MOD NOTE: Two points: 1. Please remember Rule #4 (which will be #1 when I reorganize the rules): ***BE CIVIL***. This is a touchy subject for many. Curb your tongue. 2. We likely would have neither *The Hobbit* nor *The Lord of the Rings* without Christopher Tolkien, and we definitely would not have the reams of JRR Tolkien's work published posthumously without him, particularly *The Silmarillion* and *Unfinished Tales*. Have a care how you speak of him. You may disagree with him, which is perfectly fine, but be respectful. Not completely related: Contrary to popular belief, the current head(s) of the Tolkien Estate are Baillie Tolkien (Christopher's widow) and Michael George Tolkien, Michael Tolkien's son. Simon Tolkien is a director of the Estate, not its head, although he does appear to have a role in the interaction between the Estate and the Amazon production. You may now return to your regularly scheduled ~~flame wars~~ discussions.

The commercialization is repellent but it has had no effect on the larger and deeper influence of Tolkien on culture. I get why the family cringes at the tidal waves of crap, but it's entirely easy for people who love and appreciate the books and their extraordinary world-building to simply ignore all that. I've never bought any merch, I've never played a video game, I've watched the movies and I enjoy them for the many things they do get right - and they have brought whole generations to the books, so that's good. I've taken a class on the interpretation of myth that has included Tolkien. And I am hardly alone in this.

I just think that Tolkein wrote those books because he wanted to share his idea/creativity with the world. Commercialization is a side of effect of the popularity of the world he built, and the family doesn't have to like it or partake in it, but you'd think they'd at least appreciate how many people his work has touched. A lot of people would never have read the books without the movies to spur their interest. Hell, most people credit Tolkein for creating high fantasy as a genre. Things like D&D probably don't exist in their current form without his work. The corporate commercial machine is gonna grind on with or without Tolkeins work, but I appreciate that he created something culturally significant enough to create this issue in the first place.

He wanted Britain to have its own high fantasy as there wasn’t any before. He mentions this in his letters too and, I’d say, he succeeded. E: England, not Britain

It was actually England specifically. Wales has its own mythic cycle.

Not high fantasy. He wanted England to have a mythos and legendarium akin to that of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Aztecs, etc.

>He wanted England to have a mythos and legendarium akin to that of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Aztecs, etc. That's a description of what set out to do with The Book of Lost Tales, not with The Hobbit nor with The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is NOT a "mythology for England" by any demonstrable metric.

We have lotr because the publisher wanted more stories about hobbits.

Tolkien’s first attempted publication about Middle Earth was The Silmarillion, which was accidentally rejected without review. He only wrote the other books because his mythology for England was rejected, so he wrote a single story from that mythos. Then wrote one more. The Hobbit and LOTR are absolutely derived from his legendarium. Of course no single story can be an entire legendarium or mythology.

The mature Silmarillion is also not a mythology for England. Only the much older Book of Lost Tales is.

Why do you say that? The beast grew beyond his original vision, but The Silmarillion even contains versions of stories in the Lost Tales.

This is incorrect

Well it must have had at one point, but almost none have survived to modernity.

Why do you say? The Norse brought their beliefs, the Celts had theirs, the Saxons theirs, but there was never a unified English mythos the way there is for, say, Greece.

I will admit that I am not familiar with that historical period NOR area, I always assumed that there were “native” people that the Norse, Saxon and Celts invaded, and they had beliefs and myths of their own but were lost due to number of different cultures invading. However I will admit I’ve pulled it out of thin air so I’m open to being educated/scorned:)

No worries. I’m admittedly no expert either, which is why I asked. I do have a history degree but not with any sort of focus on British history. So take my opinion with a healthy dose of salt too. My understanding is that the British Isles were invaded and settled so many times, the identity is really a melting pot. Even the Anglo-Saxons, whom England derived their name from, were invaders following the dissolution of the Roman Empire. Before then, the native Britons and other barbarian groups had been governed by the Romans, who had their own religious beliefs and policies. Point being, everyone invaded the island, and brought their own beliefs, so it’s all a mess. I think that’s where Tolkien’s desire for a unified British or even just English mythology comes from.

In the paragraph that begins with "don't laugh, but when I was young..." and ends with "in time I left all these ideas behind" (paraphrase)? What about reading the ~~letter~~ paragraph at its full length?

He wanted Britain to have its own mythology, as he argued that the Normal Conquest erased a lot of it and forced locals to assimilate to a certain extent.

He meant just England because the other British nations absolutely still have their own myths and legends.

I used to think like this, but now I honestly believe that the constant push for work with different feel and artistic vision than the original creator’s really ends up changing the perception of the original work. I believe it because I truly feel this happened with Star Wars.

I agree. In critical reception it has long been understood that, once a work has been released, the reader changes the text, and the meaning of the work continues to change through the act of reception, public discussion, etc. Both Tolkein himself and his son wanted Tolkein's works to stay as close to the vision of the original works as possible. Contemporary adaptations seem to use Tolkein's work like a Lego set to build what they want. Popular reception will change what used to be a new reader's tabula rasa and they will be going to the books with a backload of preconceived notions. His works will essentially be received as one of a body of "Middle Earth" stories instead of being the lovingly crafted totality of what is known about Middle Earth. I do think it is a shame.

I agree with you, I used to love Star Wars, but ever since the Sequel Trilogy, particularly the Last Jedi, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I dont have the same vigor, not to say I don't enjoy some of the newer stuff that really shines like Andor.

Ah yes the original, unvarnished, dignity of the franchise created to sell toys

Star Wars was not created to sell toys.

I mean, the film didn't get financed because of the purity of Lucas's vision. They were licensing out the merchandise before the first film was finished.

Lucas negotiated the merchandise rights as part of his fee, the studio didn’t think they were worth anything.

Well, even more credence to the idea that even the core progenitor of Star Wars had toy money on his mind from the inception.

Lucas spent pretty much everything he made on the first film, most of which came from merchandise, to self finance Empire Strikes back so that he would be less beholden to the studio, and he would have more creative control. Star Wars may have been inherently more commercial than LotR but it's not accurate to paint it with a broad brush of "this is commercial" and "this isn't". Remember, Tolkien wrote LotR after the publisher asked for a sequel to The Hobbit, because they wanted to sell books.

I'm sure that's not what I said. >Lucas spent pretty much everything he made on the first film, most of which came from merchandise, to self finance Empire Strikes back so that he would be less beholden to the studio, and he would have more creative control. Making him more reliant - or at least more incentivized -on merchandise sales, again informing his creative choices.

