Christopher Tolkien Trashes Peter Jackson's 'Lord Of The Rings,' Says Films Lack "Beauty And Seriousness" Of The Books

News

by Kevin Jagernauth
January 9, 2013 3:51 PM
20 Comments

The Tokien Estate hasn't been too fond of Peter Jackson's "Lord Of The Rings" films. They've been ever wary of the multiplex spectacle approach to the source material, at one time suing New Line over royalties, but they've also generally stayed out of the media spotlight, preferring to pout in private. But for whatever reason an interview given to Le Monde last summer by the 88 year-old Christopher Tolkien, son of J.R.R. Tolkien, is coming to light now. And he has ripped into Jackson's trilogy of movies and expressed his concern about "The Hobbit."

"They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher said of "The Lord Of The Rings," revealing he turned down an invitation to meet Jackson. "And it seems that 'The Hobbit' will be the same kind of film." And while most families of authors would be thrilled to be associated with a billion dollar franchise (even if, in this case, they only get a small portion of that coin), as Christopher's son notes, that's not the case here.

"Normally, the executors of the estate want to promote a work as much as they can," Adam Tolkien said. "But we are just the opposite. We want to put the spotlight on that which is not 'Lord of the Rings.' "

As for Christopher, he offers a bleak assessment on the legacy of his father and his work, which is now part of a movie machine that won't be going away any time soon. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," he pondered. "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."

Is there any merit to his concerns? Or should Old Man Tolkien allow his father's works to be enjoyed for the next generation without complaint? Let us know below. [World Crunch via ComicBookMovie]

News

More: Peter Jackson, The Hobbit, The Lord Of the Rings

20 Comments

| Reply
Carley | May 16, 2013 9:41 PMReply

I'm 14 and I enjoyed the books and the movies
though the movies had a lot of differences it was still good, other books get ripped to shreads.
the movies really helped popularize the books for younger generations.
Yeah the books are beautiful but peter jackson is no one to hate, for he came kind of close (i mean who could make them exactly alike) and more realistically: helped the book sell.
carleyyy | May 16, 2013 9:45 PM

yet i can see why christopher doesn't like them... he probabaly knows the books better than anybody and noticed even more changes in the movies than we did... remember these amazing books are his life..
Melissa | May 12, 2013 2:38 AMReply

While I love the books as I'm a massive book reader I also appreciated the films for what they were... People have to realise books are different to the movies... One thing the movies have done is bring new younger readers.. My teenage daughter is now reader the rings trilogy she probably wouldn't have picked the books up before watching the movies....
Ridahoan | February 17, 2013 5:52 PMReply

Christopher Tolkien is right on. Let me borrow from the comment below and say the movies "look fair but feel foul," or should we say "not all that glitters is gold."

Now that the miracle of CGI seems a little less miraculous, I hope we can finally see the movies for what they were: tripe. For me, the soundtrack says it all: layer on sentimental neo celtic vapid pop to make up for character development being sacrificed to eventually boring battle scenes, despite having 3 long movies to do more than chop heads.
I think C. Tolkien is wrong though, many 12 year old Tolkien fans would have preferred not having their classic stripped of its beauty. And no, at 5 years old I didn't like Kipling's Jungle Book blathered by Disney either. And yes, this is the way of things.
Mike Horah | February 5, 2013 3:19 PMReply

It is of course a great pity that Christopher Tolkien and the estate have been unable to find a reasonable and fair accommodation with the makers of LOR etc and that Newline and others have exploited the oeuvre beyond the limits of the original sale of rights. And ironic that this should have happened, given the Hollywood's paranoid febrile and futile war world wide against copyright infringement, but I dare say typical Corporate hypocrisy . If you look for Mordor you will find it there - what Corporates cannot buy they will steal at the point of a gun (and in some other nations too .) I am surprised extraordinary rendition has not been used and a period in Guatanomo to persuade him to sign away the rights. They look fair but feel foul.

But the genie is well out of the bottle . Like Shakespeare Tolkien is becoming owned by all and soon will be legally. Look at the way his work and the Arthurian legends have been treated â from the sublime to the ridiculous, the latter most recently - â Merlinâ by the BBC.

I have been a Tolkienista since I first read LOR at the age of 19 in 1968. I gave Jackson only seven out of ten for LOR. Great visuals props etc , great score- both very evocative but indifferent script sometimes indifferently acted, which makes me cringe , at times (This may not be the actorsâ fault).The best delivered lines were straight from the text . So keep Peter J well away from the Bard -or Melville for that matter. I care not about the Hobbit which is among the lightest of the works. I will not watch it in a movie theatre and probably not it on DVD. Maybe watch it on Sky when its available â on demandâ.

