Ah, but you know you’d watch it!
Don’t know who’s got the rights, but I suspect that it can’t be made into a live action movie 
I read in an interview with Jackson that New Line bought the film rights to The Hobbit along with LotR – he said they didn’t want anyone capitalizing on the LotR craze and possibly making an inferior movie. Jackson himself didn’t sound interested in doing the project, but someone might after RotK comes out.
Wow, apparently New Line has the film rights to The Silmarillion (as well as The Hobbit)!!
http://www.tolkien-movies.com/faq.php#6
I can see it now: David Fincher signs on to direct a 6-movie version of The Silmarillion (one released each year). Trent Reznor composes the soundtracks. Christopher Walkin is cast as Morgoth. A beefed-up Brad Pitt plays Turin. Umma Thurman as Luthien. T… Ok, ok I’ll stop now. 
The Silmarillion as a movie would take about 30 hours; the director’s cut on DVD would more like 52. What a waste of a vacation!
Where can one read these letters? Are they online somewhere?
I’ve been very curious. I have a recurring daydream of going back in time with a DVD player and plasma TV and showing him. I think he’d like them, despite the changes.
On the FOTR:EE DVD commentary, they mention that the Nazgul screams are actually (co-writer) Fran Walsh with a sore throat. (co-writer) Phillippa Boyens jokes that all they had to do was tell her Peter had acquired the rights to The Silmarillion.
I reread (or that could be re-re-re-re-re-read) “The Two Towers” just before seeing the movie, so I probably noticed every little change as much as anyone else.
While several things struck me as odd during viewing, I realized afterward that the themes remained true to the books.
For example, Faramir in the book isn’t even tempted by the ring. The theme of this, IMO, is that this is redemption for the men of Gondor after Boromir’s disgrace.
In the movie, Faramir starts to take the ring to Gondor. I was worried that Frodo and Sam would sneak away, and that would have completely changed the theme of the encounter.
Instead, Faramir does let the ring go of his own free will, thus redeeming Gondor. The drawn out process, then, only emphasizes that this was a real temptation turned down rather than an easy choice. (The book does make it seem easy for Faramir).
The one theme change that kind of bothers me is that Saruman is a faithful lackey of Sauron. In the book, the theme that evil will turn against itself is cause for hope by the forces of good.
Can anyone else think of changes which go contrary to a THEME from the book, not just a change of actions.
Just a small clarification:
Tolkien sold the rights to both the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. He was almost always worried about his financial situation up until the books truly and completely ‘took off’ and hence made that ‘hard choice’
I’m inclined to suspect that as a result he had managed to convince himself that the idea of what happened in the movies was no longer his business. However,
as Primaflora has stated I suspect on a personal level he would have hated them with a fair bit of a passion. If you read through the collected letters you really can get a sense that he did not like the idea of other people ‘playing in his sandbox’ and would have been unable to simply accept the inevitable changes made in a movie. Tolkien’s version of the films would have been something about twice the length of the BBC radio production, would have thrilled those of us who love (and obess about) the books and been utterly and completely inaccessible to Joe lunchpail.
Despite my own moments of flinching I give Jackson mega kudos for bringing so much of Middle Earth to visual life.
Nope, you actually have to buy the book. The letters were out of print for a very long time. Fortunately, they may now be found here.
They are absolutely essential for anyone with a more than passing interest in Tolkien’s life and works.
I’m sure Tolkien would have hated the current movies. Tolkien loved the history and languages of Middle Earth, and considered them his crowning achievments. History and languages, however, make for dull movies, so the movies concentrate on the Hollywood-friendly action bits.
That said, I think Tolkien would have hated the Jackson movies far less than the Bakshi or Rankin-Bass versions.
I still stand by my opinion he would have hated the movies. He may had sold the rights but it was a financial matter, not a oh goody they’re gonna film ma baby matter.
I have read the letters and I never got the sense that he was keen on Hollywood filming the books. I love FOTR and I probably will love the TT but they are not the movies that Tolkien would have made in the remote chance he would have made them. There’s no way that he anticipated hundreds of millions of dollars for his family because he sold those rights.
You don’t see the Tolkien family giving interviews about how fabulous they are do you? Is there a single interview out there with Christopher Tolkien saying how much he loves them and how much JRR would have loved them? I haven’t seen one. It would be a strong endorsement for Jackson if it happened wouldn’t it?
Apparently, the movie has been at least the partial cause of a nasty breach between Christopher Tolkien (who disapproved of the whole idea from the beginning) and several other family members (including, I believe, one of Christopher’s own sons), who thought making the movies would be a good thing overall, as they’d bring the books increased attention. Sad to consider, really, but I guess it only shows that the Tolkien family is just like any other, imperfect and human.