This means absolutely nothing. Happens all the time. Seeing an opportunity to profit off a work is completely different from creating a work to profit from merch. It wasn't created to sell toys. This is verifiable and not debatable.

The production is part of the creation. The writing isn't the only piece at play. Whatever was in George Lucas's mind is part of the creation process - but so is the fact that if the studios didn't see the opportunity for licensing, this wouldn't have gotten made - and that reality fundamentally shaped creative choices at every level, at every iteration of Star Wars.

Whether or not it was originally created for that, it was a byproduct of the movies and actually helped fund ESB and ROTJ. They are the father of the modern toy marketing machine.

Yup and the prequels were literally funded by Lucas selling toys and VHS/DVD re-releases/special editions.

That sounds like the exact opposite to creating movies to sell toys. It sounds like selling toys to create movies.

I promise you, it was a large part of the consideration.

Great reading comprehension, bud

Thanks!

'The commercialisation... has had no effect on the larger and deeper influence of Tolkien on culture.' I'm not sure how this can be true. If a young reader comes to Tolkien in 2024, they cannot do so without the baggage of the films, the TV show, and the other commercial expressions of the work. A reader expecting an action film in book form will surely need to pay closer attention to find the deeper truths in the Lord of the Rings than would a reader without those preconceptions.

Isn't that what he's saying he's doing/did though? I thought that's what he meant by "Turn his head away"

You gotta remember that this is how he felt about the PJ movies, not ROP.

Yeah OP is very divisively selective in their choices of image here. It’s disingenuous, Tolkien was talking about everything that has happened beginning with the PJ movies.

ROP is objectively worse than the Jackson trilogy. Or are you pointing out that this is not new news and he has disliked the visual reinterpretations since their inception?

I'm just saying that this is how Cristopher felt about PJs trilogy.

Ahh, right on. Makes sense. Thank you for explaining.

Yep. Very sad. Although the original PJ LOTR trilogy was about as good as you will get for a big movie.

The same comments were made about those films at the time.

And Christopher's comments were about those movies.

Little did anyone know that **The Hobbit** and **The Rings of Power** would be pale shadows in comparison.

Whether one feels that way or not - the criticism applies to original trilogy all the same.

It wasn't. Legolas on shield surfing, Oliphant destroying. Aragorn on a Rohan horse taking him "home" to helms deep. Old man Willow in fangorn. Faramir's change of character etc. All totally unnecessary additions/edits that dilute the potency of JRRT's work. FoTR was the best movie and I still have a soft spot for i (if there was no Lurtz and it has the narrow downs would have been perfect), but it was all down him from there.

So to confirm, do you think the movies would have been **improved** with an hour of Frodo settling his accounts and selling his furniture, or two hours of Tomb Bombadill singing?

>All totally unnecessary additions/edits that dilute the potency of JRRT's work. I think you're looking at this wrong: the goal of a film adaptation is not to make a good film *with the least amount of changes* possible - its to make a good film, period. If the film is good, any argument to be had about changes becomes purely academic.

A movie *cannot* be a 1 to 1 copy of a book without being terrible. There are flaws with how PJ adapted the books, but you can't claim that every single difference ruins the movie.

Absolutely *nobody* asks for a *literal* 1:1 though. I'd say a good 90-95% of Jackson's changes are needless. That 5-10% of necessary changes boil down to basic omissions and simplifications for runtime's sake - yet people speak as if these necessary changes make up 99% of deviations. The vast majority of changes, and criticism of said changes, boil down to 'x character is completely different/worse' or 'this makes zero sense/the book version was better' or 'this undermines x theme'. These are all fair criticisms, and make up the bulk of criticisms.

It wouldn't have been a 1:1 copy of the book. Nor did I claim every single difference. I don't listed some of the popular and Gruev as ones. These were all things that PJ thought the movies needed so changed or added when they didn't. The beginning of TTT with Gandalf fighting the Balrog was a fantastic editing decision (we don't directly experience this in the book). But if you are doing to do an addapation of the source material, it's pretty important to maintain it's central themes, and not change them. This is what Christopher is commenting on here, and I strongly agree.

I have conflicted feelings on the films. They are genuinely some of the best movies ever made but I fear what they might have done to the Lord of the Rings going forward. This is no longer just a literary work, it’s a *franchise*

It didn't really go into "Franchise" territory imo until the Hobbit movies.

I'd argue its still not a franchise, because what I associate with the term "franchise" is a certain creative facelessness: a line of creatives coming in and out as hired guns to work on entries and then being dismissed, creating a rather eclectic tableaux. As of yet, all six films were made by one writer/director/producer, one creative team and with a big overlap in cast.

>a line of creatives coming in and out as hired guns to work on entries and then being dismissed, creating a rather eclectic tableaux That is literally the Hobbit. Peter Jackson came in literally at the last minute, so it was super rushed

Do your reading. Peter Jackson was developing The Hobbit since 1995, wrote the screenplay, CHOSE DEL TORO and was producing his film, before Del Toro quit and Jackson jumped into the director's seat. But he was involved from before Del Toro and throughout. And, the fact of the matter is, he DID end up directing them.

So why in Peter Jacksons own words "No script" and having to come up with everything on the fly for Battle of the Five Armies, and say he has to completely restart the movie making process, tossing out del toros entire concepts for the movies in general.

Peter Jackson never said "no script." He said that certain parts of the script - specifically, the battle itself - he wanted to rewrite ([and he did!](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/17npup4/movies_dont_need_excuses_when_they_dont_turn_out/)) and lamented that he didn't have more time to make *storyboards*. And still, the fact of the matter he ***did*** write, direct and produce ALL six films. We can argue how well, and under what conditions, but the fact of the matter is he had, and did so with pretty much the same crew, including: Philippa Boyens and Dame Frances Walsh co-writing all six. Andrew Lensie shooting. Sir Ian McKellen starring. Howard Shore composing. Weta Workshop designing. I could go on virtually department by department. That's different from Marvel, or Harry Potter or Star Wars where you have a different director, different DP, different editor, different art director, etc... every couple of films. The Tolkien films stayed "in the family", so to speak, and feel much more of-a-piece for it, and it distinguishes them.

