Crimes Against Tolkienity

[Lord of Angmar]

Let me start off by saying that I have so far thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jackson's film interpretations of J.R.R. Tolkiens <I>The Fellowship of the Ring</I> and <I>The Two Towers</I>, and I expect the same degree of enjoyability out of the third installment in the movie trilogy, <I>The Return of the King</I>. <P>Having read Squatter of Amon Rudh's contributions to the <A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002485" TARGET=_blank>PJ wants to do The Hobbit [seriously]</A> thread, I feel obliged to list and explain several aspects in particular which many entirely object to.<P><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Scourging of the Shire<P>No, I am not referring to the chapter "The <I>Scouring</I> of the Shire" and its being left out of the films. I am referring to the destruction that Peter Jackson and New Line inflicted upon the natural world in filming the <I>Lord of the Rings</I> trilogy, particularly their creation of the Shire, in which they molested the New Zealand countryside, boring holes into hills to create hobbit-holes and even destroying miles and miles of natural greenery to <I>pave a long road</I> by which filming supplies could be brought to the rural location. As J.R.R. Tolkien was, as a rule, strictly anti-industrialization and a puritan when it came to leaving alone the natural world, this seems to be the ultimate irony.<P><LI>Marketing, Marketing, Marketing <P>I do not fault Peter Jackson and crew for this one as much as I do New Line Cinemas, who have shamelessly turned the trilogy into one of the largest and most disgusting movie-merchandise empires in cinematic history. Everything is offered to us the movie patrons, from recreations of the film props (swords, knives, One Rings), to expensive clay and metal casts of movie characters, to the most shameless end of the spectrum, the Mattel Aragorn and Arwen dolls and the advertising packages with such enterprises as sports organizations, car dealerships and mobile phone companies. Would Tolkien have wanted the name of his books paraded around solely as a means of profit for the company producing his movies and the highest bidding organizations? I think not. <P><LI>The Changes <P>Although I myself was fine with a few of the changes made to the movies, in the minds of many some (or most) of them have gone too far. As Squatter has pointed out, the changes made to Tolkien's words (in many cases apparently as a means for appealing to action-crazed mass audiences) have severely compromised the respect of the Tolkien estate for the movie producers and screenwriters. J.R.R. Tolkien himself disapproved of almost all of the major changes made in the few other film adaptations (and there were <I>many</I> changes), and I doubt he would have wished for too much gutting and plot-changing, especially since a 9+ hour film trilogy should be able to adequately address the plot without making too many additions to the storyline and to the dialogue.<P></UL><P>Do not take the above to mean that I am a <I>Lord of the Rings</I> movie hater or opponent of Peter Jackson. I personally am a fan of the movies, and unlike many other avid Tolkienites I am able to, for the most part, keep the books and the movies separate in my mind, so the changes in plot do not cause as great a fuss for me as they do for others. Feel free to debate or add to any of the above points.<P>Cheers,<BR>Angmar<p>[ 2:18 PM December 12, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]