Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
about Tolkien's opinion on movie scripts and Tom Bombadil
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Mandos
Dec 16, 2012, 10:19:26 AM12/16/12
to
I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would rather
have some part of the book (such as those with Tom Bombadil) cut from a
film script than to have an "overcrowded" script with not enought space
for everithing.
I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
Zimmerman's script
But I was not able to find them
I just found, in letter 201, this statement: "An abridgement by selection
with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good
deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with
resultant over-crowding and confusion,"
But I was not able to find anything specific about TB.
Do you remember Tolkien writing such things? And where does such a
writing is?
Thank you
--
Mandos - FeSToso #11, LIstaro, IAFo #157, Scribano, Linux user #464864 e
Referente dello Smial Proudneck di Roma - www.proudneck.org
Oh Boromir! The Tower of Guard shall ever northward gaze
To Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, until the end of days.
have some part of the book (such as those with Tom Bombadil) cut from a
film script than to have an "overcrowded" script with not enought space
for everithing.
I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
Zimmerman's script
But I was not able to find them
I just found, in letter 201, this statement: "An abridgement by selection
with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good
deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with
resultant over-crowding and confusion,"
But I was not able to find anything specific about TB.
Do you remember Tolkien writing such things? And where does such a
writing is?
Thank you
--
Mandos - FeSToso #11, LIstaro, IAFo #157, Scribano, Linux user #464864 e
Referente dello Smial Proudneck di Roma - www.proudneck.org
Oh Boromir! The Tower of Guard shall ever northward gaze
To Rauros, golden Rauros-falls, until the end of days.
Stan Brown
Dec 16, 2012, 12:28:59 PM12/16/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:19:26 +0000 (UTC), Mandos wrote:
>
> I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would rather
> have some part of the book (such as those with Tom Bombadil) cut from a
> film script than to have an "overcrowded" script with not enought space
> for everithing.
>
> I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
> Zimmerman's script
>
> But I was not able to find them
>
> I just found, in letter 201, this statement: "An abridgement by selection
> with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good
> deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with
> resultant over-crowding and confusion,"
>
> But I was not able to find anything specific about TB.
>
>
> Do you remember Tolkien writing such things? And where does such a
> writing is?
I've read /Letters/ a few times, though not within the past year. I
>
> I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would rather
> have some part of the book (such as those with Tom Bombadil) cut from a
> film script than to have an "overcrowded" script with not enought space
> for everithing.
>
> I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
> Zimmerman's script
>
> But I was not able to find them
>
> I just found, in letter 201, this statement: "An abridgement by selection
> with some good picture-work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good
> deal in publicity; but the present script is rather a compression with
> resultant over-crowding and confusion,"
>
> But I was not able to find anything specific about TB.
>
>
> Do you remember Tolkien writing such things? And where does such a
> writing is?
remember his letter to Ackerman about the "scenario or story line",
and his very strong objections to the additions to the book in that
treatment, so I think we can feel sure he would object to Jackson's
films for the same reason.
Regarding leaving things out, in a letter 0f 1957-09-07 to Rayner
Unwin he says "An abridgement by selection with some good picture-
work would be pleasant, & perhaps worth a good deal in publicity; but
the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-
crowding and confusion, blurring of climaxes, and general
the present script is rather a compression with resultant over-
degradation: a pull-back towards more conventional ?fairy-stories?."
He was referring to the Zimmerman treatment. But in that letter he
didn't suggest any specific abridgements, and I don't recall anywhere
else in Letters where he did so.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Simon Rowe
Dec 16, 2012, 1:35:07 PM12/16/12
to
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:26 PM UTC, Mandos wrote:
> I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would rather
>
> have some part of the book (such as those with Tom Bombadil) cut from a
>
> film script than to have an "overcrowded" script with not enought space
>
> for everithing.
>
>
>
> I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
>
> Zimmerman's script
>
>
>
> But I was not able to find them
He said this about Goldberry rather than Bonbadill
> I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would rather
>
> have some part of the book (such as those with Tom Bombadil) cut from a
>
> film script than to have an "overcrowded" script with not enought space
>
> for everithing.
>
>
>
> I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
>
> Zimmerman's script
>
>
>
> But I was not able to find them
I am sorry, but I think the manner of the introduction of Goldberry is silly, and on a par with ‘old scamp’. It also has no warrant in my tale. We are not in ‘fairy-land’, but in real river-lands in autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands. Personally I think she had far better disappear than make a meaningless appearance.
Simon Rowe
Dec 16, 2012, 1:36:04 PM12/16/12
to
[Bah, hit post too soon]
that is in Letters 210.
that is in Letters 210.
Mandos
Dec 16, 2012, 3:07:57 PM12/16/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:35:07 -0800, Simon Rowe wrote:
>
> He said this about Goldberry rather than Bonbadill
Thank you so much Simon
>
> He said this about Goldberry rather than Bonbadill
I fast read the letter today, but I was so focused on searching "Tom
Bombadil" that I completely missed the statement
Troels Forchhammer
Dec 16, 2012, 6:38:08 PM12/16/12
to
In message
<news:42b7b461-8ca5-44a2...@googlegroups.com>
Simon Rowe <simon...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
He also has this to say:
33. I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the
'defence of the Homburg' - this would be a better title,
since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown --
entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly
meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this way.
Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out,
if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant
part of the story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg
cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense,
then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is
incidental to the main story; and there would be this
additional gain that we are going to have a big battle
(of which as much should be made as possible), but
battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain
by having no competitor.