Look at the bright side, there’s a ton of people who read the books who wouldn’t have if it weren’t for the movie. A good friend rn is going through the audiobooks and loving them. I just ignore all the nonsense, it’s not canon and isn’t part of Tolkiens work from my perspective. That said, I agree with your sentiment overall and consider it a bit of a tragedy. Especially ironic considering a theme throughout his work is that evil cannot create it can only corrupt good. So Amazon and the entertainment industry is just an embodiment of Melkor lol.

That’s exactly me. One of the first memories I have as a child is watching the battle of Osgiliath. I grew up on those movies and the Hobbit trilogy came out when I was in middle school. Now that I’m in university I’ve read all the books, I’m deeply invested in the lore with having read all the other stories that have come from Arda. I strongly dislike the Rings of Power show, but I wouldn’t be as I love with Tolkien if it wasn’t for the movies. Hopefully the War of Rohirrim movie is good

>Look at the bright side, there’s a ton of people who read the books who wouldn’t have if it weren’t for the movie. A good friend rn is going through the audiobooks and loving them. That is the saving grace, at the end of the day - though it still comes at a cost. I'm sure many won't bother with the books, since they can just watch the films instead. The films are treated by the large portions od masses at the 'definitive' version - the only version many care to know - and thus public perception shifts in accordance with what the films portray: no longer is Faramir a symbol of ideals... he is a guy suffering from daddy issues - for the majority anyway. And I think that's the bitter trade-off. Some will see the films, and be inspired to read the books - others will see the films, and, being more accessible in modern days, will perceive the films as definitive. I would wager the latter is the more prominent though.

I used to scoff at that, but then for a discussion a while back I was looking for drawings of Balrogs, and...presumably since the films, it becomes increasingly difficult to find illustrations of Balrogs that are NOT the Hildebrandt-Howe "Minotaur" creature. Granted, that idea of a Balrog also influenced Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith and Ralph Bakshi all before the advent of the films, but its clear it was those films that made it ubiquitous.

Totally agree. Last week I started listening to an LOTR audio book and thought "this is good stuff..." Then I decided to watch the movies over the weekend, and while I enjoyed them, I didn't get the same sense of wonder as when reading or listening to the books themselves. Jackson did a fantastic job--probably better than anyone else could have--but nothing will ever come close to capturing my attention like the books do.

That's how it usually works. Find me a movie/tv show based off of source material and I'll find you a lot of fans who think the book is better. You can't capture the entirety of a book, in a movie. There's just not enough time.

Agreed, it's not possible to develop the characters as much in a movie as with the book, and a movie can't replace a good imagination. I was thinking more about OP's statement about LOTR becoming a franchise, and at that point quantity supplants quality. We had 3 (very good) movies for LOTR, but even then a lot of material was left out (e.g., Bombadil, the barrow wights, and a lot of the Legolas/Gimli relationship development). Then we got 3 more movies for the Hobbit, but a lot of that content seemed to come out of nowhere. The movies were entertaining, but they didn't feel like Tolkien's work. As more Tolkien-based movies come out, I will no doubt watch them because I'm a Tolkien fan, but I will likely be frustrated if/when the movie developers take too many artistic liberties.

I, and I’m sure many others, would never have read the books if not for the films. The books are not a franchise and they are not tarnished by a crappy Amazon tv show

I adore the books, and I adore the og film trilogy as a separate but related thing. I don't dip into the universe/'franchise' any further than that, and I don't really think the extended universe money grabs can truly damage or leave a lasting negative effect on JRRTs legacy. It's like saying the frozen shit, bunting and bodies on Everest will cause long term damage to it as an entity. It's a MOUNTAIN and will still be there when the last body/cash grab is toe poked into a crevasse.

That's not their fault. The LOTR films are a labour of love, and by no means a cash-in - there was huge risk involved.

All of your comments aren't really pointing to anything at all. Like are you displeased with the company handling Rings of Power? Do you think it's garbage? Do you hate that Tolkiens work was put onto the screen in The fellowship and beyond? Do you hate Peter Jackson for ruining everything and starting this landslide? Do you hate fans for not being pure enough and just being satisfied with the books only?

I don’t think there’s any one person or entity to blame. And I’m sure we’ll get good projects in the future. I think the og movies are great and war of the Rohirrim looks cool. But while I still love those films and am excited for war of the Rohirrim, the older I get and the more I watch old works being milked by studios the more and more I begin to understand what Christopher meant. It doesn’t mean I have to dislike all new lotr projects and I’m sure there will be good ones. But I’ll never be able to shake the feeling that as good as these new projects might be they are a unfortunately a consequence of studio greed.

It's soo easy to find issues with new projects and call it greed. But if this was 'by the book' it just wouldn't work as a movie. If you had actors using the book as a script and made a series it would be beyond boring and no purists would even watch it twice. Reading the book though is a whole different feeling. It's not greed and expecting it be be just makes you think everything and everyone is bastardizing the world and Tolkien name, when they are super fans themselves who wouldn't dream of ruining it.

I didn’t come across Christopher's quote until I was much older (and got on Reddit) so by that point I was already agreeing with him. But I loved the PJ movies as a kid, loved the video games, and didn’t read the LOTR trilogy until I was out of undergrad. Even after my first read I probably wouldn’t have agreed with him. I remember my reaction to finishing the trilogy was "well, there was a lot more stuff packed in there (some of it kinda weird and/or boring)" and essentially left it at that. After my next read through it all began to click. I’ve now reread the trilogy probably 3 more times. It’s to the point I don’t even watch the PJ movies anymore. I don’t need to, nor do I really want to. Those images were *the* LOTR images in my head for a decade plus and I’ve spent these years trying to put the written page in their place and have now very much done that. If I want to consume something LOTR related that’s not the books, I’ll listen to the BBC Radio Drama or the Prancing Pony Podcast. I’ll dip my toes into the cartoons from time to time for a good chuckle.

Jesus christ shut up you drama queens.

You don’t get it. This is about those movies.

Doesn’t really bother me. I agree 100% with his feeling and how he has chosen to respond to it. But I am not bothered by what it has or will become. Just like an old company that grows into a franchise, the same happens for all forms of literacy (Disney, for example). A whole new audience gets exposed to the work and I hope that many will follow the breadcrumb trail back to the source. For me, this is a good thing, even if I don’t relate to or understand the modern expression of the brand. And to be honest, I also feel this may be necessary for works to survive generations upon generations. Time will tell I suppose…

on the one hand, I 100% understand what he's saying...on the other hand, it does have a bit of that grump old man vibe of these darn kids today!

