn't have taken place. I'm not saying Jackson was always steamrolled over by interfering studio demands; or vice versa. My "I have no idea" response was me saying: this is not relevant to anything I said, and I don't really care either way.

If Jackson made the films the way he wanted (I'm not saying this; you are - "It just turned out the way he wanted it to be"), then one can criticise whatever aspects one wants & lay the blame squarely at his feet. Yes? If the studios interfered & made Jackson do something he didn't want to do, then we can blame these aspects on "corporate" (my language) interference. Yes? I don't care either way. This has no material effect on my criticism of aspects of the film that I don't like, other than proportioning blame to the correct culprit. Who inserted Tauriel into The Hobbit movies? Do you know? Wiki tells me the writing team (of Jackson, Boyens & Walsh) invented this character. Were they directed to do so? I don't know. Does this matter? To me, the inclusion of a totally new character was totally uncalled for & altered the tone of the film(s) to their detriment. If Jackson & Co. made this decision alone, then I think they failed in the "respectful & sympathetic" department I mentioned previously...

Attacking not just the result but also it sounds (in my ears at least) as if you are saying he (and/or his team) had no integrity, no passion for the original work. Bollocks, man, bollocks. It just turned out the way he wanted it to be.

If, on the other hand, this was due to studio interference then, yes, I do question their integrity. People with integrity do walk away from projects that aren't going the way they like you know. Do you know why del Toro left production? Maybe this guy has integrity, I don't know. You brought integrity up, I never mentioned it. As for passion; I'm not questioning their passion for making these films. Passion can be mis-directed though.

You may not like the end result(s) of whichever film(s) you are talking about, but you don't show enough knowledge to judge the process and the people who worked their ass off to do this.

edit: Not enough to judge it.

WTF, how am not knowledgable enough? I was as "into" the films as anyone when they came out; I saw FR about half a dozen times at the cinema when it came out; I've been to some of the set locations in NZ; I've watched all the LotRs extended edition stuff, which I think gives anyone a good enough insight into how the films were made; I've read lots of interviews with Jackson/Boyens --how am I expecting to know anymore than this? You may be correct in this assertion in respect The Hobbit, but I'm guessing it's the same-old-same-old in terms of their approach. (Are you saying their approach was different or something?) And I'm not knocking all the hard work that went into making the films; my brother-in-law did set design for The Hobbit & sent me photographs of Hobbiton before they'd even started filming. I was excited as hell. The artists (Howe & Lee) are well known, and I respect their work; etc, etc...

All of this is merely a mechanism for deflecting criticism of the films as sympathetic, respectful adaptations though. And none of this changes my ideological opposition to the adaptation of Tolkien's work. I hope The Silmarillion is never adapted in my lifetime.