Silmarillion-movie?

[Gothmog]

Making movies of LoTR must have been one of the biggest challenges a director can face. The books have been read, re-read and loved by so many people that everyone have different views of them and different expectations. No matter how many minor faults and discussable scenes (balrog with wings? Wargs almost killing Aragorn? Frodo sending Sam away etc...) I think most of us are rather content with the movies.

And now The Hobbits's coming (it is, isn't?).

Only one big project remains: the Silmarillion, the bible of "Tolkinism" :) .

But is it possible to make Silmarillion into a movie/movies? Or would that destroy the "magic"? It might be impossible to make ONE silm. movie, but how about a few, representing different stories. For example: Turin Turambar or Luthien and Beren.

I do realize that this might primarly interest tolkienfans and that it would be hard to make it an other blockbuster and Hollywood might not be too interested in making movies which won't sell. But you can always dream, can't you?

So what do you think? Is it possible? What would you like to see? How should it be done? Actors? Every opinion regarding the subject is welcome.



And if there already is a similiar thread, I'm sorry. Feel free to send this to the Dark Void :)

[Anguirel]

A few of us are working on a project to make an animated Silmarillion...the website can be found here: The Silmarillion Film Project (http://silmfilm.proboards25.com/index.cgi)

If you can draw and have access to a scanner, if you can act and have access to a microphone, or if you'd like to edit scripts, you'll be exceedingly welcome.

[Boromir88]

Looks cool Anguirel, I'll have to get my hands on a microphone, I was in a fair share of highschool and college plays.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

IMHO, stories like Children of Hurin and Lay of Leithian would make phenomenal movies. The catch being that probably, only Tolkien fans would consider them phenomenal. But still...

There are so many scenes in those tales as well as some of the rest of the Silmarillion that I can just picture how awesome they'd look on the screen. Sadly, movies based on The Silmarillion are just not feasible. To do justice to the stories you'd have to make extremely long movies, movies that would make LOTR look like sneezing. And plus, the Tolkien Estate (I believe) still has the rights to Silmarillion, and I don't think they'd let them go for all the money in the world.

The Silmarillion Film Project sounds like an interesting concept, and I've visited the messageboard several times, but it's just hard to make, what, four movies? out of the Silmarillion. For one thing, I simply cannot picture how the Valar are to be depicted. Or anything in Valinor, for that matter. If you guys can, more power to you. I sincerely hope you succeed; I'm just saying you've got your work cut out for you. It's a mammoth work. May Elbereth protect you!

[Tuor of Gondolin]

While I believe I'm in a minority, my view is that a series of movies
based on The Silmarillion would be quite doable, and profitable, somewhat on the
pattern of the Planet of the Apes or Star Trek series. Prime candidates
for such a series would be Beren and Luthien, Turin, Tuor, and the Battle of the Valar (the latter including a kid Elrond cameo and Earendil's voyage.
But the first one could begin with a prologue somewhat like the beginning of PJ's FOTR and then focus on the first two battles of Beleriand.

Of course, such a project might have to wait for an okay by literary successor guardians to CT.

[Oroaranion]

in all fairness, i would have to have the silmarillion in one film. LOTR had to be made in three films, for obvious reasons, but the silm is a relatively short book in comparsion. and besides, there were many stories being followed in LOTR movies, and it kept jumping between these stories, but it took nothing away from the overall experience.
i realise i havent posted for almost 19 months, but i hope people still value my opinion. it has been quite a while since i read th silm, but i amto read it again soon, and i may have to revise my opinion.

[Gothmog]

Of course we value your opinion, Oroaranion :)

True is that Silm. is a shorter book, but there's so many stories that alone could make one, if not more, movies. Also, put everything in the same movie would be quite confusing for the normal movie-goer. There's too many characters and it's during such a long time.

No, if you listen to me, it'll has to be multiple movies. We don't want them to edit or erase characters, do we?

[Laitoste]

We don't want them to edit or erase characters, do we?

Also, it would be hard to fit the emotion of stories like that of the Children of Hurin and Beren and Luthien into one movie without lessening the impact of each. Besides, think of the toll that would take on the viewer!

[joeneri]

The best way to do a movie of the Silmarillion is to pick up where LOTR left off: Frodo is on his way to Elvenhome and begins asking quesitons and, soon enough, the stories of the Silmarillion are told to him: Beren and Luthien (told by Gandalf, who was always concerned with Aragorn's ancestry); Turin (told by Galadriel, who was close with Melian in Doriath where Turin was fostered) and The Fall of Gondolin (told by Elron, whose grandfather, Tuor, was involved with. Tolkien, himself, laid out these three stories as the most important of all his Eldar Days legends according to his son, Christopher. Why not follow his own outline with a prologue about Feanor and the making of the jewels to the fall of Fingolfin which would lead to the story of Luthien for the first film? Turin's story is the most completely developed and acts as a natural bridge to the third movie, the Fall of Gondolin and then an epilogue concerning Elrond's father and brother that lay the seeds for the future conflicts with Sauron.

Naturally, it would have to be three movies with the same budget or more that LOTR had.

Or, you could do an HBO series, ala "Rome" and cover everyone.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The idea will also have to wait in 2043, when JRRT's copyright expires; or, conceivably 70 years after Christopher dies, since h is quite arguably a co-author of the Silmarillion.

Until that time, the Estete will not sell the film rights. Not no way, no how. (Adam Tolkien as well as his father).

[davem]

There does seem to be a feeling among some people - not just Tolkien fans - that popular novels should automatically be turned into movies. 'I like this book - when's the movie out?'

Some books can be translated into other media, some can't. And the odd thing is, its often the ones that you think would make great movies that often turn out to be ones that won't. And sometimes people can't see beyond their own love of the story. Take CoH. Yes, its been a very successful book, people love it (even non Tolkien fans), but consider how dark it is. evil triumphs & all ends in despair. You can't 'lighten' the tone for a movie audience or make the hero 'likable'. Yes, there's a spectacular battle at the beginning & there's an amazingly powerful confrontation at the end, & in movie terms they would look fantastic. We've already seen some 'pre-production paintings' in the books (& for anyone who hasn't seen the CoH calendar there are another 3 illustrations by AL not included in the book in there which are fantastic).

However, the mood & tone of the tale are far from the usual Hollywood fare, & I doubt it would be popular if put on the screen undiluted.