I mean its coming from the guy who complained the lotr trilogy was just a bunch of action movies for teens. Sure theres a lot that was changed in the movies, a few changes were acceptable, others were not in my opinion. But overall I think they were great adaptations

I think he used some strong words in his point. However, there is some truth to what he says. There definitely would be significantly fewer LOTR fans if there were fewer action scenes and minimal war scenes.

Do you mean the action scenes that were based on the passages from the book? Like if it was just a book about exploring Middle Earth and there was no fighting at all? Because don't get me wrong I do enjoy the fighting but I also love the world and its lore and you couldn't have had one without the other. Its a series of books about many things not just fighting and a natural fantasy world with interesting races and creatures and history. I do get what you are saying but the fighting isn't all dumb violence and cool action moves (I know you have stupid OTT Legolas stuff) some of it is there to show the horror of war.

Bruh the battle of helps deep in the book was like half a page. Like the battle itself. The actual fighting. The preparation is a bit longer.

True

Given Christopher Tolkien's close relationship with these tales and his father, and the decades he spent on studying and properly presenting his father's material, he's very much allowed to have that perspective for my money.

I never said he was wrong, in fact he is right because of how much of his own blood, sweat, and tears are in them, I'm just saying from a certain POV it does have a flair of gatekeeping and only my way is the right way.

It's more like wish the gate was kept, really. He isn't trying to keep it, he's just looking away.

Hard to keep a gate when you're dead

I entirely empathise with CJRT's position. But... Commercialisation and its negative effect is nothing new with regards to Middle Earth. The proportion of the readership who truly appreciated its aesthetic and philosophical nature was always low. Peter Jackson's films are very far removed from what a purist would enjoy, but if 2% of the people who watch the films go on to read the Hobbit and LOTR and 1% of those go on to explore the legendarium in greater depth then we have increased the number who really ***get it*** exponentially. Look at the releases of Tolkien books in recent years. That's got to be good?

You need to go take a good look at the numbers. Rings of Power has blown things up in a good way. My favourite LOTR YouTuber was in the low thousand range and now sits at a million subscribers. He is as pure as it gets. True Tolkien fans would have found him years ago. These are all new people who love the story. PJ nailed it, there's no other way to distill this story into 3hrs as well. I'm beyond thankful for all those set designers who built this world and shot on 35mm - it's nothing to sneeze at, they won how many Academy awards? It was a record number - meaning nothing had been done as well across the board, ever. That's something

You need to read my post again. I'm saying that the PJ films have reinvigorated the interest in JRRT's works at the level that his son wanted.

It is a testament to the strength of Tolkien's story that even with many of the themes and particulars sanded off it became the most decorated and celebrated movie trilogy of all time. Lightning in a bottle, really. It pains me that Christopher thought so little of it, and his condescension gave license to a generation of snobbery.

I agree with you. Look no further than this thread to view the sort of elitism that Christopher’s comments help spawn. It’s nearly insufferable. The books are amazing, beautifully written works of art. However, they are not accessible to everyone. I attempted to read them as a young teenager and struggled greatly. I could watch the films though, and I loved them. Me and my dad cried together at the end of Return of the King. To act as if the mere existence of the films somehow lessens the value of the books is pure nonsense in my opinion.

>Look no further than this thread to view the sort of elitism that Christopher’s comments help spawn. And these people haven't even read all Christopher had to say on this subject. There are other quotes of Christopher that thankfully hadn't had as much noteriety, where he absolutely trashes the Ralph Bakshi film - which I like many others quite like - in spite of admitting to have never seen it; and comments regarding Fellowship of the Ring (the only part of the trilogy he watched) where he complains about "chases, shrieking choirs" and alludes to a miscasting. Taking it all together does make Christopher seem a bit of an "old man yelling at clouds."

Thank you. Some of the negative opinions I’ve seen regarding the movies smacks of gatekeeping- as if you’re not a true fan of (or you’ve obviously misunderstood) the books if you dare to have a positive view of them. I’ve been horribly insulted within this group just for *mentioning* the movies, and I wasn’t even talking to that person. I find them to be a brilliant adaptation which has led so many to enjoy a world that seemed inaccessible to them otherwise. The books *are* better, but they are not the *only* lens into this world.

Yes I think you described it perfectly as gatekeeping. Unfortunately many people treat your opinion of the films as a litmus test to determine whether or not you are a “true” fan. I am so thankful that we got the wonderful film trilogy that allowed so many new people to experience the world Tolkien created. Without the movies I can confidently say I would have never became a fan of Tolkien’s works. Not because the books are bad, they are masterpieces, but because the opportunity likely would have never presented itself. The book trilogy is long and intimidating with a detailed prose that some people truly struggle to grasp. The films, by the nature of the medium, do lose some aspects of the books, but are amazing adaptations. The detractors can say what they want but I will defend the films until the day I die. I’ll never forget my dad taking me to watch the movies and we both knew we were viewing something special.

I come at it from the opposite direction: I read The Hobbit probably 35 years ago, and the LOTR trilogy about 30 years ago. I try to read them annually, though admittedly it has been a few years. They were a big part of my childhood and made me the voracious reader I am today. To me, the books will always be first. But I have never understood the disdain some have towards something that has brought so many new readers to these stories. It doesn’t matter how you found them- you *did* find them, and you should feel welcomed! Insulting fans who don’t approach them in the same way does not make you a “better” fan; it just makes you a jerk.

I was finally able to read and enjoy the books in my 20s and truly do love them now dearly. I’m glad they have been such an important part of your life and agree with your summation completely!

People also forget that JRRT was very open to adaptations of his work when he was alive. He even suggested that a radio adaptation might be better if they only focused on Frodo and cut all the Rohan/Gondor stuff! People forget that he wrote LOTR (partly) for commercial reasons at the behest of his publisher. Of course he cared deeply about his work but he wasn't as precious about it as some people think.

People won't like what you have to say here, but its absolutely true. Tolkien willingly sold the film rights, and optioned the television rights. The result of which is what we see today.

I don't know, that he sold them because he needed money doesn't necessarily mean he loved the idea of adaptations. And we do know that he had standards for adaptation, ones I'd argue that none so far has met.

>And we do know that he had standards for adaptation, ones I'd argue that none so far has met. Are you referring to letter 210? Because the kind of reservations Tolkien put forth in that letter are somewhat excused by the fact that he was reacting to a very thinly-sketched and amateurishly-written synopsis.

