[Edmond Dantès]

Son of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and the highest authority on all things Tolkien in the entire world finally gives his opinion on the trilogy and the upcoming Hobbit films.

And what does he think of Peter Jackson and the upcoming Hobbit film adaptations? For now, he's simply turning a blind eye to them. The Tolkien Estate has declined invitations to meet Jackson, and recognizes that versions of his father's works have been placed in the hands of a wider audience that has now turned Tolkien's world into their own playground: "They gutted the book, making an action movie for 15-25 year olds. And it seems that The Hobbit will be of the same ilk. Tolkien became...devoured by his popularity and absorbed by the absurdity of the time. The gap widened between the beauty, the seriousness of the work, and what it has become is beyond me. This level of marketing reduces to nothing the aesthetic and philosophical significance of this work."

The rest of the fascinating interview:

http://www.examiner.com/article/chri...paper-le-monde

[Solo]

They made you even richer so be quiet.

[-Pyromaniac-]

He is wrong, trust me.

[JB1981]

Wow he sounds bitter. The first movie is better than the book anyway.

[brandonh83]

book purists bwahahaaaha

[Good Job Bob]

He's right, the movies suck.

Wow he sounds bitter. The first movie is better than the book anyway.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

[AlimNassor]

Yeah, I disagree. he acts as if LOTR was some philosophical classic, it was just a well done fantasy novel.

[dmshaposv]

Let Christopher Nolkien reboot him.

[PhoenixPause]

It's his life's work, as well as his father's. I can't fault him for being a book purist given the situation.

[JB1981]

He's right, the movies suck. HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Just read the book recently and I honestly do believe that the movie is an improvement.

[Guevara]

The books are boring.

Lol at the "philosophical significance"

[Vulcano's assistant]

I'll be angry too if a movie director is more widely known to be related with my dad's work than me.

[Jarlaxle]

Wow he sounds bitter. The first movie is better than the book anyway.

lol

[Alucrid]

Yeah, I disagree. he acts as if LOTR was some philosophical classic, it was just a well done fantasy novel.

It's a lot deeper than that bro.

[zomgbbqftw]

I guess they will get some other studio to reboot it in 10 years. D:

The theatrical editions are crap, but the extended editions are pretty definitive, the only thing missing for me was Sharkey!

[brandonh83]

It's his life's work, as well as his father's. I can't fault him for being a book purist given the situation.

You can be a book purist but acknowledge that a film adaptation is... a film adaptation.

[Napoleonthechimp]

It's a terrible thing that the movies helped ignite interest in the books within people that never would have bothered to read them in the first place.

Jackson is such a dick.

[U n i o n 0015]

I kinda thought these were some of the best movies of the decade to balance action with emotional significance.

[Zeliard]

Paging China Mieville

[FStop7]

Somebody's crabby bear this morning!

[nemss]

The movies made Aragorn an interesting character. And there was no Tom Bambadil. The movies are better.

[Ghost_Protocol]

Yeah, the only Tolkien I'm even remotely interested in hearing the opinion of is the man who wrote the series.

[Angry Grimace]

Yeah, I disagree. he acts as if LOTR was some philosophical classic, it was just a well done fantasy novel.

No, no, no. Those eight pages describing the mating rituals of the Entfolk was actually an allegory referring to Tolkien's thoughts on the Franco-Prussian War.

[TheJollyCorner]

that's unfortunate.

'Declining' invitations to meet with the team that has put their hearts and souls into respectful film adaptations, thus reaching a much broader audience? Come on. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Loxley]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised he's such a harsh critic. He has a closer connection to the source material than anyone else on the planet, I'd actually be surprised if he didn't hate the movies.

Yeah, I disagree. he acts as if LOTR was some philosophical classic, it was just a well done fantasy novel.

Not to be that guy, but there's a reason the books are considered to be some of the most important literature of of the 20th century beyond the fact that it's "just well done fantasy novel". The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are the 3rd and 4th best-selling books of time - a feet not really capable if just any well-done fantasy novel.

[TacticalFox88]

Wow he sounds bitter. The first movie is better than the book anyway.

The Books aren't bad, they're just boring. To me that's the worst offense that an author can make.

[The Anti-Monitor]

He keeps cannibalizing his father by "never before seen" works and the film trilogy made LOTR an even bigger part of culture the books ever were.

The film trilogy is what every adaptation should aspire to be.

[zomgbbqftw]

Just read the book recently and I honestly do believe that the movie is an improvement.

No. You need to start from the beginning, read the Hobbit then LOTR and then for backstory read the Silmarillion which is the best of the three, the story of the Silmarils is the best of them all and the story of the ring pales in comparison.

[Risette]

I guess they will get some other studio to reboot it in 10 years. D: The theatrical editions are crap, but the extended editions are pretty definitive, the only thing missing for me was Sharkey!

The extended editions are bloated.

[Clydefrog]

what a hipster

[apocalidiot]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRD

[Good Job Bob]

Here we go, a full thread of people talking about how boring the books are and how much better Peter Jackson's take is.

I'm out.

[DJ_Lae]

Man he sounds way more miffed than he should.