And I think this is the issue for the Estate. If you can't tell the story properly, why would you want to tell it at all? Movie goers want to see the (likeable) hero win out over the villain & live happily ever after. They want to be reassured that, however bad things are you won't be faced with something you can't overcome, & that, in the end, if you try hard enough, you'll win. But CoH, at least, tells a different story.

There's an interesting review of CoH in The Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=42450

The Lord of the Rings is silent about (Turin's) story, but its own centre might be called equally dark. Providence arranges for Frodo to bear a temptation so strong that in the end he must give way. But he endures for long enough to ensure that, when he does give in, the world can still be saved (by his dark other self destroying itself — he himself is too much damaged to go on living in the world).

It would be more reassuring to believe that God never allows us to face a temptation that we are unable to endure; but Tolkien’s view looks uncomfortably realistic.

For all its 'fantastic' elements, CoH is just that: 'uncomfortably realistic' - & I'm not sure that many people want to pay money to see a movie that confronts them so unflinchingly with 'reality'.

[Lalaith]

The Lord of the Rings is silent about (Turin's) story

Ok, now there's a challenge. I can't remember, actually, Turin being mentioned in LotR. But can the many Tolkien scholars here who are wiser than I am, confirm this?

[Lalwendë]

However, the mood & tone of the tale are far from the usual Hollywood fare, & I doubt it would be popular if put on the screen undiluted.

And I think this is the issue for the Estate. If you can't tell the story properly, why would you want to tell it at all? Movie goers want to see the (likeable) hero win out over the villain & live happily ever after. They want to be reassured that, however bad things are you won't be faced with something you can't overcome, & that, in the end, if you try hard enough, you'll win. But CoH, at least, tells a different story.

For all its 'fantastic' elements, CoH is just that: 'uncomfortably realistic' - & I'm not sure that many people want to pay money to see a movie that confronts them so unflinchingly with 'reality'.

It could be done, but it would have to be a strictly non-Hollywood style production and I think any director like Peter Jackson would have to leave it well alone. If you look at some of the modern British films that have been out in recent years then you get a whole different type of narrative and character. In Trainspotting for example you have characters that in real life would be utterly vile people, yet they are the 'heroes' and what's more, their behaviour, which in a Hollywood film would be pitied or villified, is simply portrayed as normal.

Plus there seems to be a move towards fantasy for 'grown ups' lately what with Pan's Labyrinth, Stardust and the upcoming gorefest of Beowulf. And grown-ups don't need happy endings in their films. ;)

[Sauron the White]

Hearing first hand from artists and illustrators who have worked on Tolkien projects this could be a very sticky wicket. The Tolkien Estate would most likely NOT sell any film rights in the manner of JRRT and his sale of THE HOBBIT and LOTR. They would probably go for art over cash. Or, most likely, go for both art and lots of cash. Why blame them for that? However, I cannot imagine any major film studio, producer or director willing to take on the Estate as a creative and artistic partner in the making of a film or series of films.

Just hearing the tales of illustrators and all the hoops they have to jump through in getting the approval of the Estate on their work, has a chilling effect. I cannot imagine any major studio willing to go through that process with each and every little part of a major film. It would be maddening and completely contrary to how they operate.

Watch the EE of the LOTR films and get an appreciation of the involvement of Jackson in almost each and every decision in the film. Every department, every employee, had to answer to his vision. Now take that same situation and add a whole new layer - this time the Estate. Now that director or producer has to not only do all that Jackson did but must take all that to the Estate and go through that negotiating process on hundreds of production decisions. The logistics alone would be a great increase to the budget and time factor.

The only way I could see these films getting made is for the Estate to sell the rights for a truckload of money and take the advice of Ernest Hemmingway. EH said there was only one satisfactory way to sell a book to the film industry. The author and producer meet at midnight on a deserted beach. The author throws the book to the producer while the producer tosses a suitcase filled with money to the author. And then they never see each other again.

That is how the film industry does business. And I cannot imagine the Estate - as it currently is constituted - ever doing that.

Some here want a more independent shall we say boutique studio process which would go outside the Hollywood system in the manner of a small independent film. And how do you make movies of the various SIL tales on a small budget? After people saw the $300 million dollar LOTR films and all the attendant glitz and hoopla on the screen, how do you get them to settle for the look of a bare bones small indie production that looks more like a TV show ala HERCULES or XENA?

In the end I see no SIL movies - at least not until the Estate is constituted much differently than it is today.

I do like the ideas expressed by joeneri on this page.

[davem]

But we saw with the BBC radio production of LotR that the scripts were sent to CT for approval & he responded positively, & even sent a cassette of pronunciations to enable them to get it right. It strikes me that CT (& by extention the Estate) is not wholly against dramatisations, just that, if they are to be done with his approval they should be done right.

CoH would be a particularly difficult story to adapt, for the reasons I've given. You can't introduce light moments into the story because they would jar, & you can't have any sense of victory at the end because that would destroy the effect. And tacking on a reference to Turin's killing of Morgoth at the end would seem fake (bit like the ending of the original version of Blade Runner)

Beren & Luthien would bring other problems. This story was so personal to JRRT that I suspect CT would be most loathe to see that touched. FoG is most likely to succeed as a movie.

Hollywood is looking for profits, & tends to put any thoughts of art to the back of its mind, & goes out of its way to avoid anything controversial - look at what they've done with the adaptation of Pullman's HDM - the 'anti-Christian' aspect of the story is gone purely to avoid upsetting the Christian lobby in the US. An unpleasant hero who marries his sister & kills himself at the end is hardly likely to appeal to studio execs. Of course, another 'Tolkien' story would attract them, but I suspect that the studios who are probably still desperate to buy the movie rights know nothing about CoH beyond the Tolkien name.

[Aiwendil]

Seems to me there are two separate questions: 1. Could good cinematic adaptations of 'Turin', 'Beren and Luthien', etc., be made and 2. Would a good cinematic adaptation be made if these rights came into the hands of a Hollywood studio.

I'd say the answer to the first question is probably 'yes' and the answer to the second almost certainly 'no'. That a story include humor, romance, and a happy ending are not necessary criteria for cinematic success, though they may be necessary criteria for getting a movie made in Hollywood today, in practice. Is the tone of the 'Narn', after all, so different from that of, e.g., The Seventh Seal? One would be hard-pressed to claim that the latter story was unsuited for cinematic presentation. (I must confess that I've sometimes fantasized about an Ingmar Bergman-directed 'Children of Hurin' with Max van Sydow as Turin).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just hearing the tales of illustrators and all the hoops they have to jump through in getting the approval of the Estate on their work, has a chilling effect.