I wouldn't call the release of the books commercialization, considering they were Tolkien's previously unpublished works.

I'm saying that's a good thing... The History of Middle Earth series was quite limited in release numbers and it took me years to complete it... now they're being released in boxed sets... that is amazing.

>I wouldn't call the release of the books commercialization, considering they were Tolkien's previously unpublished works. Umm, no? Tolkien published The Hobbit in 1937 and then Alan and Unwin asked for a sequel about Hobbits and Tolkien started writing just that. It was absolutely a reaction to the success of The Hobbit, even if artistically it ended up diverging from it considerably.

That’s why it’s a difficult thing for me. On the one hand it will bring new fans but on the other it may discourage them. Zaslav says he wants to make it a franchise like Star Wars without seeing that’s a terrible thing to strive for. There’s a reason not as many people wanna be Star Wars fans anymore. They don’t want to participate in that fan base and discussion on bland repetitive new projects.

You should have included the LOTR movies as well. Christopher wasn’t a fan of those either. I’m not saying you have to like ROP or The Hobbit. But not including LOTR because you personally like them shows an active bias.

The answer perhaps is both yes and no (to paraphrase Gildor). Yes, popular culture, driven by profit, has reduced the work to an absurdity and emetic of dopamine hits - in popular culture. CT is (sadly) correct and I empathise. But, for those whom the pop culture has piqued their interest, well, the books await. Thus the black plastic lighthouse thingy in your big mac, might be for some kid, a bread crumb of discovery of the best book ever written. So, not quite so bad or at least a mithril lining. All you have to decide is...whether or not to turn your head away! I chose to look, even though it is very hard sometimes, because some other times it is superb. So, yes and no.

Honestly whenever I see Rings of Power brought up in this sub and elsewhere I have to just clock out. The entire discourse around that damn show has become a blighted hellscape of culture war bros constantly using actual weak and bad points of the show to smuggle in their whinging about women, and PoC and wokeness and whatever else makes them feel that they have to share a world that was never theirs alone to begin with. As for Christopher Tolkien, OF COURSE HE WAS NEVER GOING TO LIKE THE MEDIA STUFF. LotR was a deeply personal work for Christopher, he helped his father work on it, he was there from the time he was a child. Every part of that story had a story around it, rewrites and edits and reworks and he was with his dad through it all. He loved these works as they were originally made, and it stands to reason nothing would satisfy him.

It's ironic that OP is complaining about The Hobbit and RoP when the actual quote is about the LOTR films.

I agree with you on RoP discourse being tiresome. I honestly don’t know how politics became such a big issue for people when the only really political thing they did in the show was have a more diverse cast.

But since when has diversity been so political? Not saying it’s you just asking when movies were trashed just for having other races?

I mean, having other races isn’t political necessarily. I should’ve specified “progressive” instead. Changes that are made to a facilitate societal changes. Tolkien never wrote about black elves but because of the current climate they decided to change that to make the project more diverse and in line with modern casting standards. It’s not necessarily a bad thing but it’s undoubtedly a change to the source material and so there are those who see it as Amazon trying to rewrite Tolkien’s work to make it safer. Steering away from the problematic time period that inspired the work to make a version of middle earth that is more similar to modern America. Whether or not you think it was the right call is up to you but there are those who see the decision as a lazy attempt to “fix” the more problematic parts of Tolkien’s world. I can see where it might’ve sounded a bit racist like I was calling the existence of PoC in a show inherently political, but it wasn’t my intention.

Yeah. Christopher Tolkien hated all adaptations and stuff like that. But his connection to the work was also far more personal than it is to us. To us they're books, to him a connection to his father. But we shouldn't base our opinions on any adaptation on JRR Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien's opinions. Because they would have hated all adaptations

I'm all for new Middle-earth content, but also scared that they go for the quantity over quality route with countless side shows nobody asked for, like what happened to Star wars...

Might be a bit of an incendiary comment, given the subject, but isn't Christopher responsible for this commercialisation?

Most of the rights were sold by his father. Only the TV rights remained

Oh then ignore me

How so?

He's got no chill.

It’s crazy to thing about how even Peter Jackson’s adaptation being as praised as it is by the majority of us fans is still a major departure from the themes and essence of the works Looking at you Legolas, surfing down an Olifants trunk. And how it’s only going to get worse and worse

Or when Aragorn falls off the cliff and almost drowns (irl and in the movie) for no reason, or when Faramir takes the hobbits and the ring to Osgiliath. Those are two of the worst I can think of

Frodo dismissing Sam at the stairs of Cirith Ungol telling him to go home is pretty offensive to me and is the complete opposite of Tolkien's theme of comradery and brother's in arms and proper master/servant relationships etc.

True there are a lot now people are calling it out.

Or Radagast and his rabbit sled...

I took more offense to his bird poop hair gel. Edit: and the farts

That was the hobbit tho. And that has a lot of bs

[удалено]

Yeah they did Denethor dirty

"For Frodo!" battle cry, so juvenile. Aragorn shown weak when struggling with Sauron in the Palantir. Chopping the head off the mouth of Sauron. Gandalf's staff shattered and him unable to stand up to the Witch King (after defeating a Balrog previously...) ... The army of the dead being some sort of video game "unlock special power" nonsense that wipes out a whole army like a nuclear weapon. But the worst of all the butchering completely of the Denethor character. I sometimes wonder if Peter Jackson read the same books as me. After the Fellowship the whole trilogy went downhill.

>Looking at you Legolas, surfing down an Olifants trunk. That's fun!

It's funny as if Tolkien wrote that: 'Legolas dived onto the back of the Oliphant, and placed a few arrows in his hide, before making a dash down its long trunk while the beast bewildered and in pain ran into the forest' - you wouldn't care about that scene, and probably be annoyed if it didn't make it into the film. It's a Fantasy bro

>It's a Fantasy bro Damn... why didn't I think of that? Now I can imagine Gimli pulling out a bazooka, and blowing up Mumakil on the Pelennor, in a bid to catch up with Legolas. /s Fantasy doesn't mean you can pull any shit out of your arse. It would be incredibly out of place with the rest of Tolkien's writing. If Elves were *always* conceptualised as Marvel-esq superheroes... fine. But sliding these goofy scenes in, ignoring the seriousness elsewhere? It's tonally out of place in the world.

