JRR Tolkien Discussion

[thecolorsblend]

https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2021/01/15/110110-reading-list-to-prepare-for-amazons-middle-earth-tv-series

As the title suggests, it's basically a reading list to bring newbies up to speed on Tolkien's published works as prep for the show. Nothing you couldn't have guessed, frankly.

Still, there are some interesting admissions going on here.

For one thing, it seems that TORN is back to trying to put a happy face on this show. I can understand. (A) Nobody's seen the show yet so why freak out about it and (B) between now and panic time, there is ad revenue to consider. As it stands, I have no criticism of TORN at this time. Esp since the mask has slipped a few times and they've made it clear how panicked they actually are about the show.

For two things, they state that Amazon purchased the rights to The Silmarillion. Which... makes sense. Christopher Tolkien stepped down from managing the estate and like two seconds later the show was announced. As some of you probably know, Christopher was probably the best guardian Tolkien's work ever had, refusing to sell any more film rights because he despises Peter Jackson, Hollywood, etc. Or maybe, he simply wants audiences to engage with his father's written works rather than with film adaptations he considers pointless. Either way, I have only positive things to say about Christopher. He knew he was turning his back on a fortune but he believed there are things far more important than money.

If that's true, if The Silmarillion rights have indeed been sold... *sigh*

That truly would be dark times. If a TV show had to be made, I think it might've made sense to test drive Amazon's commitment by giving them something smaller than The Silmarillion and letting them work on that. More business decisions can follow thereafter.

As it stands, I have very little hope for this show. I hope I eat my words but the cast seems pretty uninspired, the wokeness seems poised to take over if it hasn't already and even if the rumored story ideas are as good as they sound, the future isn't necessarily bright for this show, imo.

I reassert that maybe not everything needs to get adapted into a movie or show. There's nothing wrong with letting a novel be a novel, a comic book be a comic book, etc.

But in the true spirit of adaptation, Ian Malcom's words could be applied here:

[Silver Nemesis]

I reassert that maybe not everything needs to get adapted into a movie or show. There's nothing wrong with letting a novel be a novel, a comic book be a comic book, etc.

This is the final word on the matter, as far as I'm concerned. I've little to no hope for this series. Not since it was announced that they put out a casting call for extras willing to appear nude and were hiring intimacy coaches to direct love scenes. Whatever this show is, it sounds like it won't be reflective of Tolkien's vision or values. And if that's the case, then I hope the true Tolkien fans do everything they can to make it a failure and teach Amazon and the rest of the entertainment industry a hard lesson in financial loss. I just wish Christopher was still alive to help fight the good fight.

I've said before that I believe the film and television industries are currently in their worst state ever. They might be raking in the money, but they're creatively and morally bankrupt. When trash like Bridgerton is being praised as high quality historical drama, you know pop culture's screwed. Ultimately Tolkien's writing just isn't compatible with the values and attitudes of the modern entertainment industry. The only good screen version of his work, IMHO, is Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and it's a miracle those movies turned out as well as they did. They wouldn't if they were made today. Thankfully the trilogy came along at the perfect time, but I'm highly sceptical we'll ever see another screen version of Tolkien's work to match its quality. Which is a shame, because his First Age books contain enough material for at least five or six really exciting films and wouldn't require padding like The Hobbit movies did.

Bottom line – stick with the books.

[The Dark Knight]

The Hobbit is in the trilogy lore's past and you can kinda take it or leave it.

I find I'm becoming more protective of The Hobbit as time goes by. It's a more holistic adaptation of the novel than anything. Jackson expanded the story out using some material from the LOTR novel's appendices. The result is that the canvas is much broader than Tolkien himself probably imagined back in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's expanded based on material primarily supplied by Tolkien's own pen. And for me, that gives the padding that Jackson added into the narrative some legitimacy.

And yes, Howard Shore's work on LOTR and The Hobbit is unparalleled. Together, they're the greatest film scores ever recorded. People can say whatever they want about The Hobbit films but there's no criticizing the music. Shore's film scores are worth the price of admission all by themselves, if you ask me.

This is where my focus has been lately. The Hobbit movies are padded but despite complaints about disrespecting the source material, the core story is still there.

