JRR Tolkien Discussion

[thecolorsblend]

I kind of figured The Fall Of Gondolin was coming. Honestly, I'm glad that Christopher Tolkien got the chance to do it. He's had a monumental task of getting his fathers scraps, notes and jottings into some kind of shape for publication. JRR Tolkien would always have been a legend but his son has enhanced his father's reputation in extraordinary ways.

Suffice it to say, this book will be joining my collection.

[Edd Grayson]

Has anyone here seen the animated films based on Tolkien's work? I saw the Rankin-Bass film of The Hobbit (1977) a few years back. But I've never seen Ralph Bakshi's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings (1978) or the 1980 film of The Return of the King. Are they worth seeing?

I have seen all three and enjoy them.

Ralph Bakshi's film is the best of them in my opinion, even though he never got the chance to adapt the whole story. I found that Peter Jackson took a few cues from the film for his own Lord of the Rings movies which I also like.

Return of the King (1980) is not the best adaptation, but still worth seeing. The songs are the highlight of the film for me.

And I actually like the animated The Hobbit a bit better than the live-action trilogy.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm cynical enough about the LOTR show as it is. I don't need the extra disappointment.

*sigh*

Can't people just read the books and content themselves with that?

^ This. I received a nice hardback edition of Beren and Lúthien for Christmas, and I'm getting a lot more pleasure out of reading it than I did from watching The Last Jedi.

We've discussed medium specificity numerous times on this site, and Tolkien's stories perfectly illustrate how some tales work better in one medium than they do in others. That's not to say there aren't some fine songs, paintings and films inspired by his writing. But at the end of the day, Tolkien's legendarium is a work of literature. And it's within a literary framework that his creations are best appreciated.

I'm coming back to this because I remembered this post and it hit home.

At the risk of going off topic, Batman is a comic book character to me. Yeah stories about him can be found aplenty in other media: prose novels, old timey radio shows, live action TV shows, animated series, feature film, storybooks and all that. And some of those stories are amazing too, some of the best Batman stories ever.

But those things are happy coincidences, aren't they? Batman is FROM comics and OF comics. Himself, his supporting cast, his world, those things can only truly be realized in comics, if you ask me. He's a comic book character and no other medium can fully do justice to his myth.

I'm a Tolkien neophyte. I'm slowly making my way through LOTR the book. I can't get enough of this book. I want to devour it but instead I'm forcing myself to go slow and take my time with it.

Obviously I've seen the movie trilogy and have even come to really appreciate it. But reading the book brings this story, these characters, these themes and these ideas across in a way that no live action film or Amazon prequel show ever can. It's not that the Jackson trilogy is bad. Far from it!

But the purest medium for this story is without question Tolkien's original book. That becomes more and more obvious with each new page. I applaud Jackson for taking as relatively few liberties as he did with the story. But in the end, he can only adapt THE STORY. He can't afford to stop the plot to go into a digression about the vague history of pipeweed or what exactly "by Shire reckoning" means. Jackson doesn't have appendices he can rely upon to flesh out the story a bit better.

Tolkien can get away with that stuff though because he wasn't simply telling a story; he was creating a whole other world with a dense, rich history of its own.

Batman's home turf is, was and will always be comics. And the Legendarium's home turf will always be the novels. It's okay to leave these things where they are sometimes. Not everything needs to be turned into a Happy Meal or an action figure.

[Silver Nemesis]

Excellent post, colors. I'm glad you're enjoying the novels. You now have an informed insight into the mythology that people who've only seen the films can never fully comprehend. Great literature transports the reader to another time and place. And in my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is great literature. When you read the books, your imagination engages directly with Tolkien's. There are no Hollywood producers or focus groups filtering that transfer of ideas. It's undiluted art, uncontaminated by political influence or commercially-driven interference. Watching the movies is like listening to someone else's effective but second-hand description of a magical place. Reading the books is like being transported there yourself.

Regarding the TV series, some more news has appeared online. Apparently the plan is to produce five seasons, with the first season focusing on Aragorn. The series as a whole is being touted as the most expensive ever made, with a rumoured budget of $500 million. That's bigger than the combined budgets of Jackson's movie trilogy. Jackson himself has denied any involvement:

"I'm not involved at all in the 'Lord of the Rings' series," Jackson said during an interview with French outlet Allocine. "I understand how my name could come up, but there is nothing happening with me on this project."

He's also denied any involvement with the DCEU:

"That's not true. I had no discussions about that," Jackson said. "I'm not a fan of comics, I've never read any, so I'm not particularly interested in adapting one for cinema. That's not true at all. I'm not involved in any DC film or 'Lord of The Rings' series but I'm ok with it, I have plenty other projects that keep me busy."

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/peter-jackson-lord-of-the-rings-television-series-not-involved-1201971715/

He's not interested in comics? Then why did he sign on to direct the second Tintin movie and claim to be a fan of Hergé's work?

Ralph Bakshi's film is the best of them in my opinion, even though he never got the chance to adapt the whole story. I found that Peter Jackson took a few cues from the film for his own Lord of the Rings movies which I also like.

Return of the King (1980) is not the best adaptation, but still worth seeing. The songs are the highlight of the film for me.

I still haven't seen either of these. I must get around to watching them sometime this summer.

And I actually like the animated The Hobbit a bit better than the live-action trilogy.

I haven't seen the third of Jackson's Hobbit films. But based on the first two, I think I'd agree that the animated adaptation was better.

[thecolorsblend]

The news about Jackson's lack of involvement (for now) is a bit discouraging. I honestly don't blame him for The Hobbit trilogy's flaws. That doesn't mean the flaws don't exist though. But I do trust him with this material.