But Christopher Tolkien has been the guardian , compiler editor nurturer and fosterer of all of the great manâs posthumous unpublished works which were not part of the copyright sell-on deal when he yet lived. He has the right to be jealous of that work. The Silmarillion is not suited to the same movie treatment- much less dialogue than is usable and more Homeric in style ( Look at the movie âTroyâ â the only thing not wooden was the weapons). For some stories eg Beren and Luthien opera would be a better treatment

Many of the comments I have read on the web about Christopher are ignorant, selfish , cruel and unworthy of those who claim to love this body of work.
SgtZim | January 16, 2013 2:15 PMReply

Bet he wasn't complaining whilst cashing those sweet royalty cheques. What a sponge.
JHarper | January 14, 2013 11:32 AMReply

Lord of the Rings is one of the few movies that my grandparents will actually watch with me and enjoy it. It really is a film for all ages.
Pipsqueak | January 11, 2013 8:52 AMReply

Dear oh dear, Christopher. You want to lighten up buddy. When are people ever going to realise that movies and books are radically different media? I loved the books, and equally love the films. Okay so there are a few things I would change, but really, can we expect anything better? Jackson's interpretation and visual representation of the books is nothing short of miraculous.
And berating it for being an action movie? What????? Erm, Chris old son, there is a fair amount of "action" in the books wouldn't you say?
Sorry, but my take on this is: grow up. A movie is a movie, a book is a book. They are and will always be, very different beasts.
PIPSQUEAK | January 11, 2013 8:57 AM

And another thing.... Christopher Tolkien, how can you have the bare faced front to talk of commercial exploitation of Tolkien? When you have built your ENTIRE career on rehashing and rewording the same Tolkien writings and musings for ever more irrelevant books "written" by JRRT ? Hypocrisy.
Andi | January 10, 2013 10:28 PMReply

Wow, Christopher. Bitter much? To label the franchise as made for 15-25 year olds is completely ridiculous. I work at a nursing home and we had a LOTR marathon there on the day the Hobbit premiered, and those elderly woman and men obviously aged a lot happier than C. Tolkien! They were very excited for the Hobbit coming out and there was a lot of reminiscing over the hype of the LOTR movies. Of course, Christopher Tolkien should also keep in mind that -while he has every right to disagree with choices P.J made on the movies, PETER JACKSON ACTUALLY MADE THE MOVIES. He brought J.R.R Tolkien's works to the big screen and the world (especially many who had previously had no incentive to read the books and later did) loves the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit all the more for it.
Peter not friggin Jackson | June 7, 2013 12:41 AM

@Pipsqueak Where precisely does Christopher claim his books were written by his father? No one is more explicit of his research into Tolkien lore than Christopher, honest and always accurate. Yes, the films were tripe for teenagers and shallow pseudo-epic d&d gamers.
Northern Star | January 9, 2013 7:30 PMReply

Christopher Tolkien is just a bitter old curmudgeon, he should be thanking Peter Jackson - whilst respectfully disagreeing with some creative decisions made - for bringing the works of his father to a whole new generation in such a vivid and accessible fashion. The '...Rings' trilogy simply couldn't have been made better than was, although I believe 'The Hobbit' should have been made as two 3-hour films rather than three padded-out films with far too much appendices material included (which will inevitably change the tone of the tale unnecessarily)... but it's just my opinion, of course...
hank | January 9, 2013 7:09 PMReply

Nailed it, Christopher.
deadguyknows | January 9, 2013 6:25 PMReply

Think 'Lord of the Rings' as interpreted by Terrance Malick ... now that's a partnership of material and artist that I could imagine as being both beautiful and serious.
MongooseCmr | January 9, 2013 9:27 PM

Three films of walking through tall grass
rme | January 9, 2013 9:06 PM

... you cannot be serious.
Xian | January 9, 2013 4:28 PMReply

Tom Bombadil LIKES this.
bohmer | January 9, 2013 4:09 PMReply

I remember having the same complaint at the time of its release but came to term with the movie as time past since I read de book. There's no way a studio would finance a more serious, actionless fantasy trilogy. Jackson version's fine.
Mark | January 9, 2013 4:08 PMReply

He's absolutely right. And it's just as well he hasn't watched the movies, if he saw how Jackson had 'improved' the storyline he would probably have a stroke.

They're fun movies, but that's all.
yer | January 9, 2013 5:16 PM

I am glad there are so many level-headed commenters. If Chris Nolan had directed the trilogy and these comments were made oh man watch out!!