An Unexpected Journey

Bilbo enlisted to be a burglar
Dwarves arriving at Bag End
Captured by trolls, with Gandalf turning them to stone.
Finds swords in the troll's storage supplies
Visiting Rivendell
Stone giants hurling rocks, then captured by Goblins
Bilbo encounters Gollum in the cave
Goblin King killed by Gandalf, and the party escape
Attacked by Wargs, and escape via eagles

The Desolation of Smaug

Visiting the home of Beorn
Entering Mirkwood, and Gandalf leaves them
Group attacked by spiders, which Bilbo slays
Captured by wood elves, and escape via barrels in the river
Reaching the Lonely Mountain and finding the secret door
Smaug awakened

The Battle of the Five Armies

Smaug attacks Lake Town, and killed via arrow
Thorin declaring the Mountain besieged
Thorin searches for the Arkenstone, which Bilbo steals
The battle itself against the Goblins and Wargs
Death of Thorin

As I said initially, it's just a matter of personal taste as to the differences in the story.

In the novel they are hunted by Goblins and Wargs following the incident with the Goblin King. Azog should be dead, and in the books he is. In the movie he was thought to be dead. It's not a popular choice but it gives added motivation behind that dogged Goblin pursuit, and there's a clear villain leading that pursuit with meaningful history behind him. There's wiggle room to add this so it's not out of left field.

In the novel they do visit Rivendell, which allows the movie timeline to be twisted much like with Azog, to allow Saruman and Galdriel to cameo at the location as a movie-verse Easter egg for a council scene. In the books Gandalf had been to Dol Duldur twice before, here he's doing his initial investigation. From the chapter tiled The Last Stage: "Had been to the great council of the White Wizards, masters of lore and good magic, and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood." It's different but essentially the same.

The addition of Tauriel and the love triangle is what brings real grievance. Legolas wasn't in the book, but again, there's wiggle room to do so.

The Hobbit films are not perfect but are definitely underrated if one doesn't get too hung up over the differences. Martin Freeman is better than Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen remains excellent and Howard Shore is a genius. There's still good things in here. When one treats the movies as inspired by the general direction of the books, but their own thing, I find they're much more enjoyable. It's 'The Movie Universe' and it segues into Jackson's Rings trilogy beautifully.

[thecolorsblend]

As I said initially, it's just a matter of personal taste as to the differences in the story.

In the novel they are hunted by Goblins and Wargs following the incident with the Goblin King. Azog should be dead, and in the books he is. In the movie he was thought to be dead. It's not a popular choice but it gives added motivation behind that dogged Goblin pursuit, and there's a clear villain leading that pursuit with meaningful history behind him. There's wiggle room to add this so it's not out of left field.

In the novel they do visit Rivendell, which allows the movie timeline to be twisted much like with Azog, to allow Saruman and Galdriel to cameo at the location as a movie-verse Easter egg for a council scene. In the books Gandalf had been to Dol Duldur twice before, here he's doing his initial investigation. From the chapter tiled The Last Stage: "Had been to the great council of the White Wizards, masters of lore and good magic, and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood." It's different but essentially the same.

The addition of Tauriel and the love triangle is what brings real grievance. Legolas wasn't in the book, but again, there's wiggle room to do so.

The Hobbit films are not perfect but are definitely underrated if one doesn't get too hung up over the differences. Martin Freeman is better than Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen remains excellent and Howard Shore is a genius. There's still good things in here. When one treats the movies as inspired by the general direction of the books, but their own thing, I find they're much more enjoyable. It's 'The Movie Universe' and it segues into Jackson's Rings trilogy beautifully.

When AUJ first came out, there was a bit of a backlash. I wouldn't say it was Episode I-tier nastiness. But there was some controversy. Someone published a thing on Huffington Post about it and I think the writer makes some solid points:

Dislike Peter Jackson's The Hobbit ? Then You Don't Know Tolkien.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/dislike-peter-jacksons-em_b_2342591.html

I don't like Tauriel and that whole subplot any more than anyone else. But getting stuck on that when Jackson brought so much other Tolkien lore to the screen misses the forest for the trees, if you ask me.

[The Dark Knight]

Agreed. Radagast is only mentioned in Tolkien's Hobbit, but because he wasn't included in Jackson's Rings trilogy it makes good sense to include him in the prequels. Radagast encountering the Necromancer, and Gandalf following up on his warning, hits two birds with one stone. As for Radagast's absence in the Rings trilogy, I'm cool thinking he kept to himself, cared for animals and let the powerful forces duke it out.