That's a bit unfair. Naismith etc have said that the rein is in fact quite light- the Estate doesn't want an overemphasis on 'monsters.'

The difficulties you bring up as to involving the Estate in any way as a 'partner' or with 'creative control' are indeed enormous, even insuperable- and Christopher certainly feels that way. Film rights to any of the First Age material will only be sold over his dead body, literally. There is no wiggle-room in that position. From where CRT sits, Art is bloody unlikely* and he doesn't need the Cash. Adam's comments at the book's release party run in the same vein- he wants his gaffer to be remembered as an author, not a first-draft screenwriter.

(Incidentally, CRT is not some reactionary snob who despises "popular culture." In fact he's quite the cinema-goer)

* Face it, any Hollywood attempt at CoH would likely be as big a travesty as Zemeckis' Beowulf, with a hot Grendel's Ma (Angelina Jolie nekkid) attempting to seduce the hero!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

(I must confess that I've sometimes fantasized about an Ingmar Bergman-directed 'Children of Hurin' with Max van Sydow as Turin).

I love it! (Although I could also see Jurgen Prochnow in the lead role).

What about Peter Brook? At least, unlike Bergman, he's still alive.

[Lalwendë]

* Face it, any Hollywood attempt at CoH would likely be as big a travesty as Zemeckis' Beowulf, with a hot Grendel's Ma (Angelina Jolie nekkid) attempting to seduce the hero!

I'm looking forwards to that one! Of course it has Neil Gaiman onboard and thus it will be a must-see for me (though I doubt I'll get to the cinema for it :( ). I think the OTT, dark, comic book gorefest can be as far removed from Hollywood as the Indie flick is. But then that's a matter of personal taste I guess.

Some here want a more independent shall we say boutique studio process which would go outside the Hollywood system in the manner of a small independent film. And how do you make movies of the various SIL tales on a small budget? After people saw the $300 million dollar LOTR films and all the attendant glitz and hoopla on the screen, how do you get them to settle for the look of a bare bones small indie production that looks more like a TV show ala HERCULES or XENA?

What was wrong with Xena? ;)

In any case, as the BBC have been proving lately, a TV company can pump out shows of superior cinema quality, so why not let them do it? They've become old hands at fantasy and sci/fi lately what with Doctor Who, Torchwood, Robin Hood and the spectacular Gormenghast. Or why not have one of the 'foreign language' (as the Oscars Academy dub 'em) directors handle it as they seem to be able to take on dark stories with skill - see Alfonso Cuaron. Or even Terry Gilliam?

[Sauron the White]

from me

Quote:
Just hearing the tales of illustrators and all the hoops they have to jump through in getting the approval of the Estate on their work, has a chilling effect.

from William CH
That's a bit unfair. Naismith etc have said that the rein is in fact quite light- the Estate doesn't want an overemphasis on 'monsters.'

What people say for public consumption is one thing. What they say in more private discussions may be another. I know of no illustrator or artist who is going to go out of his or her way to say anything bad about the Estate process for fear of costing themselves jobs over the years. That is simply a fact of business.

If the Estate has apprehension about the depiction of monsters, perhaps they should excise them from the tales in the next editions. Absurd I realize. Their particular feelings about "monsters" are something that has evolved over time and now gets in the way. Just look at CoH and its obvious. Same thing with the newer SIL illustrations. You can show sweeping Middle-earth vistas over and over again but better not show the monsters. Why? I have no idea.

I cannot imagine any filmmaker willing to take on that type of overseer or adviser, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and expect to have something that will return their investment. Just is not going to happen until the Estate undergoes a far different makeup.

davem said

Beren & Luthien would bring other problems. This story was so personal to JRRT that I suspect CT would be most loathe to see that touched.



I feel you are 100% right on the money. I have always felt that the story of Beren & Luthien is by far the most appealing of the entire SIL. It has every single ingredient that would make for a great film and one with the widest possible audience appeal. Because of the obstacles you cite, I do not expect to see it in my lifetime.

[davem]

(re-posting as myself - if anyone just saw this under Lal's name)



What people say for public consumption is one thing. What they say in more private discussions may be another. I know of no illustrator or artist who is going to go out of his or her way to say anything bad about the Estate process for fear of costing themselves jobs over the years. That is simply a fact of business.

I'm sorry, but do you have any evidence for that statement? The Estate costing artists jobs??? This seems to be bordering on paranoia.

If the Estate has apprehension about the depiction of monsters, perhaps they should excise them from the tales in the next editions. Absurd I realize. Their particular feelings about "monsters" are something that has evolved over time and now gets in the way. Just look at CoH and its obvious. Same thing with the newer SIL illustrations. You can show sweeping Middle-earth vistas over and over again but better not show the monsters. Why? I have no idea.

CT has never objected to depictions of monsters per se. The 'objection', such as it is, is against an over emphasis on the monsters, not a ban. All the 'official' artists, Lee, Howe, Naismith, have depicted monsters in their work. Just taking the cover paintings of HoM-e we see Dragons on BoLT1&2 & Morgoth on LoB & Morgoth's Ring (along with Shelob btw).

I cannot imagine any filmmaker willing to take on that type of overseer or adviser, spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and expect to have something that will return their investment. Just is not going to happen until the Estate undergoes a far different makeup.

Luckily for film-makers the Estate is not trying to force themselves on them. Its not obligatory for movies to be made. If any movie makers out there would like to be excused from the struggle & effort of trying to make movies of Tolkien's works I'm sure the Estate will write them a note.....

[Lalaith]

I must confess that I've sometimes fantasized about an Ingmar Bergman-directed 'Children of Hurin' with Max van Sydow as Turin).

You're not the only one, m'dear.
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=530177&postcount=281

Only *I* got told the idea was "completely bizarre"....:rolleyes:

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

There does seem to be a feeling among some people - not just Tolkien fans - that popular novels should automatically be turned into movies. 'I like this book - when's the movie out?'


hmmm are you sure that it is actual a true desire for a movie. . .I have always thought it more of a thing where you think "I would love to see that" and since you know that you are not going to get transportet into a paralel univers where this takes place, then you imagine how it would be like to watch this in a movie. . .

