>"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."
>"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."
>implying this is a valid criticism when that's exactly what Tolkein wanted to create
Dylan Nelson
He was 100% correct
Austin Rodriguez
I mean, of course it's serious to his son. Chris Tolkien's literal entire life was dedicated to his father's work. It doesn't mean everyone else has the same relationship. Obviously biased as fuck. He's also salty no one reads Christopher Tolkien's books about Middle-Earth anymore because they have other places to get the non-JRR fix.
Elijah Rodriguez
Did he? I think it applies mostly to the Hobbit, while LotR is more of the World Wars reflection with mythological background attached.
Jonathan Anderson
Brian Herbert is the better son. Instead of mulling over his fathers legacy and painstakingly re-creating boring works like Silmarillion from his father's notes, Brian gave us epic action with Lord Cybertrex and his terminator buddies fighting humanity. Hopefully Villeneuve will be smart enough to incorporate Brian's work into his Dune project.
Bentley Edwards
wasnt he the guardian of tolkiens estate and the retard who signed the rights over for this shit to occur? i agree, but doesnt seem like anyone else has contributed as much to the result as him
David Martin
Cringe not to know the basic difference between various forms of media. I don't think JRR Tolkien would've liked modern movies including adaptations of his books but I don't think even he would've been this stuck up about his work.
Gabriel Allen
no, it was a mythology for britain since theirs has died far before the grimms aggregation and all they really had were snippets of beowulf
Gabriel Phillips
If he disliked the Lotr films I can hardly imagine the pain he felt when watching the Hobbit.
Evan Jones
Wasn't it supposed to be mythology for Britons. Later Anglo-saxons had a rich mythology like the Beowulf you mentioned.
Caleb Nelson
The movie adaptation rights along with some other media were sold way back by JRR himself, but he didn't seem salty about his daddy. 8/10. Well, characters like Beregond, Boromir, Denethor, Gollum are way more complex for a mere fairy tale.
Gavin Cruz
>He's also salty no one reads Christopher Tolkien's books about Middle-Earth I'm pretty sure if LotR movies didn't exist I'd hardly know about the books. I've come to appreciate the books in some aspects more than the trilogy, but I still consider Jackson's work a piece of art.
Way more people bought the books thanks to the movies, it's undeniable too.
no, welsh/britons have stuff like the mabinogion. it was for those who became britains because the vast majority of british anglo lore is terribly fragmented, even beowulf and that's the most complete they have he didnt see fairytale as mere, but I was mostly disagreeing with the lotr = world wars + mythical set dressing formulation since his letters dont support that. his experiences and the associated emotions certainly inform writing, but that is not the same thing
Nathaniel Parker
He was correct. And till today I have huge respect for him for how closely he guards the work.
LotR films are still kino in their own way though; I don’t really want movies to be a 1-to-1 with the books. The Hobbit was just terrible on its own.
Samuel Collins
He died bruh, get on dat past tense
Oliver Lewis
That's one shitty action movie.
Adrian Clark
I'm not sure how the LotR trilogy could have possibly been more faithful to the books. What the fuck is wrong with people like this? What exactly was he expecting?
Xavier Morales
>no sharkey son
Levi Jones
Only the first movie is faithful.
Aaron Cruz
>I'm not sure how the LotR trilogy could have possibly been more faithful to the books. SJW strong womyn Arwen saving Frodo is total fabrication. Also Tom Bombadil.
William Kelly
Tom Bombadil was fucking retarded. Arwen barely changed anything.
Ian Rivera
The transition from book to movie required them to cut out shit like Bombadil and the epilogue. Expecting that sort of thing to stay in a movie format is insanity.
Blake Ross
>book to movie required them to cut out shit Don't make excuses for pointless changes.
Ian Jackson
10 hours of film, forgot to include Bombadil. Reap what you sow fantasy fags
Jordan Carter
>Arwen saving Frodo is total fabrication I bet you think Glorfindel was absolutely quintessential to the narrative.
Lucas Bailey
>There's this practically omnipotent merry dolly fellow who doesnt give a fuck about the one ring, but it's totally serious! Yeah, great way to ruin any stakes.
Brayden Reyes
It gives depth to the world. There's always a bigger thing waiting somewhere, Sauron was Morgoth's bitch in ancient times and Goldberry could have BTFO everyone in the third age.
Christian Moore
*ahem* >It is true that in recent times fairy-stories have usually been written or “adapted” for children. But so may music be, or verse, or novels, or history, or scientific manuals. It is a dangerous process, even when it is necessary. … So would a beautiful table, a good picture, or a useful machine (such as a microscope), be defaced or broken, if it were left long unregarded in a schoolroom. Fairy-stories banished in this way, cut off from a full adult art, would in the end be ruined; indeed in so far as they have been so banished, they have been ruined.
I was just memeing because it's kinda brainded to not be able to imagine any improvements. Also, I never cared for the Bombadil/Goldberry diversion. If anything I'd rather have the early elven picnic or a simple argument instead of flippy wizard battle. >ruin any stakes It actually increases the stakes because Sauron is preparing for invasion, Tom's power is limited to his shrinking forest domain, and since he doesn't actually care about the ring it would be easily claimed after the conquest.