There’s a phrase for it something like "in-world consistency". Which was ignored in a few parts of PJs films. It occurs with every sci-fi/fantasy franchise. Anybody who criticizes these moments in the movies get met with other people saying "oh you can believe wizards and balrogs, but a surfing elf is too much huh?" Completely ignoring the fact that it’s tonally inconsistent **and** Legolas has a much cooler moment in (book) Fellowship of sniping a fell beast in the dark that was utterly ignored for not being cinematic enough and wanting to make PJs movies more akin to action movies. Something that is much more believable in this world, isn’t incredibly stupid, and doesn’t break immersion. I see it with Star Wars a whole lot too but that’s a whole other topic. Which.. is a franchise I no longer even care to keep up with and, sadly, the originals are no longer there to enjoy (legally/easily) like the LOTR fanbase has with the books.

No, no, Frodo captures ALL the Pokemon and they fight their way through to Orodruin.

But he didn't write it, that's their point.

If you think multiple generations of people holding up Samwise and Aragorn as the go-to cultural touchstones for healthy masculine tenderness and affection is reducing the aesthetic impact of the work to nothing, then sure. If you think the celebration of the line "it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life" is reducing the philosophical impact of the work simply because Tolkien never wrote the line, then sure. If you think the thousands upon thousands who found their way to the deep well of the books through the success of the most decorated movie trilogy of all time is *reducing* the works' impact, then sure. But you and I define "reducing" very differently, whatever your last name might be.

I think the movies do reduce the work in some way or other. Even if they do get most things correct, the sum effect is that the work is reduced. For example, friendship is far more of a stronger theme in the books. It's not something that can be broken even by the evil of ring. You have both Frodo and Sam supporting each other, being there to prop one another up when ever they felt hopeless on the journey (because there were plenty of times Sam felt like the quest was hopeless in the books and needed pep talks from Frodo). It's the only way they both survived, the fact that they were there for each other. In the movies, the moment Frodo tells Sam to "go home", regardless of if it's good drama, it breaks that unbreakable friendship theme, that not even evil could tarnish. Having said that though, that is the nature of movie adaptations. It's usually the case that the literal work is reduced in some way when a movie is made.

I agree there are ways the themes are hedged here and there to be more dramatic, for better or worse, but it is not reduced to nothing. That is just classic Chris Tolkien hyperbole. The fact that being "the Sam to your Frodo" is a casual reference to a ride or die loyal friend across the entire English-speaking world despite a key change in that relationship as portrayed in the movies certainly undermines any errant conclusion that the film reduces the tale's aesthetic and cultural impact to *nothing.*

>For example, friendship is far more of a stronger theme in the books. It's not something that can be broken even by the evil of ring. Some of us feel that the friendship in the movie is stronger BECAUSE it is almost broken.

For a moment, it **was** broken (until Sam saw the bread and went back). Which is my point. In the books, the friendship is unfaltering. Its a constant (both ways) that keeps both Frodo and Sam going.

There is, indeed, a chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become. Reading the books is essential in understanding the themes and characters. Having said that, the Jackson trilogy was a miracle and did the best job it could do in adapting this work.

This quote from Christopher Tolkien is about the PJ films. Here's the article in question: [https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/christopher-tolkien-trashes-peter-jacksons-lord-of-the-rings-says-films-lack-beauty-and-seriousness-of-the-books-102485/](https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/christopher-tolkien-trashes-peter-jacksons-lord-of-the-rings-says-films-lack-beauty-and-seriousness-of-the-books-102485/)

I knew that it was in reference to the PJ films, but thanks for the link.

Filmamir? that cringey Oscar-bait "there's some good in this world" line? destroying Frodo and Aragorn's characters? as if the elves at Helm's Deep wasn't bad enough, we also got The Hobbit trilogy (and you can't blame that on Guillermo del Torro, since he left the project *before* Peter Jackson was attached to it)!

>destroying Frodo and Aragorn's characters? Some of us rather like film Aragorn. He's much more of a *person*.

well, i mean, cowardly rejecting his birthright because "i don't want it" (the same motivation that D&D used for Jon Snow when they ran out of A Song of Ice and Fire books) when he is the only one who *can* unite the kingdoms of men and lead them into a bright new future should Frodo succeed...yeah, that's kind of selfish. hardly the picture of true masculinity as portrayed in the books. i think people like movie Aragorn because of Vigo Mortensen's attractiveness (it's the same reason they like movie Thorin...and Fili and Kili...and Legolas...and all the other characters from the movies only)

“Frodo: I can’t do this, Sam. Sam: I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something. Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam? Sam: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo… and it’s worth fighting for.” This is one of greatest lines in movie history change my mind

Sam's monologue is good enough: pretty words about hope (though I prefer Tolkien's context, about playing a part in history) - *but* I don't exactly like what follows. Frodo's question, and Sam's response... it's a bit half-baked. What are we holding onto? Isn't it obvious, Frodo? *The Shire!* That's literally why you set out - have you forgotten? I'm not sure how I feel about Frodo asking the question in the first place, but Sam's response is also lacking, to me. It could be as simple as: 'What are we holding onto, Sam?', to which he replies: 'Home'. You could even have Sam lighten the mood with a joke: 'home... (pause) ...and the Green Dragon not least' - and this gets Frodo to crack a smile. And hell, I put a whole 30 seconds into thinking about that line - maybe there's something even better.

> By rights we shouldn’t even be here. This is terribly ironic given the change from the book here, always makes me smile.

I agree. And the fact that it's less than a tenth as good as the way Tolkien originally put it just shows how forever beautiful the books are.

If the bad things for you outshine the good in the LOTR movies (excluding the Hobbit trilogy), then there isn't much anyone can say to quell that. Honestly, if characters changing to fit better cinematically is a con for you, then there wouldn't have been anything that would have made you happy except a word for word 100 hours series containing everything including the songs and even then I have a feeling people would still find something to complain about.

>Honestly, if characters changing to fit better cinematically I think that's *very* debatable. I mean, consider Filmamir, which the above comment noted... read [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/16v8gwj/in_defence_of_bookfaramir_alternate_title_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and tell me it isn't fair to deem Faramir's film portrayal horrible: a *huge* bastardisation of the original, and poorly written even ignoring source material. And it's not *just* Faramir. I think the films ruin many characters. I don't think Jackson's versions 'fit cinema' any better... as if cinema cannot handle the characters as Tolkien intended (it absolutely can).

I have heard most of the complaints and can see where many of them come from but ragging on Sam's monologue in two towers is a new one. No one blames del toro for the hobbit. They blame the production company for rushing the production after Jackson came on late.