At least that is how I feel. . .I go around picturing all kinds of cool scence for the movies, but I am no film maker and therefor I do not go around thinking "this cannot be done" and "people do not want to watch a movie with this theme"

So yeah, I think it's not as much an expression of people die-hard wanting this book convertert into another specifick media, as much as it is a desire to be able to participate in/see the events of the book.


Sorry for writting about something so unimportant, but your comment made me think about the subject.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... it is not paranoia for a professional to feel it is wise not to go on a public record making statements that could alienate a future employer. Perhaps you may have heard the old saying "do not bite the hand that feeds you". I do not think it was JRRT who first coined that but it is widely known.

Obviously the Estate does not employ illustrators - however, they certainly have a very large say as to what illustrators do get the JRRT related commissions and then another large say into what is allowed to be depicted.

Monsters ..... where are the monster illustrations in the CHILDREN OF HURIN? I fail to see one in the color plates. Lee did a beautiful one of Glaurang that was originally said to be the cover but for some unknown reason was replaced for the cover and then it never even made it to the interiors. The dragon is seen partially in two very small b&w interior illustrations that are rather sedate. In a book with lots of action why is precious little of it depicted in illustration?

If you visit the website of Naismith you can see scores of color roughs he did as ideas for illustrations for SIL. Many of them featuring the monsters. He also includes them in some slide presentations at fan gatherings. Where are they in the published book? Answer: they did not make it. Instead the Estate favored pastoral scenes of lush sweeping landscapes.

How can you play the ostrich and pretend this does not exist?

Luckily for film-makers the Estate is not trying to force themselves on them

Again, you pretend that the Estate is not what it is. Do not fool yourself for a minute into believing that if the estate was involved in a SIL movie that they would immerse themselves into countles production and story details quickly becoming the bane of any directors existence.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This from a panel discussion with Ted Nasmith and Martin Springett (and John Howe):

Q: As far as illustrating then, especially Tolkien, who makes the decision (as to) what illustrations go in, is it the publisher, I can see in a regular book where the author is alive, the author may have something (to say) especially for a cover, but for Tolkien, is it his estate? You've said so yourself, Martin, you've been close, but you 're not published. Who makes that decision?

TN: The last decision comes from the Tolkien estate, generally Christopher or his wife Ann [???!] will talk about it together and make that decision. The editors of course have their opinions and their input as well. There are variables involved with things of this kind; for me, I can speak of my own experience with having established myself as being kind of a reliable quantity, there's not a lot of fuss around what subjects and what illustrations, for a calendar, I happen to know that if it is a calendar illustration there aren't quite as strict criteria applied. There's more freedom, because it is understood the artistic expression and showcase of art as opposed to specifically applied to a book like the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion. In the case of the Silmarillion there was a great deal more discussion and criteria to meet and back-and-forth, so that I felt satisfied with what I was doing was worth doing, for my own creative reasons and/or at the same time meeting all the editorial criteria, and in that case working with Christopher as well, and having his input and discussion with him. For instance, there was a selection of pictures, four times the images, at least, than we could fit into that book. You could only have an illustration every 16 pages, because of the binding, so they could put in.this glossier paper. I'm not restricted in the scenes as well, because we wanted to have something that was more or less close to that spot in the book. A calendar never involves such decisions, except to generally represent, if it's a Lord of the Rings calendar, well then, a sort of reasonable distribution of Lord of the Rings scenes that would more or less would satisfy a number of types of people's expectations of Tolkien illustration. John had mentioned earlier in his other, hour, doing work, on one hand, for the reader, who wanted the expected scenes, the key scenes that we see various artists attempting, and/or a series of illustrations that personally you find it intriguing and interesting and their imagery or images are strong for you and quite beautiful. The sidelights and obscure corners, but at the same time there are readers who delight in that too, and enjoy the fact that the artists will take these little side trips as well. It's a discussion between the editors and the estate and the artist.

MS: I know when I first met Ted I was offered myself, fifteen years ago, a calendar, I had to turn it down for various reasons. Ted picked that calendar up and has been zooming (?) it ever since. I do recall one of the problems, visually, and I don't know if John or Ted ever had this problem, one thing I know that Christopher Tolkien doesn't care for is fully realized close-up portraits of any character. It would be fun to see that occasionally, but that's one thing I think he's agin', if I recall my experience from the past. Isn't that the case, Ted?

TN: Yeah, that's right.

MS: So you you're kind of stymied there, if you're keen on portraiture and you really want to bring that out, that's one thing you can't do. I think even Alan Lee had trouble finding just the right look for the hobbits when he illustrated Lord of the Rings. There was quite a process that he had to go through to find the right look for the hobbits.


This hardly seems dictatorial. Note especially the practical matter of where plates are bound into the text, and the greater freedom in calendars.

I could find the monster de-emphasis issue if I looked for it. Incidentally, Glaurung is the focus of the illustration depicting his approach to Brethil; and the great Worm is plain to see in Nasmith's Silmarillion paintings. Anyway, it seems to me perfectly reasonable for the Estate to de-emphasize (not "ban") critters, because in the post-Peter Jackson world they want to avoid the action-adventure label... prudently, IMO.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

This is from the FAQ on the Tolkien Estate website (almost certainly written by Adam):

The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

Are there any plans to produce a feature film from The Children of Húrin ?
There are no plans of this nature in the foreseeable future.

[davem]

hmmm are you sure that it is actual a true desire for a movie. . .I have always thought it more of a thing where you think "I would love to see that" and since you know that you are not going to get transportet into a paralel univers where this takes place, then you imagine how it would be like to watch this in a movie. . .

I think this is only due to the prominence of movies now - people have always visualised the stories they've read or been told. Its just that now, with so many books being automatically turned into movies readers mentally project those images onto a movie screen - actually, if you think about it, what you're doing there is visuallising not the scene itself, but yourself, in the cinema, watching it on a screen...

davem ... it is not paranoia for a professional to feel it is wise not to go on a public record making statements that could alienate a future employer. Perhaps you may have heard the old saying "do not bite the hand that feeds you". I do not think it was JRRT who first coined that but it is widely known.

But this is still speculation on your part. Its clear that the Estate favours imagery that doesn't over emphasis the 'dark' & ugly side of Tolkien's creation, or that fixes one particular image of the characters - for 'officially authorised' images. This is hardly equivalent to the 'knock on the door at midnight by the Estate's thought police' that you're trying to imply....

