Q: Why Does Peter Jackson Ignore So Much of Tolkien’s Middle-earth History?
ANSWER: Many loyal Tolkien readers have noticed that the books and background information accompanying the Peter Jackson “Lord of the Rings” movies exclude the vast majority of details that Tolkien provided in his histories for Middle-earth. For example, in the movies and the Brian Sibley books virtually the entire history of Arnor and its successor realms (the little kingdoms of Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur) has been omitted. The last king in the north is Isildur (who perishes on his way back to Arnor). Inexplicably, Arnor’s people vanish without a trace.
And there are other departures from the Tolkien canon which have upset many Tolkien purists and led even ardent movie-lovers to ask why so much detail had to be left out or rewritten. While I cannot speak for Peter Jackson and his creative partners I do know some of the reasons why so much detail was omitted. For example, the fact there was SO MUCH DETAIL pretty much meant that Peter could not cover every possible sub-plot and keep the film audiences informed, entertained, and engaged.
Hence, while it seems ridiculous that Aragorn drops a pile of small swords in front of the hobbits at Weathertop, it would have taken considerably more explanation to follow the hobbits on their adventure into the Old Forest and through Tom Bombadil’s house. As I have pointed out previously, there is a great deal of foreshadowing in the chapters that deal with Bombadil and the Barrow-downs, and Peter was able to provide cinematic foreshadowing with much less detail.
Brian Sibley had a prior history of condensing Tolkien’s material. He co-wrote the script for the second BBC radio adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. As with the movies, the radio adaptation had to leave out most of the backstory for the War of the Ring. Any accompanying materials for the movies had to be very closely tied to the movies, so it would have been awkward for Sibley to start tossing in details that were not covered in the movies.
In fact, I had an agent approach Peter Jackson’s movies about the possibility of my writing some film tie-in books. The agent called me on the phone and said, “Peter’s people are very much aware of your work, very impressed with the depth of your research, but respectfully declined to extend an offer to you because they were afraid you would point out all the differences between the films and the original books.”
Truth be told, that is exactly what I would have done, had I been given a free hand in the matter, and I cannot really blame them for wanting to work with someone who had an established track record for writing along the same lines as the production. So based on that private conversation with my then agent I would say that the production company felt a real need to stay focused on the simpler story as they didn’t want to confuse their audience.
And there are possibly other legal reasons for the condensation and omissions. For example, when I was doing research for some of the people at Weta I suggested they consult all the Tolkien books. The reply I received was something like, “Peter has all the books; he has read them all from cover to cover; but legally we can only use material from The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit“. And that is, of course, because J.R.R. Tolkien only ever sold the film and merchandising rights for those two books. Either he never offered or no one had the foresight to pick up options or rights based on The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and The Road Goes Ever On, both of which were published by J.R.R. Tolkien himself.
Everything else in the Tolkien Middle-earth library has been posthumously published by his son Christopher (and/or the Tolkien Estate). The Tolkien Estate has drawn a very firm line on reproducing the timeline of J.R.R. Tolkien’s storyline outside of the rights which have already been sold. That is, they have challenged a few book projects that they felt came too close to simply following along the story of The Lord of the Rings. In my own unpublished notes I have an extensive manuscript of a history book that explores the three ages of Middle-earth history on a country-by-country basis. Years ago, when I showed a sample of several chapters to a Tolkien scholar who has very close ties to the Tolkien Estate, he advised me to either add more analytic commentary (more end-notes) or to reduce the analysis and increase the expositional commentary (to distinguish the text more clearly from the Tolkien sources).
That particular scholar was not offering legal advice. He was simply suggesting what he felt would be the two best courses for avoiding challenges from the Tolkien Estate. Unfortunately, I have left the project in limbo for more than 10 years now because I simply don’t have the time to increase the research notes and really don’t want to “dumb it down”. Perhaps one day I’ll figure out how best to proceed with the project. Perhaps someone else will beat me to it and thus may resolve the unanswered questions of how best to do such a project for me.
While I personally find it disappointing that so many details were left out of the movies, I’m still glad to have the movies as they are, for it would never have been possible to create three movies that could be faithful to The Lord of the Rings. The project, to be done “right” (or more faithfully) might require at a minimum six movies, perhaps twelve, and would require a huge leap of faith from the film-makers in how they follow the storyline. Some of the changes made for the films were made to ensure that each movie by itself told a more-or-less complete story. You really don’t need to have watched “The Fellowship of the Ring” in order to see a story move from point A to point somewhere-else in the second and third films, although clearly they are telling only part of a larger story.
As for whether Peter had other reasons for the editorial decisions he made, we’ll have to wait and see if he ever decides to share that thinking. It might make an interesting book, although I have to admit I hope the National Geographic doesn’t come anywhere near doing such a project. Their “Lord of the Rings” TV documentary projects leave me feeling REALLY disappointed, and I cannot offer any defense or explanation for their absolutely terrible lack of serious Tolkien scholarship (and that criticism is not directed at the Tolkien scholars who appeared in any NatGeo projects).
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
