Yet this opens a very wide door: of course it will be Jackson's version, but the same could be said about any version Jackson put up on screen.narya wrote:In the tradition of retelling a story with embellishments, as all the story tellers of old have done, I think PJ told a great story. It's different than the previous telling of it, but its PJ's version of it, not JRRT's.
One can tell a story however he or she desires of course, and not that you said otherwise, but no one need like a given adaptation because it's recognizable as a version of something.When I tell the creation story of my ancestors, I can embellish it how I like, and tell it in English instead of Tlingit, and use current slang and metaphors. Everyone you talk to who knows that mythos will recall it a little differently, leave parts out, and add some in. Some people have made movies or cartoons of it, that are markedly different from one another. Yet they are all recognizable as the same basic Raven myths.
Tolkien doesn't seem very impressed or happy with the film treatment proposed in his lifetime. And if he thought Jackson did not produce a faithful enough copy (as you imply is the scenario to be considered here), I would think he would be much happier had a version he considered 'faithful enough' been produced.So is JRRT rolling over in his grave that PJ didn't do a faithful copy, or is he happy that his mythos for England has seeped into our collective psyche in D&D, movies, Tolkienesque fantasy novels, and many other renditions of the recognizably same materials?
IMO Tolkien would be generally glad that his work is such an inspiration, but unhappy in particular when the inspired stray so far as to be unfaithful...
... if a given something is 'unfaithful' according to Tolkien's opinion, that is