Again, you pretend that the Estate is not what it is. Do not fool yourself for a minute into believing that if the estate was involved in a SIL movie that they would immerse themselves into countles production and story details quickly becoming the bane of any directors existence.

No, I'm not 'fooling myself' into any such thing.. The point I was making is that no studio is being forced to bid for the rights & no director is in the situation of having his family held at gunpoint under threat of death unless he makes a Sil movie, while the callous Estate, under the iron thumb of CT declares 'Let them perish! I care not - you shall never commit my father's work to celluloid!'

Nobody has to make a Sil movie. The Sil writings are the property of the Estate & they can do what they want with them. They have an absolute right to lay down any demands they like to potential film-makers, & the film-makers have an absolute right to say 'Sorry, that's too restrictive - we can't work under those conditions.'

And then they go their seperate ways.

What you have to keep in mind here is that the studios & film-makers here are looking simply for raw material to exploit in order to make money, not to produce a work of high art, & if that means taking a work like CoH, bowdlerising it, changing the ending, having Turin played by Adam Sandler & giving Glauring a middle-eastern accent & sticking a turban on his head they'll happily do it. If the Estate (ie CT) decide that, not needing the money, they don't want to hand over something they consider precious to a bunch of money grubbers who know, down to the last penny, 'the price of everything & the value of nothing' without some degree of creative control, I can't see any problem with that.

[Lalwendë]

It's not fair to criticise the art in CoH for not having loads of monsters, as they're not really in Alan Lee's style. He is known for being subtle, and often hides characters in the depths of his paintings so that you really need to look for them (kind of a Middle-earth "Where's Wally?" if you want to look at the fun side of this ;) ). However Tolkien 'hid' characters himself in his own artwork, so Lee is following in a tradition. The landscape is always the central thing, bigger than the people who live in it, which brings across the feeling of 'epic' - note how Lee cleverly only shows us a part of Orthanc as if to emphasise just how monumental the tower is.

He is also a very quiet, modest man, and I think his art reflects his personality, including in the muted colours he chooses to make use of.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

The point I was making is that no studio is being forced to bid for the rights & no director is in the situation of having his family held at gunpoint under threat of death unless he makes a Sil movie, while the callous Estate, under the iron thumb of CT declares 'Let them perish! I care not - you shall never commit my father's work to celluloid!'

You certainly have a dramatic flair for making these broad almost cartoonish statements that completely misrepresent differing opinion.

from Lalwende

It's not fair to criticise the art in CoH for not having loads of monsters, as they're not really in Alan Lee's style.

I do not disagree with your characterization of Lee's style. However, perhaps you could explain what happened with the gorgeous cover illustration that we first saw for CofH which featured Glaurang, then somehow vanished and did not even make it into the interior of the book?

Anytime the subject of the Tolkien Estate comes up in these parts, I get the idea that there is a small group who will do anything possible to get on Christophers christmas card list. I say that tongue in cheek ---- at least partly.

[davem]

from davem
You certainly have a dramatic flair for making these broad almost cartoonish statements that completely misrepresent differing opinion.

I'm not sure what point you were making re the Estate. The simple (& indisputable as far as I can see) fact is that no-one is being forced to make a Sil movie, the owners of the rights (the Estate) don't want to see movies made, & there is absolutely no reason a movie, or movies, should be made.

However, perhaps you could explain what happened with the gorgeous cover illustration that we first saw for CofH which featured Glaurang, then somehow vanished and did not even make it into the interior of the book?

Not wanting to speak for me better half, but its my understanding that Lee himself decided against that cover (a version of it, sans Glaurung, does appear in the calendar) for the simple reason that it depicts Glaurung & Mablung rather than Turin himself. It would be odd if a cover showed two secondary characters....

Anytime the subject of the Tolkien Estate comes up in these parts, I get the idea that there is a small group who will do anything possible to get on Christophers christmas card list. I say that tongue in cheek ---- at least partly.

Now, while not denying that I would dearly love a Christmas card from Christopher, I think that's highly unlikely, whatever I may happen to say about him on an internet forum....

The real point here though is that you seem to have some kind of animus against the Estate in general & CT in particular, which seems to have arisen (from what I can see) purely because some of us don't think the movies are the greatest creation in the whole entire history of the human race, & because CT has decided he doesn't doesn't want the covers of his father's books to be covered in images of mighty thewed barbarians dismembering Orcs, or scantily clad elf maidens about to be eaten by Balrogs.

[Sauron the White]

The original cover was by far the stronger cover - IMO. The one they went with is so ho-hum. You seem to be saying that Alan Lee picks the cover - and while he may have had some input in that, I think others higher up on the food chain most likely make those decisions.

from davem

The real point here though is that you seem to have some kind of animus against the Estate in general & CT in particular, which seems to have arisen (from what I can see) purely because some of us don't think the movies are the greatest creation in the whole entire history of the human race, & because CT has decided he doesn't doesn't want the covers of his father's books to be covered in images of mighty thewed barbarians dismembering Orcs, or scantily clad elf maidens about to be eaten by Balrogs.

Another great example of your penchant for exaggeration, hyperbole and overstatement. You should really be a politician since you have an amazing talent for completely misrepresenting any argument of the opposition. The previously discussed original cover for CofH by Alan Lee had no barbarians dismembering ORcs, no elf breasts bouncing ala Frazetta, or even a Balrog in sight. Of course, you knew that when you wrote it.

[davem]

The original cover was by far the stronger cover - IMO. The one they went with is so ho-hum. You seem to be saying that Alan Lee picks the cover - and while he may have had some input in that, I think others higher up on the food chain most likely make those decisions.

I'm not sure that your own opinion on the 'original' cover art can be used as proof that CT sent the boys round to AL's studio & put the squeeze on him. AL has stated (in the Amazon.com interview he gave)

However, I prefer not to get too close to the characters because the author is delineating them much more carefully than I can, and I'm wary of interfering with the pictures that the text is creating in the reader's mind.

In the illustrations I tried to show some of the fragile beauty of the landscapes and create an atmosphere that would enhance the sense of foreboding and impending loss. I try to get the setting to tell its part in the story, as evidence of what happened there in the past and as a hint at what is going to occur. My usual scarred and broken trees came in handy.

Unless, of course he was speaking under duress.......