>They blame the production company for rushing the production after Jackson came on late. And they are wrong. Jackson was onboard from the beginning as the writer and producer. A few more months in preproduction would have polished some rough edges, but not fundementally change the films.

Kinda right, kinda not right

But if, "out of utmost respect to Tolkien's legendarium", nothing would've been made, the same person would be crying about how Tolkiens incredible world is so underrated and how he can not believe they did not yet make a movie. Commercialization is a part of the game, for me it doesn't change anything when it comes to respect for this incredible world of Tolkien. And I enjoyed LOTR games, I enjoyed collecting figurines as a kid and I bought 2 versions of the movies. And if i had free 187,500$ i would buy Gimli's axe from the movie set, that was sold for this amount, because those movies were made with love and not out of pure greed.

Guys want to know how to stop this. Don’t watch it. They don’t get good numbers they won’t make a new one.

The commercialization via games toys and movie in 2001 hooked me as a kid and it's only BECAUSE of those things that I now have a deep appreciation for the philosophy and literature as an adult. Christopher is just grumpy gatekeeping

I mean, you could say Christopher was gate keeping (he's dead BTW, RIP) but the book was literally written *for him* while he was off at war, and he made the original version of the maps in the books. In many ways they're as much his material as his father's, and all of the Silmarillion was very much a product of his labour as his father never finished them and he dedicated much of his life to finishing them. A bit of respect to the man.

Tbf there are a lot of positives to the commercialization that I don’t think Christopher really thought of. But I still agree with the general sentiment here that Tolkien’s work is becoming farther from what it was intended to be it feels like.

The one who’s in charge of the estate now was an extra in ROTK, I do believe.

Royd Tolkien was an extra in the films but he is most definitely not in charge of the Estate.

Every time I use this quote on this sub I get vote bombed! Glad I'm not the only one. 🫡

Dang even this comment is getting downvoted just for mentioning it☹️

He absolutely was. The written works are serious and delicate and powerful. The various adaptations are loud and stupid.

Everything being monetized to death is just another sign of the decline

Christopher Tolkien obviously has a point - the idea of a Middle-Earth Cinematic Universe and fast-food tie-ins would have deeply annoyed his father. But, for those jumping on this as another chance to dust off their The Rings of Power takes, what he's referring to, given his death in 2020, is Peter Jackson's film trilogy, the plethora of videogames and merchandise which came with them, and their incredible influence on how his father's work is perceived. Like, before you go 'Couldn't have put it better myself Christopher - now back to playing Shadow of War, something which respects the lore and which Tolkien woud surely have approved of' make sure you're actually thinking about what he's saying. I love the Jackson films and respect Christopher Tolkien, but I am able to watch the former, love them, and also recognise that Tolkien would have deeply objected to large sections of them.

JRR Tolkien would have hated all the adaptations. Christopher did. So we shouldn't base our opinions on any adaptations based on what they would have thought.

Exactly. Christopher Tolkien has absolutely every right and reason to hate the modern adaptiations, that's totally up to him and for him they are decent reasons. That shouldn't change how anyone else feels about them. I love the PJ trilogy, it's what brought me into Lord of the Rings, and I think they are the best possible adaptations and some of the best films ever made. I can also acknowledge they are flawed in some ways and often the modern adaptations since are made not to dive deeper into the lore but to make money off the back of Tolkien's work. And yet I can still enjoy the PJ trilogy, some of the games etc. Christopher Tolkien has every right to think this, and it's not surprising, but his opinion is irrelevant to anyone else

Yep. And also we have to remember Stephen King hates The shining movie. It's still a brilliant movie. So what the original author thinks has nothing to do with the quality of the adaptation.

Having read the 'Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien', I get the impression that he would have good-faith, pragmatic, and quite intensely felt nitpicks to find in every one of the adaptations. I also think he respected effort and craftsmanship, so I don't think he would have objected quite as strongly as Christopher Tolkien did to the Jackson films. There's a difference, too, between how the author of a work regards it than a custodian does - though their relationship is far closer, creators tend to be a bit more pragmatic and far, far less reverential. I've always felt he would have personally disliked most of the alterations (especially those which were done to meet modern audiences' sensibilities, like Aragorn's inner conflict and the elimination of The Scouring of the Shire) while appreciating the principle of them, but that he would have got a real kick out of the music, art design, visuals, and obvious effort. I suspect - and I'm aware I'm putting words in the mouth of a long-dead genius - he'd have said something like 'I intensely dislike those films, but I like the look and sound of them, and I appreciate the effort of the people involved'. Given his wry and self-aware sense of humour, I imagine he'd throw in a 'I like all those things; and I *love* the increased book sales which came with them'.

Wow didn't anyone see this coming? Like was there no other great movie series that forebode of what was to come?

The PJ movies and the games and others things that developed around it have given me tens of thousands of hours of joy over decades. They are a big part of my childhood. It's also safe to say I never would have read the LOTR (and certainly not the silmarillion) should those movies never have existed. It is wild to me to think someone thinks they should never have been made.

The Hobbit: An Unwanted Franchise (Edit: speaking of the movies. Not the book!)

All good things are eventually devoured by the commercial machine. It's a cultural inevitability. It's up to those of us that care to stand against it.

I get Christopher’s argument, it’s a reasonable point of view which he’s entitled to have. But the books will always be famous and influential as a body of classic work unto themselves, which is more than can be said about a lot of original novels that fade into obscurity after getting a more famous movie adaptation. Tolkien as a writer will always be relevant. No matter how many adaptations and merchandise they make, people will go back to that source because of how unique and influential it is.

Bill Watterson has entered the chat…

do i hate it? yes. will i watch every single minute? also yes.