The books are great but there are some segments of them that are boring as shit. If given the choice I'd sooner rewatch the extended editions of the movies than pore through the books unless I'm intentionally looking for a bit of a time sink.

[Jarmel]

Yeah, the only Tolkien I'm even remotely interested in hearing the opinion of is the man who wrote the series.

This. What has Christopher done other than leech off his fatger's legacy?

[NullPointer]

The films were never going to be the exact book experience, and all things considered the Peter Jackson films are probably the closest to the books and side tales as there was ever going to be.

This guy should take his blinders off. A new generation of LOTR film fans have even more reason to check out the novels and find the depth there.

[Mudkips]

They made you even richer so be quiet.

Basically this.

I can't stand when the kids / grandkids of famous people somehow think they're some sort of an authority on the works they had no involvement in. It's especially annoying when they get all whiny about how their parent's/grandparent's legacy is being ruined when they only have themselves to blame for selling the damned legacy in the first place.

Puhlease.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised he's such a harsh critic. He has a closer connection to the source material than anyone else on the planet, I'd actually be surprised if he didn't hate the movies.

Close connection? Why? Because half of him came out of the author's juice bag? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the kid has never even read the books.

[brandonh83]

The theatrical editions are crap, but the extended editions are pretty definitive

what the hell? The extended versions add more stuff but they hardly effect the quality of the movies. they're practically the same things but with more stuff that arguably hurts the pacing of the theatrical versions.

[Ushojax]

For me the books were an utter chore, as were the films save for Fellowship. I can only imagine how bad this guys versions would have been.

[maquiladora]

Royd Tolkien is the cooler Tolkien.

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

They made you even richer so be quiet.

From what I understand he's already well off independently.

Funny enough, the initial pay right wasn't anything great. Keep in mind that royalties are easy to dick around.

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/United_Artists

In 1969 UA purchased the film rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit from J.R.R. Tolkien for just over £100 000.[1] It is often repeated that Tolkien sold the rights for a 'pittance' in order to pay a tax bill,[1][2] in fact the sum he was paid was approximately equivalent to £2.3 million in 2009 and in addition to it he retained a 7.5% royalty interest in any future adaptation (transmitted to the Tolkien Estate on his death).[3][4] United Artists commissioned John Boorman to write a screenplay of The Lord of the Rings in 1970, but it was never produced.[5] In 1976 they sold most of their rights to Tolkien's work to Saul Zaentz Company, who have licensed all subsequent authorized adaptations of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings through Middle-earth Enterprises. However United Artists retains the world distribution rights to film adaptations. These are currently exercised by their parent company MGM, who are under contract to co-finance the upcoming film adaptation of The Hobbit.

[show me your skeleton]

Paging China Mieville

haha, i'm just reading 'perdido street station' so i'm curious as to what this is referencing?

[Eggman]

They're shitty action films, Transormers tier


/melancholia

[Alucrid]

He keeps cannibalizing his father by "never before seen" works and the film trilogy made LOTR an even bigger part of culture the books ever were. The film trilogy is what every adaptation should aspire to be.

Uh...do you have any idea how influential the books were on fantasy genre? I guess it exposed more kids to the universe, but in terms of cultural relevance? No.

[Haly]

LOTR was a a triumph/landmark in worldbuilding, not storytelling, Jackson's movies are much more entertaining than the books.

[ckohler]

Christopher Lee is probably a bigger Tolkien scholar than Christopher Tolkien and Lee considers the the movies to be worthy.

I dare Christopher Tolkien to do better.

[vcassano1]

The films were never going to be the exact book experience, and all things considered the Peter Jackson films are probably the closest to the books and side tales as there was ever going to be. This guy should take his blinders off. A new generation of LOTR film fans have even more reason to check out the novels and find the depth there.

I agree with you, though at the same point I can't disagree with what he says about the films either. But, so long as people continue to enjoy and read the books, who cares?

[Suairyu]

It's his life's work, as well as his father's. I can't fault him for being a book purist given the situation.

He's been doing his utmost to ruin his father's work, so he's a damn hypocrite in this sense.

Christopher Lee is probably a bigger Tolkien scholar than Christopher Tolkien and Lee considers the the movies to be worthy.

That's really, really not true.

[ZombieSupaStar]

Um if you watch the EE extras dvd, everyone involved basically agrees they couldnt retell the books page for page, and could only give it their go in adapting them into a movie. And changing things around had to be done, I think it could have turned out much much worse, and they certainly loved and respected the universe.

[phosphor112]

While I love the movies. I love the books better. But if it weren't for those movies. I don't think many would have read the books, which would have been a shame.

Tolkien is a master in details. His books were filled with adjectives and descriptors to fully create a picture in your mind. But sometimes, I just couldn't comprehend it all. I couldn't create a picture worth Tolkien's name, and I'm glad the movies allowed those gaps in my mind to be filled. For a beautiful image to be placed. For a sound track I would forever love.

[Solo]

Nope, those rights were sold in the 1970s.

Okay, so he's upset that he didn't get a cut? I can spin this both ways.