As to all this animated stuff, the animated Hobbit seems interesting. I'll check it out in the next few weeks.

[The Dark Knight]

Jackson must really love this universe though. He has devoted a large chunk of his life to it. The Hobbit films weren't my thing, but he has a lot of credits in the bank with the original trilogy. I think he did a fine job, especially in terms of atmosphere. Some books are very hard to adapt. Ian Fleming's YOLT is a good example. Not much actually happens, but there's a certain kind of atmosphere and inner dialogue that makes everything work, in the only way a book can. In that sense, books are a special experience that we shouldn't ignore in the age of technology.

[thecolorsblend]

Well, things just got a little more complicated.

https://winteriscoming.net/2018/06/08/peter-jackson-not-involved-amazons-lord-rings-series

"t sounded like they were doing the right thing [with the show], they have very good intentions with it, it all sounds very fascinating and exciting. However, I would not want to be the one responsible for the entire TV series, simply because I've never been responsible for a series like this before in my life. So it would not be very smart if I took on the role of showrunner. What I'm actually doing right now is putting the creative team together."

So Jackson might be serving as some kind of consultant or something? He'll be handpicking the crew for the show?

Seems interesting.

[thecolorsblend]

It would appear that the long and the short of it is Jackson will have the level of involvement that he chooses. Now, don't mistake me for some big-brained Hollywood insider bro but if your potential boss is telling you that you will define your own job description, rest assured you're being offered virtually blank checks, both creatively and financially. If Jackson doesn't get in on this thing, I can only surmise that it's because he doesn't want to.

Here's a roundup of a few news items:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2018/06/12/105126-additional-details-on-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series

But there's something else:

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/06/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-not-original-new-zealand-1201973431/amp

"The deal Amazon landed with the estate gives it access to nearly all of the material in the Middle Earth saga (although not 100% of it)."

What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean all of Tolkien's published works, e.g., the entire Legendarium? Or does "Middle-earth saga" refer strictly to LOTR and nothing else? It's a piss-poor way to phrase it.

The basic punchline in all of this is that we'll know more in about a month. Wow, just in time for Comic-Con. It looks like somebody sent Salke out there to prime the pump a little bit for bigger news at Comic-Con.

When it comes to Tolkien, I'm in more or less the same place as I am with Superman. I don't need more stuff. If good stuff can be had, I'm all for it. But I don't NEED a prequel LOTR show or a Beren & Luthien mega-series or something. But if this LOTR prequel show can be done in an entertaining way... eh, I'll give it a go.

I do want to know what is meant by "Middle-earth saga" though...

[Silver Nemesis]

I finished reading The Fall of Gondolin and can confirm it's another triumphant addition to the Tolkien library. I'd already read earlier versions of the story published in The Silmarillion and Lost Tales, but it's more satisfying to have a comprehensive edition collected in a single volume with added commentary. Beren and Lúthien, The Children of Húrin and The Fall of Gondolin were the three tales of the First Age that Tolkien had always wanted to expand upon. And now all three are available in individual books, it feels as though the trilogy is complete. Though in reality, The Children of Húrin is the only truly complete novel amongst them.

'First draft syndrome' is a worryingly common occurrence these days. Too many creative individuals fail to apply critical thought to their own work and instead simply run with the first bad idea that pops into their heads. When you look at something like The Fall of Gondolin, you see how Tolkien continually refined and improved his work over the course of decades. The evolution of the text displays a level of creative care which is seldom evidenced in modern genre fiction. It's genuinely impressive and gives me an even greater appreciation for his writing.

Speaking of Tolkien, I also finished reading C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy earlier this summer. Lewis was good friends with Tolkien and both were members of the Oxford Inklings society. While Lewis created his own epic work of high fantasy literature – The Chronicles of Narnia – he also wrote three science fiction novels aimed at an older readership. Interestingly, the third of these books – That Hideous Strength (1945) – contains several in-universe references to Númenor (spelled 'Numinor' in Lewis' book), thus implying the Space Trilogy may occur within the same reality as Tolkien's legendarium. In his preface, Lewis teases the reader with the following: "Those who would like to learn further about Numinor and the True West must (alas!) await the publication of much that still exists only in the MSS of my friend, Professor J. R. R. Tolkien." Tolkien himself supplied an introduction to the first book in Lewis' Space Trilogy – Out of the Silent Planet (1938) – while an extract from one of his letters to The Daily Telegraph serves as an afterword to the final book.

[thecolorsblend]

I finished reading The Fall of Gondolin and can confirm it's another triumphant addition to the Tolkien library. I'd already read earlier versions of the story published in The Silmarillion and Lost Tales, but it's more satisfying to have a comprehensive edition collected in a single volume with added commentary. Beren and Lúthien, The Children of Húrin and The Fall of Gondolin were the three tales of the First Age that Tolkien had always wanted to expand upon. And now all three are available in individual books, it feels as though the trilogy is complete. Though in reality, The Children of Húrin is the only truly complete novel amongst them.

I've been of two minds about checking them out, tbh.

On the one hand, more Tolkien isn't a bad thing. But on the other hand, I do wonder about the possibility of diminishing the power of LOTR. Put it down to Prequel Syndrome but sometimes discovering the history of a fictional world isn't necessarily a good thing. For example, Star Wars prequels. And yet, what I've read of Ainulindalë and Valaquenta from the iTunes Store is absolutely tantalizing.

Since it's probably just a matter of time until other Tolkien works are adapted into film or TV (which I don't necessarily think is a good idea, I'll say it right now), I have to wonder how Ainulindalë and Valaquenta in live action might play out since it's so cerebral to start with.

The Fall Of Gondolin is a priority though. Definitely checking that out at some point.