The Nature of Middle-earth
£14.99
TolkienGuide is an Amazon.co.uk affiliate
Tolkien Collector's Guide
Jun 10
2021/6/10 21:59:50 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

onthetrail wrote:

Berelach wrote:

Publishing books is also a way to make money. I doubt Tolkien would have worked so hard as an author if there wasn't going to be at least some possibility of profit, he couldn't really afford to.

I am constantly amazed how offended some people get when a business tries to make money. I have not seen much in the way of complaint about Tolkien making money through selling his books, or in fact from selling the rights to his greatest assets. It is OK to sell the rights but the buyer making money from those assets? Tut tut...

Businesses making money, Tolkien making money from selling his own work, these aren't the same thing. Commercialization isn't very attractive, to some; not any more complicated than that I don't think.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 22:08:09 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Khamûl wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

Berelach wrote:

Publishing books is also a way to make money. I doubt Tolkien would have worked so hard as an author if there wasn't going to be at least some possibility of profit, he couldn't really afford to.

I am constantly amazed how offended some people get when a business tries to make money. I have not seen much in the way of complaint about Tolkien making money through selling his books, or in fact from selling the rights to his greatest assets. It is OK to sell the rights but the buyer making money from those assets? Tut tut...

Businesses making money, Tolkien making money from selling his own work, these aren't the same thing. Commercialization isn't very attractive, to some; not any more complicated than that I don't think.

Those who don't like it should therefore look away and move on instead of trying to deride it. If they are not interested they have the choice to not take part. Complaining about things one has no interest in but doesn't want others to enjoy? That is not attractive.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 22:44:46 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

onthetrail wrote:


Those who don't like it should therefore look away and move on instead of trying to deride it. If they are not interested they have the choice to not take part.

That's funny, I could say the exact same thing. You don't like the source material? Move on, stop trying to "fix" everything.

onthetrail wrote:


Complaining about things one has no interest in but doesn't want others to enjoy? That is not attractive.

Interestingly enough, you disagree with what I write and all of a sudden you either call it complaining or you write snarky comments, thereby ending every discussion.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 23:06:18 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
If a director creates and offers a (legally authorized) movie (or movies) under the title "The Lord of the Rings", that purports to be a faithful film adaptation of the romance written by J.R.R. Tolkien (as Jackson and co. did), then it is perfectly proper to judge it by the degree to which it is in fact a faithful adaptation — the comparison is explicitly invited. Of course, opinions as to that faithfulness may vary. This should be uncontroversial.

If a director creates and offers a (legally authorized) movie, or series of movies, or TV series, that is by its very nature only loosely anchored in Tolkien's writings, then it is ALSO perfectly proper to judge it by the degree to which is is a faithful adaptation and representation of the nature and themes of the broader source material. Again, the comparison is explicitly invited. Of course, opinions as to that faithfulness may vary. This too should be uncontroversial.

Reaction to, including criticism of (both in the literary and the non-literary sense), such material should be encouraged, not squelched. If anyone doesn't like some aspect of such reaction/criticism, they are free to ignore it; if they disagree with it, they are free to offer a rejoinder. Again, this should be uncontroversial.

Everything else is just tiresome and noyous gainsaying.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 23:12:13 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
That being said, I am myself on record as being a strong critic of the Jackson movies: NOT because (as so many lazily assume) of what was left out, and NOT because (see above) I don't recognize that movies are not "the same" as books. Instead, my chief criticism of the Jackson movies is of the things that were put into them that had no business being there, and because of a fundamental misunderstanding (or at least misrepresentation) of the central themes of Tolkien's books.

As for further adaptations, I will reserve judgement until I see them (if I do). I'm not hopeful, but would love to be pleasantly surprised.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 23:13:38 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
I genuinely find it hard to care. The Hobbit movies were the worst kind of cinematic garbage (both as examples of film-making and as adaptations). Truthfully, they came and went and my enjoyment of the source material hasn't changed. So long as no laws are being broken, I don't care. I most likely won't consume any of this new material myself, but if other people enjoy it, the fact that it is just being created for financial return doesn't matter to me. Let's be honest, with the new Amazon series, the $250 Million got them onboard, not integrity.

I have no doubt JRR would have taken the $250M as well, were he alive. He would have been stupid not to.

Shrug.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 23:17:04 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

gobbledygook wrote:

onthetrail wrote:


Those who don't like it should therefore look away and move on instead of trying to deride it. If they are not interested they have the choice to not take part.

That's funny, I could say the exact same thing. You don't like the source material? Move on, stop trying to "fix" everything.

onthetrail wrote:


Complaining about things one has no interest in but doesn't want others to enjoy? That is not attractive.

Interestingly enough, you disagree with what I write and all of a sudden you either call it complaining or you write snarky comments, thereby ending every discussion.

I disagreed with your 'woke', 'pandering to', 'making money' comments. You added nothing constructive to the news of a new Tolkien related adaptation, just noise. If you think I was snarky then OK, but all I did was rebut that noise.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 23:19:40 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia

Aelfwine wrote:

If a director creates and offers a (legally authorized) movie (or movies) under the title "The Lord of the Rings", that purports to be a faithful film adaptation of the romance written by J.R.R. Tolkien (as Jackson and co. did), then it is perfectly proper to judge it by the degree to which it is in fact a faithful adaptation — the comparison is explicitly invited. Of course, opinions as to that faithfulness may vary. This should be uncontroversial.

If a director creates and offers a (legally authorized) movie, or series of movies, or TV series, that is by its very nature only loosely anchored in Tolkien's writings, then it is ALSO perfectly proper to judge it by the degree to which is is a faithful adaptation and representation of the nature and themes of the broader source material. Again, the comparison is explicitly invited. Of course, opinions as to that faithfulness may vary. This too should be uncontroversial.

Reaction to, including criticism of (both in the literary and the non-literary sense), such material should be encouraged, not squelched. If anyone doesn't like some aspect of such reaction/criticism, they are free to ignore it; if they disagree with it, they are free to offer a rejoinder. Again, this should be uncontroversial.

Everything else is just tiresome and noyous gainsaying.

I agree, but criticism before the fact, based on nothing, is pointless.
Jun 10
2021/6/10 23:24:17 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
I said as much.
Jun 11
2021/6/11 5:43:16 (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time, London, Dublin, Lisbon, Casablanca, Monrovia
The problem is everyone thinks they’re the stewards of Tolkien’s works. The fact is no one is - not even the Tolkein Estate - they are stewards in legal terms only.

On a purely creative level, Tolkien alone is that steward, with Christopher Tolkien a close second for obvious reasons.

Besides those two, we all have our own interpretations of these writings. That’s what art is when you release it for everyone to take in. Some may find others who agree with their POV, and they may be in a majority, but that doesn’t validate their POV any more than it does other minority POVs.

As for cash grabs, one might argue publishers like Harper Collins are as guilty with their endless editions of Tolkien’s works with no new content by Tolkien, but new content by artists, scholars, and commentators, who once again, bring their own POVs to Tolkien’s works.

If you like an interpretation, enjoy it. If you don’t, ignore it. The original works are always there for you.

And certainly if you express a POV, brace yourself for a debate or an argument. 😀
Jump to Last