BTW: Which “Two Towers” was Tolkein refering to in the title of the second book?
I seem to remember that the Towers were Minas Ithil (renamed Minas Tirith?) and Minas Morgul, both of which were originally part of Gondor and face each other across Osgiliath/Ithilien/the Anduin river valley. In the movie, there is some dialog by Saruman implying that Orthanc (Isengard) and Barad-Dur (chez Sauron) are the two towers from which Middle Earth will soon be ruled. I could have misinterpreted that dialog, or perhaps it is a little bit of artistic license in the film, or maybe I’m just wrong about the Ithil/Morgul thing. Opinions?
Interesting, kiteboy – I remember distinctly thinking the same thing when I first read the series – that the two towers were Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul.
Of course, I first read the series around the time I was in junior high school – so it’s been a while. I’m re-reading now, and plan to keep a sharp eye out for any references.
Although, I guess it’s also important to remember that the split of the book into three volumes was done later, by publishers (I think), not by Tolkien. So I don’t think those titles came from the author himself.
Tolkien himself didn’t pick the name “Two Towers” and was rather vague about what they stood for. Candidates consisted of Orthanc (at Isengard), Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, and Barad-dur. Take your pick.
The book is full of “two towers” --in addition to the physical towers (which are paired up), it is the book where all the charecters in the fellowship are paired up–Gimli and Legolas, Merri and Pippin, and, of course, Frodo and Sam.
I don’t know if Professor T. wrote this bit, but the very last page of my 1973 Ballantine paperback edition of the Fellowship ends with a couple short italicized paragraphs which include:
“Here ends the first part of the history of the War of the Ring.”
“The second part is called The Two Towers, since the events recounted in it are dominated by Orthanc, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of Minas Morgul that guards the secrent entrance to Mordor…”
It’s tacked on as if it is part of the original text, but I suppose it could have been pulled out of thin air by some publishing house lackey…TRM
The idea that little Frodo and Sam could be the “two towers” is beautiful and poetic, but Tolkien appears to have had buildings in mind, although he couldn’t quite seem to pick just two.
Ah, yes, but the joy of having an English degree is that I don’t have to worry too much about what the author meant–a work of ar t is what is is, and it seems to me that you can make a pretty good case that the charecter pairs in the novel extend the whole theme of pairing. It was Tolkien himself that said that people who spent an obsessive amount of time wondering about what Beowulf said about the people who wrote it and where it came from and what works had preceded it were missing the beauty of the work itself: I think that spending a lot of time worrying about whether or not Tolkien really meant something is a waste of time: after all, if he had really meant to get across some beautiful point and had failed utterly, we wouldn’t say that it was “really there” somehow–I don’t see why we should disregard beautiful parellels just becaues they weren’t intentional.
To tie this hijack back to the OP, I don’t find I am particullarly concerned with whether or not Tolkien would have like the movies, though it is certainly fun to speculate about (and there’s nothing wrong with speculating for pure entertainment.) Copyright laws aside (which I support simply as a way to make artistic pursuits feasible), when you make public a creative endeavor you are inviting people to take it, process it, and rechurn it out as something new. All art does this, both bad art and good art. If you don’t want your art to be redigested and reformed by strangers who may do things you hate, don’t put it in the public sphere. I don’t think Peter Jackson and crew had any sort of moral obligation to stick to Tolkien’s vision, any more than Tolkien had any moral obligation to stick to the vision of the thousands of creative minds that shaped the works that influenced him, and just like we don’t have any moral obligation to like–or dislike–Jackson’s reformation of Tolkien.
As for the themes idea which was mentioned earlier on, i totally agree, the story may have been changed, but the themes, ideas and plot development stay the same, and as for Faramir being the redemption of Gondor, dont forget Aragon, probably the most noble of all the characters, who is totally selfless and honest with others, and eventually realises his destiny and saves Middle-Earth (with the others obviously)
As for whether Tolkein would have liked the books i would like to think that although he may have been dissapointed that so much of what he wrote had to be ommited, he would have been pleased that the movies could bring the books to the attention of such a large audience. If not for FoTR i would not have read his books, but i did and have come to love them. Plus at the time he was alive, the cinematography(sp?) was far far less developed than today and he would never have believed that his books could be done justice on the big screen.
But with new technology some of the scenes in the movies are breathtaking, and surely even Tolkein could have found one part which resembled his own view of Middle-Earth. But then again he may have hated them.