Not quite the sense ("overcrowding" and "not enough space") as Mandos
asked for, but still another example of Tolkien's acute desire for
coherence and for giving scenes a meaning in the development of the
story (something which Jackson obviously does not value quite as
highly). In Jackson's defence I should probably add that Tolkien is
unlikely to have ever imagined that anyone would turn /The Lord of
the Rings/ into more than a single film -- he might have hoped for a
double-length film, but that would probably have been the top.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
<news:42b7b461-8ca5-44a2...@googlegroups.com>
Simon Rowe <simon...@gmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:26 PM UTC, Mandos wrote:
>>
>> I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would
>> rather have some part of the book (such as those with Tom
>> Bombadil) cut from a film script than to have an "overcrowded"
>> script with not enought space for everithing.
>>
>> I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
>> Zimmerman's script
>
> On Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:19:26 PM UTC, Mandos wrote:
>>
>> I seem to remember that somewhere JRR Tolkien wrote that he would
>> rather have some part of the book (such as those with Tom
>> Bombadil) cut from a film script than to have an "overcrowded"
>> script with not enought space for everithing.
>>
>> I thought it was in the Letters, expecially in those concerning
>> Zimmerman's script
>
> He said this about Goldberry rather than Bonbadill
<snip quotation from /Letters/ no. 210>
He also has this to say:
33. I am afraid that I do not find the glimpse of the
'defence of the Homburg' - this would be a better title,
since Helm's Deep, the ravine behind, is not shown --
entirely satisfactory. It would, I guess, be a fairly
meaningless scene in a picture, stuck in in this way.
Actually I myself should be inclined to cut it right out,
if it cannot be made more coherent and a more significant
part of the story. .... If both the Ents and the Hornburg
cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense,
then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is
incidental to the main story; and there would be this
additional gain that we are going to have a big battle
(of which as much should be made as possible), but
battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain
by having no competitor.
Not quite the sense ("overcrowding" and "not enough space") as Mandos
asked for, but still another example of Tolkien's acute desire for
coherence and for giving scenes a meaning in the development of the
story (something which Jackson obviously does not value quite as
highly). In Jackson's defence I should probably add that Tolkien is
unlikely to have ever imagined that anyone would turn /The Lord of
the Rings/ into more than a single film -- he might have hoped for a
double-length film, but that would probably have been the top.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows
how to read.
- /Guards! Guards!/ (Terry Pratchett)
Clams Canino
Dec 19, 2012, 9:27:04 PM12/19/12
to
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> and there would be this
> additional gain that we are going to have a big battle
> (of which as much should be made as possible), but
> battles tend to be too similar: the big one would gain
> by having no competitor.
quality - but not the quantity?
-W
Troels Forchhammer
Dec 20, 2012, 9:34:43 AM12/20/12
to
In message <news:5dqdnSPkyJL86k_N...@earthlink.com>
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
That is certainly a possible conclusion :-)
I do think that it should be added that Tolkien was here commenting on
a story-line that would make a single film of all of /The Lord of the
Rings/, which does change things a bit.
Trying to second-guess exactly what Tolkien would have thought of
Jackson's LotR films or his Hobbit is impossible -- an educated guess
is that he wouldn't have particularly liked any of them, but what his
specific complaints would have been is beyond me to say.
In Jackson's version, the battles (at least as I perceive it) become a
curious mix of epic elements (usually derived from Tolkien) combined
with a gory glorification of violence (possibly deriving from, or at
least being related to, Jackson's past as a horror director) and
slapstick humour. As I see it the resulting heterogenous amalgam is not
epic, but in any case I think Tolkien would praise the epic elements
(the charge of the Rohirrim, for instance), while deploring the
slapstick humour and the glorification of violence (rather than showing
the ugliness of violence -- see e.g. the battle in book IV ch. 4 'Of
Herbs and Stewed Rabbit'). But this is /my/ (albeit, I will insist,
rather qualified) assessment of Tolkien's most likely reaction -- how
he would actually have reacted is impossible to say.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant,
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ #192
"Clams Canino" <cc-m...@earthdink.net> spoke these staves:
I do think that it should be added that Tolkien was here commenting on
a story-line that would make a single film of all of /The Lord of the
Rings/, which does change things a bit.
Trying to second-guess exactly what Tolkien would have thought of
Jackson's LotR films or his Hobbit is impossible -- an educated guess
is that he wouldn't have particularly liked any of them, but what his
specific complaints would have been is beyond me to say.
In Jackson's version, the battles (at least as I perceive it) become a
curious mix of epic elements (usually derived from Tolkien) combined
with a gory glorification of violence (possibly deriving from, or at
least being related to, Jackson's past as a horror director) and
slapstick humour. As I see it the resulting heterogenous amalgam is not
epic, but in any case I think Tolkien would praise the epic elements
(the charge of the Rohirrim, for instance), while deploring the
slapstick humour and the glorification of violence (rather than showing
the ugliness of violence -- see e.g. the battle in book IV ch. 4 'Of
Herbs and Stewed Rabbit'). But this is /my/ (albeit, I will insist,
rather qualified) assessment of Tolkien's most likely reaction -- how
he would actually have reacted is impossible to say.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of
injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed
and disaster averted.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, /The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien/ #192
Paul S. Person
Dec 20, 2012, 1:10:57 PM12/20/12
to
filmmakers could do whatever they wanted with his material.
So it would depend on how much he was being paid. PJ would have had to
pay him a lot more than Bakshi or Rankin-Bass would have had to.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
0 new messages