Finally, a good reason to read to the end of Slashdot comment pages: you can find useful things like the text of a letter from Tolkien to the would-be producer of a Lord of the Rings movie, back in 1958. It could have been written to Peter Jackson.
We see that Tolkien was not averse to cutting characters ("Personally I think [Goldberry] had far better disappear than make a meaningless appearance."). He understood that film was a different medium and that changes were necessary to accomodate his story -- but he resisted changes which gratuitously changed the story:
I can see that there are certain difficulties in representing a dark scene; but they are not insuperable. A scene of gloom lit by a small red fire, with the Wraiths slowly approaching as darker shadows - until the moment when Frodo puts on the Ring, and the King steps forward revealed - would seem to me far more impressive than yet one more scene of screams and rather meaningless slashings.....and later, too: "It is well within the powers of pictures to suggest, relatively briefly, a long and arduous journey, *in secrecy*, on foot, with the three ominous mountains getting nearer."
Here are the parts that could be addressed to Jackson:
31. I deeply regret this handling of the 'Treebeard' chapter, whether necessary or not. I have already suspected Z of not being interested in trees: unfortunate, since the story is so largely concerned with them. But surely what we have here is in any case a quite unintelligible glimpse? What are Ents?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....
Z has cut out the end of the book, including Saruman's proper death. In that case I can see no good reason for making him die.
If it is meant to represent only a kind of short finale, then all I can say is this: *The Lord of the Rings* cannot be garbled like that.
But this is all wasted, anyway. I can't count how many times I've had the following conversation -- with friends, yet:
Friend: So, how did you like The Two Towers?
Me: Didn't like it. Actually, we walked out.
Friend: Why?
Me: Too many variations from the book.
Friend: Like what?
Me: Well, we didn't like what Jackson did to Faramir, and the Ents were badly treated too, and Jackson left out my favorite line, near the beginning of II, and ....
Friend: (angry) Why can't you just enjoy the movie?!
Perhaps I misunderstand the "Like what?" -- I kinda assume that when people ask why I hold these opinions, they actually want to hear my answer. Maybe not -- maybe it's the same sort of question as "How are you?".
It's OK by me for other people to like the movies, or even like the movie version more than the books. That's fine. But please don't require that I do the same. Look, I have a strong appreciation for Tolkien's exact text and my vision of it. That doesn't mean that I think I'm a better person or a better Tolkien fan than you are. (Actually I wouldn't even describe myself as a Tolkien fan, but whatever.) But apparently it makes some people feel uncomfortable or even threatened.
Perhaps these people feel that they should care deeply about the text version, and then feel badly because they don't.
One of the other Slashdot posters writes:
Lots of us, even fans of the books, watched the movies and found that the changes did not significantly detract from our enjoyment of the story. So naturally when people claim that Jackson ruined everything and all the changes were unnecessary or worse we defend him.This is exactly the kind of overreaction I'm talking about. I don't think Jackson ruined "everything". He certainly made three movies that I don't want to see, though. Perhaps you want to see them -- so go ahead. I'll stay home and read the books.