Lincoln Hughes
>NOOOO YOU DON'T GET IT, MY FAIRY TALES ARE HIGH LITERATURE
Adrian Torres
I'm glad you understand.
Joseph Moore
>>sold the rights to make shit pop entertainment >>regrets it
shut the fuck up BOOMER
even in death, they can't seem to shut the fuck up
Brandon Fisher
How can you even refute this?
Aiden Wright
that's what butthurt haters actually believe
Adrian Jackson
>gets the most mature and deftly handled fantasy film adaptation of any book series >still expected better based and redpilled
Conan's not a book series. Checkmate. Short stories by Howard, and then you could argue the Savage Sword comics are kinda canon, and what they really adapted.
Tyler Morris
Good luck explaining all this convoluted bullshit about one side character who doesn't influence the story in any way without fucking up the pacing and runtime. His dad sold, he's just butthurt.
Jayden James
would u have had this complaint when the movie first came out?
Hudson Perry
Cutting out both of those was absolutely necessary. You could not have sold that shit to a movie-going audience. Maybe if it were a miniseries they could have left Bombadil in, absolutely not in a movie. He's too disruptive and pointless. I won't elaborate on why the lame ass epilogue needed to go because it's self evident.
Leo Foster
I dont support the addition of Bombadil (look at the first sentences in that post), but was explaining why 's description was inaccurate.
Cooper Nguyen
If that's how he felt about the movies, then he probably didn't care very much for the pinball machines.
He acts as the mystical guide on the border between the known world (the Shire) and the unknown world (everything outside the Shire). He provides a place of rest and then as soon as the hobbits depart from him and venture out into the unknown the first thing that happens is they fall into the underworld (the barrow-wights' dungeon). Tom brings them back into the living world and furnishes them with magical weapons from the barrow. They have now undergone a form of initiation with the help of this supernatural being and it is the true beginning of their journey, both physically and spiritually.
Of course it shouldn't have been in the film though. Both Jackson and Ralph Bakshi gave the same reason- it detracts from the urgency of the central quest. In the books however, it is more important than it first appears. Don't underestimate the significance of mythological symbolism.
Jordan Hill
Lots of unnecessary words to justify a literal children's toy in a sequel to the Hobbit.
Connor Hernandez
LOTR was the second biggest selling book of the 20th century (after the Bible) and usually voted the greatest novel of the 20th century. I have a feeling you would have heard about it.
Samuel Roberts
Think about it logically. You cannot refute this.
Benjamin Collins
cringe anyone who takes themselves this seriously, let alone their dead father, is a retard fucking boomers think they're the most important people in the whole wide world
Carson Thomas
>shut the fuck up BOOMER Christopher was born in 1924. Stop blaming you parents for everything.
Connor Price
Tolkien was entirely right about hitting that mature, somewhat serious, honest and well-done balance needed, not just in terms of 'making fairy tales for children'. He realized that in dumbing it down like that, you had to be careful not to go to the other extreme. It's part of the reason I hate GoT so much, it's idea of 'maturity' is largely gore and incest and general 'adult only' things to hike it up to that R-rated level.
Not quite a book series but Conan was fucking rad as a movie.
Connor Richardson
Imagine thinking the book with a character called tom bombadil wasn't meant for children.
Jacob Campbell
actually you can. Regardless of how he got popularized, the reality is there are now hundreds of millions of people that have read his works. Sure a lot of people will just view it as disposable entertainment, but a ton of people are going to learn more about his works, background, ideology. That's why there are so many Tolkien nerds. If he LoTR had never become heavily commercialized, virtually no one would know who he is and he sure as hell wouldn't be relevant in the 21st century, so who cares about his ideology if no one reads it?
Jonathan Kelly
mature genre fiction for mature people I'm sure they'll tell you tom bombadil is an allegory for something world war one related.
Jayden Butler
no. it's more to do with trpoes of germanic myth, see the books were already a massive success by any metric. i agree fewer would have read them, but your description is not accurate
Easton Perry
>If LoTR had never become heavily commercialized, virtually no one would know who he is.
It's not like Tolkien was some obscure writer before PJ's films came out. Both the Hobbit and LotR were wildly popular as soon as they were published. Fan clubs sprang up all over the world as did the beginnings of serious academic study of Tolkien. People were painting things like 'Frodo Lives!' and 'Gandalf for President!' in the New York subway in the 1960s. The anticipation leading up to the release of FotR in 2001 was MASSIVE as the books were already so well-loved. You are probably a zoomer who doesn't remember a time before PJ's movies but take a step back from your own perspective nigga. Those books would certainly still be being read in 2020 without the films.
Anthony Perry
>the books were already a massive success by any metric half a century ago. we're taking now. Every normie has at least seen LoTR and/or the Hobbit. If the films had never been made the only people that would still know of him are some literate boomers.