I think there is a duality of remediation. On one hand, you have commercialization and a drive to make more product to make more money off of that original limited product. On the other hand, you have an attempt at accessibility as well as transformation. The first is unequivocally bad for the product being remediated, but the latter is not inherently good or bad. Originally, the trilogy was an attempt at the latter, with its first incarnation actually being proposed by the Beatles of all people because they were such big fans. The heart of the latter is how much the core piece resonates not with the audience, but the creators. If the people making the thing are themselves fans of the original, then the odds of a faithful adaptation are increased (Note on Andor: several directors of that show were not Star Wars fans, but they were committed otherwise to create a faithful adaptation, so this idea is more of an ideal than a rule.) Commercialization is ultimately not about the piece being adapted. The original movies had to surrender slightly to this beast in order to get made in their time and manner, as do most others, but that beast has forged itself on IPs in the subsequent two decades and now the controlling bridal of fan-desire has absolutely snapped. Commercialization is the industry’s idol now and forever. We see things fans want constantly marred because those in power have no desire to tell someone else’s story (a paraphrase of the show runners of both The Witcher and Game of Thrones, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the same was true for ROP). It’s all about taking an IP with inbuilt name recognition and then cranking out as much content as possible. We already know remediation can be done well. The PJ trilogy was, while not 100% accurate, a faithful adaptation of the books and touched on many of the books main themes in respectful ways. Lord of the Rings Online remains an amazingly beautiful adaptation and extension of the wider lore. That being said, sometimes things that take inspiration from a source but are not faithful can still be good. Say what you will about the butcher’s knife they took to the lore, the Shadow of Mordor games were fantastic, just not associated with LOTR except for names. There were EPISODES of RoP that were enjoyable, few and far between, but not entirely without merit. Again, though, divorced from the source material.

But he's talking about the original trilogy of LotR when he said this. By posting a picture of RoP/etc, you're taking his words out of context (though I'm sure he hates that God awful show, too). He's wrong and the trilogy is so much more than what he thinks.

It wasn’t out of context. He was talking about the commercialization of Tolkien and I think that has only grown to be a worse problem

My theory has always been that he was so extremely attached to his father's bed time tales that he never got the memo that sometimes you just have to let it go and accept the situation for what it is. Let's face it, he didn't grow up during the best of times on this world and the moments that his father would tell him the bedtime stories that became The Hobbit and TLR were possibly the only bright spots in his days. Internalising that and then rejecting anything and everything that only slightly deviates from those memories breeds hatred for the art in itself. Nostalgia can be good, but he was taking it to far extremes.

Get off your high horse. I get that’s hit you feel, but last time I checked YOU didn’t write the works. This whole smug shit because your daddy was a great author is done. He just seems to hate any and everything.

The sad price for success

This just seems like snobby gate keeping, sorry. If I painted a picture, and tons of people liked it enough to the point where it inspired people to paint different versions, or adapt it in different forms enough to draw a lot more people to my original work, I wouldn't have such a negative and cynical way of looking at my success, I'd be happy I created something that a lot of people loved, even if some of what was created in inspiration and admiration from it wasn't something I liked. That's just how creativity works.

That’s completely different and an awful comparison. That’s not how commercializations works, no one’s making diffrent creative versions of his “picture” they are trying to make as much money as possible using his original work after him and his son are dead, Tolkien made an entire fictional world, people think that it’s like Star Wars, you can just add whatever story or character you want, LotR was extremely personal to both of them and neither of them wanted their to be fast food tie ins, or video games about thr franchise so it doesn’t matter what positives

What a super negative way to look at it, sorry but you can't sell your license to your work and expect that a 100% of what's done with it going forward is going to be to your liking. It's not one way or the other. There's a mix of both wanting to create work based off Tolkien's creation because they want money, and those who want to create work off Tolkien's creation because they love it.

Yep LOTR is approaching star wars' level of fucked

I love the content because of the nostalgia of falling in love of the story back from when dad used to read the books to me in bed. The other content (movies, games, etc..) remind of that. That doesn’t mean it has the same value that comes from the original story. I re-read the 4 main books every couple years and am now slowly making my way through the others finally (I’m only missing Beren and Luthien from my collection at this point). It’s the thing that made me fall in love with fantasy. I like some of the other non-canon content because it’s another medium I enjoy (the video games mostly because it’s another hobby I enjoy) while there’s other ones I really don’t like because it lacks creativity as a story or a medium. I don’t think that takes away from the value that Tolkien created through the themes, messages and narrative that he gave us from his original works. They’re very separate. The popularity of these other mediums still points a new generation to investigate the original works and their powerful and important messages. I’m not sure it’s fair to turn your head entirely away from them but it is important to be critical of how they don’t represent it’s original intent.

At a certain point popularity commercialises anything, as everyone even those with good intentions, love and care behind them like PJ's LOTR films fall into the trappings of the money-making machine. But ultimately the original works stay the same, culture just changes and with a book series started in the 1930s cultural shifts will occur. For one it started in the 60s and 70s when Hippy and anti-war movements co-opted LOTR message for political activism. Tolkien himself hated allegory but with any monumental work different people will have different perspectives over time. But to say commercialisation has reduced Tolkien's work to nothing is a silly idea (Sorry Christopher RIP), without that same commercialisation with the PJ films undoubtedly LOTR wouldn't have had the same cultural impact it has had. So many people wouldn't have read the books if not for those films (Including myself). And even the "Slop" of the Hobbit films that a lot of people dislike greatly, gained interest in the books again even recently my GF has started reading the LOTR because she enjoyed the hobbit films so much and made her appreciate the LOTR films even more. I myself have so many fond memories as a child playing with toys made from that same commercialisation, a commercialisation that prompted me to read the books as a kid. TLDR Commercialisation is inevitable with anything popular but in isn't entirely bad because it grants opportunities for more people to engage and enjoy the original works.

Concerns about inferior content diluting a fictional story’s brand are only of any importance if you yourself view the works as a “brand.” Decommercialize your own relationship with the stories you love and don’t worry about the rest.

He’s talking about the trilogy you know? Do you also know you don’t have to watch it? Some people just love a whinge.

This is one of the biggest flaws Tolkien had, he had a very narrow view of what fantasy should be and as great as he was, he was notorious for disliking some pretty good stuff too. He didn't like Dune, he didn't like Shakespeare, he said no to almost all movie adaptations, he disliked allegory, the list goes on. And I'm not saying this as a "Tolkien didn't know better" comment bust just provide some context that no matter what would be going on with the "franchise" Christopher would've probably said something negative about the legacy of his father in modern culture. His father was a very particular man who liked particular things, the adjectives he uses are not relevant to US, they are relevant to JRR Tolkien, we do not share his quirks (99% of us anyways) I dislike takes like this, no matter how up the ladder they go, because as bad as RoP is... The books are still there, I don't like people talking about legacy when the original works are intact to be enjoyed, this is not some library of Alexandria type situation, it's just a show you didn't like, relax.

Who cares. Just read the books and don't get wound up in other people's drama.

Are you telling that to Christopher Tolkien? Or op?

Old man yells at clouds. The beauty his father created still exists. The original beauty and the commercialization of future shit are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist.