ROTK

I'm going tonight, tonight, tonight! It may be awfully dadgum cold here in Indiana, but at least they have this movie...

cold??? theres only been snow on the ground for the past 2 weeks...

Josiah, you just did a great injustice to an amazing director.

I suspect that what you are looking for is impossible. See this article, for example: "My own position is that The Lord Of The Rings is peculiarly unsuitable to transformation into visual dramatic form" - Christopher Tolkien

oh no...sounds like someone has read the books every summer for the last 20 years...but still regularly skips over large chunks of it in order to 'get to the good stuff.'

I think the "hack" characterization is unfair, my friend. To be sure, there's some corny dialogue at times and some of the scenes were radically, debatably detrimentally, different than the books, but it's still a remarkably coherent product, particularly in extended DVD form. Even though some of the particular bits were played "incorrectly", the ideas portrayed were conveyed relatively intact, for the most part.

Also, it should be noted that Mr. John R. R. Tolkien himself sold the film rights for his book way back in 1969 for 10,000 British pounds. That means he wasn't opposed to filming them, and he wrote the damn things, so why should it matter what his son says? Besides, Christopher reversed his position anyway.

I agree Josiah, the books and the movies are two totally different things, and I think that Jackson missed a lot of important things and didn't really get at the heart of the story (although he did redeem himself somewhat in ROTK). What I think happened was that Jackson got all his "Tolkien experts" together and they based the story on "the Tolkien cannon," with some influence from the Silmarillion, but never bothered to read anything else that Tolkien had written or any of the literature that influenced him. There is no evidence from the way that the movies were done that Jackson or any of the other screenwriters had even read Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories," where he lays out what he thinks makes a good fairy tale. I read somewhere where Peter Jackson was described as a fan-boy, and in true fan-boy fashion, he seems to have no clue of the broader Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and romantic literary traditions that the Lord of the Rings is a part of. Not that you have to know all of that to read and enjoy the books, but if you're going to be making a movie, you pretty darn well better know more than the average Tolkien fan-boy.

BTW, Gosey, while Tolkien did sell the movie rights, he only did so because he wanted to provide for his children and grandchildren after he died, and the movie rights deal brought in a big enough chunk of change that he was able to do it. If I recall correctly, I don't think that he ever really wanted them to be a movie, but when you want to make sure your family is provided for, you do what you have to do.

Andrew O'Hehir suggests otherwise -- he says that Tolkien actually liked the idea of filming the Rings -- in his fascinating study of Tolkien's fiction and the art of loss, which can be found here. Worth the read.

I agree with gosey. While Jackson got some things wrong, he got a lot right as well.

That being said, I'm hiding the DVD's from my kids until they've read the books at least twice.

I'm not too concerned with Tolkien's motivations for selling LotR's film rights. The fact is that he did, and so knew that eventually someone would do it--that's why they were purchased. Presumably Tolkien trusted Saul Zaentz to do the right thing when he sold the rights to him.

I agree with y'all, though. There are parts of all 3 movies I wish were different than they are, and perhaps that will change with the DVD, but maybe not. Nothing is ever perfect; Tolkien's novels aren't perfect. In spite of that they are a iconic example of literary excellence, and the movies are cinematic triumphs in their turn. I think that's due in large part to Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. Of course there are scholars that know infinitely more about the literary forms that influenced Tolkien than Peter Jackson does, but any movie directed by them would probably be pretty dry, even if those scholars absolutely love the Tolkien novels. I doubt Tolkien himself could have made a good movie out of his book, because he's not a film director. Jackson's not a student of ancient fiction, and I don't think you have to be to make a good flick. That's not to say I think Jackson has ignored mythological tradition, but it's a tall order, perhaps an impossible order, to translate that kind of literary weight to the screen and please everyone. Be that as it may, Jackson's got the right attitude, the passion, the talent, and the resources to put together a mighty fine set of movies, and to do it with flair.

I suppose when it comes down to it, the only person who's opinion would be really definitive and inarguable is Tolkien's himself, but he's passed on and is therefore unable to help. The rest of us are just nattering.

And my link seems to have not arrived with my post. So, for Andrew O'Hehir's excellent analysis of J. R. R., go to: http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.html?sid=1033237. You will waste hours at work, and your boss will reward you for your creativity.

Gosey, my contention is not that Tolkien wouldn't have wanted the movies made, which, like you said, is something only he could answer.

My contention is the the movies that HAVE been made deviate from Tolkien's vision, and are telling a different story.

YET

the movies still rock