You should really be a politician since you have an amazing talent for completely misrepresenting any argument of the opposition. The previously discussed original cover for CofH by Alan Lee had no barbarians dismembering ORcs, no elf breasts bouncing ala Frazetta, or even a Balrog in sight. Of course, you knew that when you wrote it.

I honestly don't know what your objections are, so it would be difficult for me to misrepresent them. You seem to be constantly accusing CT & the Estate of 'threatening' artists & seeking to control what they produce - as if they're some kind of 'mafia'. As far as I'm aware all the Estate has done is decide they don't want the kind of lurid & trashy covers you find on the worst kind of fantasy novels.

As to the 'Glaurung' cover, in my opinion it was a beautiful landscape but it was not right. Glaurung is not the central character of the story, & should not have been the focus of the cover - Turin should obviously have been the central figure on the cover, as its his story. Now, you could either show a 'brooding' picture of Turin, to capture the mood of the story, or you could have a painting of Turin killing Glaurung (giving away the ending) or an 'action' shot of Turin in combat - which is hardly Lee's style.

Look, let's say the cover choice was a collaborative decision between AL & CT - what's the problem ??? That's what happens in the publishing industry. An artist submits his work for approval & both the writer & the publisher make the final decision (in John Howe's book 'Myth & Magic' he shows a painting he did for the cover of Pullman's Subtle Knife - a beautiful picture, but the publishers decided against using it, because it wasn't what they wanted).

Alan Lee is a very successful artist, & doesn't have to work for the Estate if he's unhappy with the way they behave. Its not a case of 'paint the pictures we tell you, or you'll never paint another picture'.

Could you please set out, in clear terms, what you think the Estate is really like & what, exactly, you think they are doing 'behind the scenes'?

[ninja91]

As much as I think many of us would enjoy seeing a Silmarillion movie, we must cede that the general public would not be exactly crazy over a history of Tolkien's fantasy world. Let's face it: movies are made because the maker wants to make money. And if he cant, there will be no movie. The Silmarillion, I dont think, could not be a box office smash. It seems like the kind of story that would be best watched as a film/documentary, similar to Ken Burns' "The Civil War" and "The War: World War II" drama/documentaries.

[Sauron the White]

Could you please set out, in clear terms, what you think the Estate is really like & what, exactly, you think they are doing 'behind the scenes'?

And just how am I suppose to tell the world "what the Estate is really like & what they are doing behind the scenes".

You ask for something that cannot be delivered to you. But then, you knew that when you wrote the words.

[davem]

And just how am I suppose to tell the world "what the Estate is really like & what they are doing behind the scenes".

You ask for something that cannot be delivered to you. But then, you knew that when you wrote the words.

I asked what you think they're like, & what you think they're doing. You seem to have spent a good few posts on this thread almost, but not quite, accusing them (& CT in particular) of being control freaks, threatening the careers of artists, intimidating anyone who gets in their way & sundry other offences. All I'm asking for is clarification. As far as I can see all the Estate has done is state what kind of covers they want on the books, & decide they don't want to sell the movie rights - both of which they have a perfect right to do & neither of which is actually hurting anyone. Add to that that the Tolkien Trust, which they also administer, makes regular & generous gifts to a wide number of humanitarian charities & organisations, & I think you have a pretty decent bunch of human beings who simply care about the way JRR Tolkien's work is presented to the world.

[Sauron the White]

Lets take this in very small doses davem.

You seem to have spent a good few posts on this thread almost, but not quite, accusing them (& CT in particular) of being control freaks, threatening the careers of artists, intimidating anyone who gets in their way & sundry other offences.

Almost but not quite..... what the h?????? Is that some way of going through the backdoor and getting the accusation out there but being able to deny that you ever accused me of it in the first place because you couched it in such terms?

I have no memory of - nor does a rereading of posts - indicate that I ever said the Tolkien Estate was threatening the careers of artists. If I specifically said that, please point it out. And please, DO NOT tell me that I said an artist did not want to anger the Estate for fear of loss of future jobs and that is what constitutes proof of your statement. You have this terribly insulting way of taking what somebody says, repackaging it so that it sounds much worse than it is, and creating a strawman you can better battle with. You are not alone in that. Others seem to embrace that type of strategy also.

Saying the very true statement that has been told to me by illustrators - that they carefully select their public statements so as to not bite the hand that feeds them is one thing. They do not want to lose possible future commissions of Tolkien related material. That would cost them money. That is the way the world works. It is not the same thing at all with your exaggertion saying I have accused the Estate of threatening the career of illustrators.

But that sounds oh so much more the drama queen. You seem to be very good at taking three inches and turning it into a foot.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Back to Hollywood and Tolkien: here is a superb glimpse of the studio attitude- PJ himself recalling ameeting with Miramax' Harvey and Bob Weinstein:

“Bob Weinstein had obviously read the treatment, or skipped through it, but I remember this moment as if a lightbulb had gone on and there was almost a palpable moment of sudden understanding. Bob said: ‘Wait! So the Elf is like a bowman, shooting arrows, yeah? And the Dwarf has got axes and he can throw axes? And Sam, he’s got this magic rope, right? And Frodo’s got this light thing?’ Then he got really excited and you could see there was this moment of utter revelation and he said: ‘It’s like that movie where they had the explosives expert and the code expert and the marksman and they all had their own special skill . . . It’s the f****** Guns of Navarone!’

[davem]

You seem to be saying that artists are afraid to anger the Estate by saying the 'wrong' thing. It seems to me that any artist who said anything the Estate found 'offensive' would be biting the hand that feeds them & that they would only have themselves to blame if they did that.

This is not 'proof' that the Estate behaves unreasonably in any way. If an artist wants to work for any employer they have to show that employer respect. This would only be a problem if the demands of the Estate were unreasonable, or that what they considered 'unreasonable' was in itself unreasonable or irrational. To merely state they don't want an over-emphasis on monsters is hardly unreasonable. Hence your whole argument seems pointless. Its no different to saying they don't want Emus & Christmas trees on the covers as far as I can see. To be honest I can't see what you're making a fuss about.

BTW "Almost but not quite" is a reference to a joke in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a vending machine was able to read someone's mind & produce exactly the drink they really want at that moment, but always produced a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea...... You seem to be 'Almost but not quite.' accusing the Estate of something, & I wish I was clear on what it is....

However, this discussion is going round in circles & I'm getting off now....

