|
Post by UttuqXul on Mar 27, 2018 5:35:13 GMT -6
I'm convinced that, if Mr. Tolkein were alive, he would not have given permission to the movie makers, to use his novels for a huge movie. Many might have found it somehow entertaining, but all in all, within the context of the virtue and value of Tokein's works, more disservice towards that interest has been done than service. The question naturally arises, can the gift be salvaged? I think, perhaps yes.... There's such a huge plethora of movies, many representing a kind of Star Wars generational attitude- many of them could be titled, "An Endless Round Of Fantastical Violence", often about an imagined expansion of our civilization into outer space, and an imaginary depiction of various dramatic situations arising, representing crucial challenges; negotiated by certain sturdy and cunning of Earth (appealing to the vanity of audiences)... and what's the real value of this sort of material? The Lord Of The Rings is the work of a fertile, noble creative mind- I think it can be best be read secretly, without the creation of a sub-culture, in which it has been apportioned iconic status. At least today, the idea of there being a culture and a counter-culture (term invented by the media in attempting to explain a phenomena) shouldn't be taken so seriously- for one thing, practicality achieves great priority in prurience; basic issues, in a country where Fortune is weak... for example, material troubles are probably going to arise for those who are stoned all the time!
|
|
|
Post by Rob W. Case on Mar 28, 2018 17:45:39 GMT -6
JRR Tolkien urgently needed money to pay his taxes and so he sold the movie rights to both “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings” to United Artists in 1969. He received $250,000 for it too, which helped him out on one end, and allowed Hollywood the chance to do a film portrayal of his works, which, if successful, would spark an interest in moviegoers who never read the books to his books. However, the effort sat on the wayside for many years until the cartoon versions were made in the late 1970’s and early 80’s. The technology wasn’t there yet to seriously adapt the books to film without making it look like a joke. C.S. Lewis had a similar concern with the portrayal of his Narnia books, fearing that (with the special effects available at the time) it would reduce the integrity of the stories to “buffoonery.”
That all changed with the Peter Jackson films. After the success of films like Jurassic Park and the reissues of the Star Wars trilogy (with the updated special effects) in the 90’s, the evolution of the art of special effects was looking more hopeful in portraying with integrity and seriousness, “The Lord of the Rings”. Of course the reason why they did “The Lord of the Rings” movies first is because they modeled their sense of priority based on the sales of the books, which grossed more than the earlier “Hobbit” book. Even though the events in “The Hobbit” takes place decades before the events in “The Lord of the Rings”, the financial success of “The Lord of the Rings” would determine if the “Hobbit” would enjoy the same, big screen treatment. And “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy was a wild success. In fact, I personally was never exposed to the stories until I borrowed the extended edition of the first film from a friend, and then went with him to see the other two in the movie theater.
Tolkien and Licensing:
With the wild success of the films, came incredible tension within the Tolkien family. Christopher Tolkien, the heir to his father’s estate, (who is incredibly strict in preserving and upholding his father’s literary works and vision), did not like the films. Christopher’s oldest son Simon (the next likely heir to the Tolkien estate), who is more open and outgoing in terms of understanding the need for changes in the process of adapting a book to the big screen, did like the Peter Jackson films. This caused a very serious rift between him and his father. When it came time for the release of “The Hobbit” films, which were successful at the box office, but not to the degree of “The Lord of the Rings”, Christopher said that all he could do is “turn his head” while his son was more accepting of them. And with Christopher being in charge of the estate, he would not allow any more licensing of his father’s work.
This then begs the question: How much commercialization of a good thing is too much, and where does it end? Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon just paid $250 million dollars to have a TV series produced for the Amazon streaming service depicting a “Lord of the Rings” story and perhaps maybe even spinoffs. This all comes after Christopher Tolkien resigned late last year as the head of his father's estate.
And so there are interesting arguments on both sides. On one side, more depictions opens the door to further generations discovering the original works and buying the books. Yet more doesn’t always mean better, and you can kill it to a degree where it becomes meaningless. That was Christopher Tolkien’s chief concern regarding the stories, and probably why he is so stubborn in protecting the integrity of his father’s work. And while I am a fan of the “Hobbit” and “Lord of the Rings” films, I enjoy the Christian themes that are expressed within them, which is the basis of my interest in them.
|
|