Tolkien's Son Fights To Shut Down The Hobbit

Comment on “Tolkien's Son Fights To Shut Down The Hobbit”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

1. Nicholas Says:
   May 27th, 2008 at 16:44

   I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the statement:
   
   "At the end of the day the guy is just trying to protect his father’s work. Unfortunately, in this case it doesn’t need his protecting. The way things stand now, Peter Jackson is probably better suited to protect it than he is."
   
   Peter Jackson has made a lot of changes to the original Rings books that were (I think) for the worst. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy these movies. But the Frodo of the books and the Frodo of the movies are not the same character. In the books FRODO NEVER BETRAYS SAM. Frodo is loyal to each Sam throughout their entire journey. That is a big difference to how Jackson handled the character.

1. kramer Says:
   July 25th, 2008 at 22:25

   I realize my comment is a little late but i have to really agree with nicholas. Jackson changed a lot of huge things in the boo, like the scourging of the shire where saruman takes over the shire. That had a huge impact on the story because it showed how the evil can affect everyone and the growth of the hobbits as heros.

1. Lanzecki Says:
   September 20th, 2008 at 22:45

   Peter Jackson has a problem with heroes. All the heroes in the book (with the exception of Boromir who dies anyway) are turned into wimps in the films. What does this tell us about Peter Jackon?

1. Jay Says:
   September 25th, 2008 at 12:43

   Hmm, and do we recall when there were such things as books, those square things with words in them that take time and brainpower to read, but are nonetheless a richer and altogether different experience from the spoonfed, two-hour sideshows we call movies today?
   I salute Jackson for his efforts, but his films are inadequate adaptations, mock-plays of the grandeur of Tolkien's creation. Maybe Christopher doesn't want his father's work remembered that way, after all, why read the books when you can just go see the movie?
   This article was obviously written by a watcher and not a reader. Don't worry, Hollywood will not stop nurturing you if another good book fails to be made into another bad movie.

1. Benjamin Says:
   October 2nd, 2008 at 03:34

   Perhaps Christopher Tolkien actually has seen the films and is as disappointed with them as I was. In a sense I credit them as being good movies but every time I attempt to watch them or see them on TV I am infuriated by them. I have been reading the books since I was eleven and it annoys me to see the way Peter Jackson changed things around. Peter Jackson protecting LOTR? In terms of creative license changes he is barely better than that old animated version of LOTR. Did he think he was making improvements? I cannot grasp how credit him with staying faithful to the books. Who knows what Christopher Tolkien's motives really are but to assume that they are just because he is old, cranky and hates hollywood is just dumb. I wouldn't mind seeing The Hobbit being made but I wish they could keep Peter Jackson out of it at least. Get the screenwriters who did the Harry Potter adaptations. They at least seem to value the published plot structures above their own imaginations.
   
   I have this vision of a greasy, hyperactive Peter Jackson clutching action figures and saying, "Wouldn't it be cool if like an army of elves came to help the Rohan at Helm's Deep. That'd be awesome. And then we can make it all melodramatic and stuff..." Ughh

1. Floatylight Says:
   October 17th, 2008 at 04:50

   Well I can see both sides of this. The movies are different from the books because they are an interpretation, a translation if the book, and anyone who has ever tried to translate a document such as a joke from English to another language knows that a lot can be lost in the translation. The movies show Peter Jackson's interpretation of the books. Middle Earth looks (to me) to be very true to the books, certainly as I imagined it, but it wouldn't be the same as how you, or Tolkien saw it. Alan Lee's illustrations help to form the definitive look to Middle Earth and the film follows it closely but invariably it is the plot itself where Jackson wants to make his own mark. Plot points are altered, or added not just due to Jackson's creative desires, but because at the end of the day, some things just don't work in the movies as they would in a book, even with the luxury of 6 hours to tell a story (imagine trying to tell LotR in ONE movie!). Any movie interpretation pales when compared to a combination of sa superior book and a reader's imagination. You can't please everyone.
   
   Hollywood is ultimately selling a product and trying to get bums on seats. The whole romantic sub-plot between Arthur Dent and Trillian in "The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" was, I guess purely to appeal to the female and younger demographics, rather than for creative purposes, Changes in LotR were made for similar reasons, or time, or because Jackson just...could. I miss the scouring of the Shire too, but Return of the King is a long film already, as my bladder could attest. I don't want to get all Randall from "Clerks II", but those films do go on. No one really, seriously missed Tom Bombadill and I could quite comfortably skip it in the book. I wonder how Tolkien would feel about that?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)