J.R.R. Tolkien specifically forbade Disney from ever being involved in any movie adaptations

[steve2470]

When J.R.R. Tolkien sold the movie rights to his Lord of the Rings universe, one of the specific stipulations of the deal was that Disney (an organization he had very strong feelings about) would never be involved in the adaptation process.

-from today's Howtogeek.com newsletter

[TexasProgresive]

1. Would Disney has hashed it up any worst than Jackson?

They would do the same thing and basically tell a story sort of inspired by the books. Personally I feel that if Hollywood wants to do a movie it ought to be original as they tend to screw up just about every book adaptation I've ever seen. Now the Brits seem to be a little less heavy handed and stay much closer to the story.

[Orrex]

2. I thought that the LOTR films were effective and very faithful to the source material

And Jackson made some excellent choices re: eliminating extraneous crap (such as 10,000 pages that Fellowship spent on walking).

Of course, The Hobbitt trilogy was a complete shit-show trainwreck from start to finish.

[TexasProgresive]

3. I agree that the LOTR films were a bit better that "The Hobbit"

What I find lacking in both is a tendency to action at the expense of the movement of the hobbits from provincial bumpkins to genuine heroes. A 4th movie could've been made "The Cleansing of the Shire" would be most welcome as it shows the coming of age for the hobbits and the Shire to take action in the face of the loss of home and land.

[Orrex]

5. That's a fair critique, but again I cite the 10,000 pages of walking

I've been a fantasy geek my whole life, and only through a dedicated brute-force effort was I able to make it through Fellowship.

Also, Tolkien's telling of the battle of Helm's Deep is positively arid compared to the screen portrayal.


But you can say whatever you like about The Hobbit trilogy, and I won't contradict you.

[NewJeffCT]

8. agree on the siege of Helm's Deep

and, the charge of the Rohirrim in Return of the King gave me shivers the first time I saw it on screen.

The biggest disappointment to me, however, was that we did not get the Scouring of the Shire. To me, that part of the books really showed how the hobbits had grown as characters. Instead of the endless endings from the movie, they could easily have given us the Scouring

[exboyfil]

6. Yes the resolution with Saruman was unfortunate

I think I can understand the decision given the pacing of the movies and the ground yet to be covered (Aragorn/Arwin accession and the Elves evacuation with Gandalf and the ring bearers). It is funny that the 3rd movie won the Academy award when the 2nd was the stronger movie (the siege of Helm's Deep was superior emotionally to that of Gondor).

Still in all it was a masterful series of three movies. My daughter recently watched them again (extended DVD versions).

[NewJeffCT]

9. I think all the Oscars for Return of the King

were kind of a reward for the achievement of all three movies.

[BlueTsunami2018]

4. Agreed. Those movies were an abomination.

Visuals were cool, the story was horrificly mutilated. I had to turn it off halfway through the first film.

[longship]

7. Disney would have replaced Gollum with a singing, dancing teapot.

Just saying. I despise Disney, especially their animations.
Absolutely wretched things.

[Codeine]

10. Meh. His work is reactionary nonsense anyway.

Frankly I felt the LotR films were an enormous improvement on his ridiculous Tom Bombadil HeeHiDiddlyOh bullshit. I’ve read the series twice and I just don’t get why it’s as well-regarded as it is. I quite enjoyed the films.

But Jackson’s Hobbit series was probably WORSE than what Disney would have given us. It was like a cutscene from a video game that NEVER FUCKING ENDED!!

I want Hollywood to make an Elric series. Screw those miserable little Hobbitses.