As for the Nazgul being in tombs, it is something Jackson invented. But what is the definition of a Necromancer? A person who uses witchcraft or sorcery, especially to reanimate dead people or to foretell the future by communicating with them. By strict definition that's what Jackson depicts in his Hobbit films.

I see it this way: whether they're in exile or dead, without the presence of Sauron the Wraiths are largely biding their time. The simple concept which is present in the book remains: when Sauron is activated they are too.

[thecolorsblend]

Agreed. Radagast is only mentioned in Tolkien's Hobbit, but because he wasn't included in Jackson's Rings trilogy it makes good sense to include him in the prequels. Radagast encountering the Necromancer, and Gandalf following up on his warning, hits two birds with one stone. As for Radagast's absence in the Rings trilogy, I'm cool thinking he kept to himself, cared for animals and let the powerful forces duke it out.

As for the Nazgul being in tombs, it is something Jackson invented. But what is the definition of a Necromancer? A person who uses witchcraft or sorcery, especially to reanimate dead people or to foretell the future by communicating with them. By strict definition that's what Jackson depicts in his Hobbit films.

I see it this way: whether they're in exile or dead, without the presence of Sauron the Wraiths are largely biding their time. The simple concept which is present in the book remains: when Sauron is activated they are too.

Personally, I'm willing to give Jackson a lot of leeway since some amount of interpretation is necessary for ANY kind of adaptation of Tolkien's writings. I think this is even more true with The Hobbit, where your basic source material is smaller in the first place anyway.

Meanwhile, from the fake news dump:

News Corp to purchase 'Lord of the Rings' titles- https://thehill.com/homenews/media/545417-news-corp-to-purchase-lord-of-the-rings-titles

Except they're not. The story itself says "News Corp will pay $349 million to buy the publisher of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy and other J.R.R. Tolkien books."

So, if I'm reading this right (and I'd like to think I am), this is basically just another corporate merger. The Tolkien estate will maintain ownership of Professor Tolkien's writings just like always. Rly, the only thing that might change is the publisher logo on the cover of Tolkien's various books and not much else. But I must say, when I first read that headline, my heart sank.

But that headline is just plain irresponsible "journalism". Because we're far beyond "misleading" at this point. But even with the clarification within the story itself, the article's commenters with their room temperature IQ's don't seem to understand the difference between the publishing rights which News Corp is proposing buying and the actual ownership of the books themselves. Again, it looks to me like the Tolkien estate's ownership of the Tolkien catalog will continue.

Anyway, just wanted to throw all that out there.

[The Dark Knight]

Personally, I'm willing to give Jackson a lot of leeway since some amount of interpretation is necessary for ANY kind of adaptation of Tolkien's writings. I think this is even more true with The Hobbit, where your basic source material is smaller in the first place anyway.

The story as is gives Jackson plenty of room for expansion. In the book, the dwarves were imprisoned by the wood elves for 20 days, which gives any plotline inside the building plausibility even if one dislikes said plotline. They then spend a fortnight in Lake Town. The Battle of the Five Armies is a brief couple of pages and most of the main events are recounted to Bilbo after the fact because he's knocked out. The book is an all time classic but to say it couldn't be fleshed out to include more detail is false.

So, if I'm reading this right (and I'd like to think I am), this is basically just another corporate merger. The Tolkien estate will maintain ownership of Professor Tolkien's writings just like always. Rly, the only thing that might change is the publisher logo on the cover of Tolkien's various books and not much else.

Seems like it.

[thecolorsblend]

Maybe a critique of the Amazon show that comes from a poc Tolkien fan will help everyone see the problems here more clearly.

Just Some Guy tries to be pretty even-handed with everything he says. Even when I don't necessarily agree with him, at least I can understand his thinking behind what he says. That's how you're supposed to build common ground with others.

[Silver Nemesis]

[The Dark Knight]

Great video, and the comments below by the likes of Bogart Hardshaft and Storm the Cat are even better.  I love the 2003 trilogy, and find The Hobbit trilogy underrated for what it sought to achieve. But I don't expect the Amazon show will be passing my test. The Lord of the Rings is a traditional story of its time but also accurately reflects the modern world as it is. Men fighting for their very survival against savage orcs and sellouts like Saruman. Wokeness is INCOMPATIBLE to the original spirit of the book - period.

Anyone who doesn't see that obvious truth is a lost cause going against the very foundations of the brand. But that's not surprising as most people don't even have their own opinions, they are assigned to them by mainstream messaging and cemented to them with groupthink.