[Sauron the White]

You seem to be saying that artists are afraid to anger the Estate by saying the 'wrong' thing. It seems to me that any artist who said anything the Estate found 'offensive' would be biting the hand that feeds them & that they would only have themselves to blame if they did that.

In many employer-employee relationships there normally exists an imbalance in terms of power with the employer holding most of the cards. What in most situations would pass for constructive criticism or a difference of opinion or even just employee input can be construed as (to use your term) something "offensive" when directed to the boss. Employees have have much thicker skins than the bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. So if you give your input to a thin skinned boss and they take offense and it ends up costing you, is that always the fault of the employee. Or would you just take that position if the employer with the power is the Tolkien Estate?

This is not 'proof' that the Estate behaves unreasonably in any way. If an artist wants to work for any employer they have to show that employer respect. This would only be a problem if the demands of the Estate were unreasonable, or that what they considered 'unreasonable' was in itself unreasonable or irrational. To merely state they don't want an over-emphasis on monsters is hardly unreasonable. Hence your whole argument seems pointless. Its no different to saying they don't want Emus & Christmas trees on the covers as far as I can see. To be honest I can't see what you're making a fuss about.

I am sure that in the opinion of some, the Estate has never acted unreasonable in any way in all the past years. And just how do you define "an over-emphasis on monsters". Is there a scale which tells you what the acceptable quota is? Obviously not. Its totally subjective. As I said before, the monsters are in there and are in there for a very good purpose. JRRT wrote it that way. This whole no monsters thing seems to me to be the Estate attempting to sanitize the whole
ME tales - at least as it is illustrated.

Again, your tendency to exaggeration simply does a disservice to your otherwise intelligent posts. You are a very knowledgable man who has a great knowledge of Tolkien and his world. I respect that. It is a mystery then as to why would you mention emus and christmas trees when nobody is discussing them? Why would you compare the honest difference of opinion about the depiction of monsters with silly things like emus and christmas trees? You try to make fun of something serious by introducing the absurd. It does no credit to you.

BTW "Almost but not quite" is a reference to a joke in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where a vending machine was able to read someone's mind & produce exactly the drink they really want at that moment, but always produced a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea...... You seem to be 'Almost but not quite.' accusing the Estate of something, & I wish I was clear on what it is....

Sorry - never read it. Perhaps the problem is the trying to read ones mind to get what they "really are thinking". Accept what I and other say by carefully reading the words we write without trying to change them or alter them so you can make a more clever response. Or worse, by trying read our minds to see what we really think about something. Or worse yet, to post an argument against what you think we really are thinking after you speculate on our "real" thoughts.

[davem]

In many employer-employee relationships there normally exists an imbalance in terms of power with the employer holding most of the cards. What in most situations would pass for constructive criticism or a difference of opinion or even just employee input can be construed as (to use your term) something "offensive" when directed to the boss. Employees have have much thicker skins than the bosses do if they want to keep their jobs. So if you give your input to a thin skinned boss and they take offense and it ends up costing you, is that always the fault of the employee. Or would you just take that position if the employer with the power is the Tolkien Estate?

Please tell me where these delicate flowers are. Which artists have been driven to despair & loss of hope by the cruel dictates of the Tolkien Estate? I only know of three main artists used by the Estate, Lee, Howe & Naismith, & they are among the biggest fans of the books & as far as I'm aware have never had any problems with the Estate at all.

I am sure that in the opinion of some, the Estate has never acted unreasonable in any way in all the past years. And just how do you define "an over-emphasis on monsters". Is there a scale which tells you what the acceptable quota is? Obviously not. Its totally subjective. As I said before, the monsters are in there and are in there for a very good purpose. JRRT wrote it that way. This whole no monsters thing seems to me to be the Estate attempting to sanitize the whole
ME tales - at least as it is illustrated.

Yes, its the opinion, in the main, of CT, & he owns the rights & has the final say on cover art. Why is that a problem? Are there artists out there who can only paint monsters? Tolkien did not over-emphasise the monsters in his writings - they are present, but not the focus of the stories, & CT seems merely to require cover art to reflect that.

It is a mystery then as to why would you mention emus and christmas trees when nobody is discussing them? Why would you compare the honest difference of opinion about the depiction of monsters with silly things like emus and christmas trees? You try to make fun of something serious by introducing the absurd. It does no credit to you.

Tolkien to Rayner Unwin
12 Sept. 1965

[In August 1965 Ballantine Books produced the first 'authorised' American paperback of The Hobbit, without incorporating Tolkien's revisions to the text. The cover picture showed a lion, two emus, and a tree with bulbous fruit.]

I wrot to [his American publishers] expressing (with moderation) my dislike of the cover for The Hobbit. It was a short hasty note by hand, without a copy, but it was to this effect: I think the cover ugly; but I recognize that a main object of a paperback cover is to attract purchasers, and I suppose that you are better judges of what is attractive in USA than I am. I therefore will not enter into a debate about taste -- (meaning though I did not say so: horrible colours and foul lettering) -- but I must ask this about the vignette: what has it got to do with the story? Where is this place? Why a lion and emus? And what is the thing in the foreground with pink bulbs? I do not understand how anybody who had read the tale (I hope you are one) could think such a picture would please the author.

These points have never been taken up, and are ignored in [their] latest letter. These people seem never to read letters, or have a highly cultivated deafness to anything but 'favorable reactions'.

Mrs. ---- [a representative of the paperback publishers] did not find time to visit me. She rang me up. I had a longish conversation; but she seemed to me impermeable. I should judge that all she wanted was that I should recant, be a good boy and react favorably. When I made the above points again, her voice rose several tones and she cried: 'But the man hadn't TIME to read the book!' (As if that settled it. A few minutes conversation with the 'man', and a glance at the American edition's pictures should have been sufficient regard to the pink bulbs she said as if to one of complete obtusity: 'they are meant to suggest a Christmas Tree'. Why is such a woman let loose?



Sorry - never read it. Perhaps the problem is the trying to read ones mind to get what they "really are thinking". Accept what I and other say by carefully reading the words we write without trying to change them or alter them so you can make a more clever response. Or worse, by trying read our minds to see what we really think about something. Or worse yet, to post an argument against what you think we really are thinking after you speculate on our "real" thoughts.

But you keep making out that the Estate are imposing unreasonable demands on artists, threatening to stop using their work (& thus causing them to lose money) when there is no evidence at all being presented for anything like that.

CT & the Estate don't want 'dark' images on the covers of the books. They don't want the focus on the monsters & violence. What is the problem? Why does that make them bad people?

Sorry, but it still feels like you're making some kind of veiled accusation about control freakery & an attempt to ruin careers or somesuch.

[Sauron the White]

davem..... based on presentations I have seen in person with various illustrators plus personal conversations, it is my belief that the Estate likes to have a strong hand in these matters. Obviously, the Estate, as gaurdians for the work of JRRT, would consider that a good quality that they posess. It seems that you do also. And that is fine. I do feel that this "not too many monsters" approach is an unnecessary sanitizing of the actual stories that JRRT wrote. Not that the stories themselves are edited, but that the visual portrayal of them is. So what we end up with is a less than honest visual presentation in book form of what was actually written.

Again, I refer you to the website of Nasmith and several score of color rough paintings he did as suggestions for full illustrations. The ones that did not make it were either action sequences of the darker side of JRRT's work. Some have speculated that this is a reaction to the Jackson films. But this was in motion before the films ever came out.

I refer you to the recent CofH and the near absence of the areas I am concerned with despite their obvious presence throughout the text.

My problem is what we end up with is a less than honest approach to selection of illustration material in that several areas that JRRT wrote about seem off limits to illustrators. As a consumer, and as a fan of illustration, this is less than satisfying to me.

I simply disagree with the Estate policy on this matter. That does not make them bad people. That does not make them evil. For me, that just makes them wrong. I do not know as much about JRRT as you do. I admit that. However, I do love his work expecially the Middle-earth stories. I also happen to love illustration and illustrated books. I simply think that the policy of the Estate as it pertains to "monsters" and the darker side of the material is wrong and is depriving consumers of what could be a better package.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I've had the idea for a while now that probably the best way to make any sort of live action account of The Silmarillion would be rather though something not too dissimilar than a History Documentary. It would be amusing if nothing else. I mean, the Quenta Silmarillion more than Ainulindule, really. Little dramatisations of key scenes in between short narrations by a presenter (probably Simon Schama or someone like that) stood in a field saying 'and it was here in Beleriand that the outlaws discovered that things wouldn't always go their way.'

I did, a while back, write a script for such a venture, but due to lack of time and attention span, it never got past a few pages.

[davem]

davem..... based on presentations I have seen in person with various illustrators plus personal conversations, it is my belief that the Estate likes to have a strong hand in these matters. Obviously, the Estate, as gaurdians for the work of JRRT, would consider that a good quality that they posess. It seems that you do also. And that is fine. I do feel that this "not too many monsters" approach is an unnecessary sanitizing of the actual stories that JRRT wrote. Not that the stories themselves are edited, but that the visual portrayal of them is. So what we end up with is a less than honest visual presentation in book form of what was actually written.

There are monsters on the covers - I've mentioned the various H0M-e covers that depict dragons, Morgoth & Shelob. The UK hb of Unfinished Tales has Tolkien's own picture of Glaurung. But they don't depict extreme violence or cruelty - & neither do the books. Tolkien didn't go in for graphic depictions of such things - Most new readers of Tolkien's work (particularly in the post movie period) are surprised (not to mention disappointed in many cases) at the lack of 'action'. The CoH illustrations, both colour & b&w, are as 'graphic' as the text - which means they aren't very graphic at all. What kind of images, exactly, do you want to see? Do you want to see Elves being burned alive by Glaurung? Do you want a graphic close up of Hurin slicing up Trolls, or on of Turin with the sword stuck through him & blood spurting in all directions - 'cos that ain't described in such detail in the text.

Again, I refer you to the website of Nasmith and several score of color rough paintings he did as suggestions for full illustrations. The ones that did not make it were either action sequences of the darker side of JRRT's work. Some have speculated that this is a reaction to the Jackson films. But this was in motion before the films ever came out.

And I refer you to the fact that Naismith has them on his website for all to see & he's still getting commissions from the Estate - all they've said is that they don't want them in the books.

I refer you to the recent CofH and the near absence of the areas I am concerned with despite their obvious presence throughout the text.

No - as I've pointed out, the kind of graphic violence & destruction you mention is absent from the book - Tolkien does not go in for that kind of thing. He may tell you that thousands died horribly in the Nirnaeth, or that Glaurung slew 'x' number of Elves, but he doesn't describe the deaths in detail.

My problem is what we end up with is a less than honest approach to selection of illustration material in that several areas that JRRT wrote about seem off limits to illustrators. As a consumer, and as a fan of illustration, this is less than satisfying to me.

But as I've said, its there if you want it. The kind of graphic violence & close up depictions of monsters in all their horrible 'majesty' is available on numerous sites. The Estate just don't want it in the books, mainly because they feel it is not representative (for the reasons I've given)

I simply think that the policy of the Estate as it pertains to "monsters" and the darker side of the material is wrong and is depriving consumers of what could be a better package.

But, as Tolkien stated in LotR:

But Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words or things; and their language was actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find. Much the same sort of talk can still be heard among the orc-minded; dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long removed from good to retain even verbal rigour, save in the ears of those to whom only the squalid sounds strong.

Which, I think, shows Tolkien's own feelings pretty clearly, & his approach to depictions of violence, darkness & cruelty, in language as in other things. "actually more degraded and filthy than I have shown it. I do not suppose that any will wish for a closer rendering, though models are easy to find." could equally well apply to his approach to depictions of violence & monsters in his own work.

[Sauron the White]

Simply because Tolkien does not describe the step by step process in the killing of each of tens of thousands of beings, does not mean that it is not violent in its own right. How can you write a book with all of that killing, battles, wars, destruction, murder and mayhem and then take the high road saying its really not his cup of tea? To suggest otherwise is to put on a nice shiny pair of the rosiest glasses ever invented. The action and darker side of the Middle-earth stories are as much as what Tolkien is as anything else in the books.

I simply disagree with both your sanitized view of what is in the books and the Tolkien Estates carrying out of such a viewpoint creating less than complete illustrated editions.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

In my book there is a "nice" little drawing of dead elves as well as one of a dead Glaurung. I would say that both these drawings has what you ask for, the first one is quite brutal (but not vulgar) and the second one has a monster.

The conserns about what is potrayed might not be baseless, but they are certainly not as big problems as they are made out to be. . . . We all want different things and most of the time we don't get what we want.
I would have like to see sertain landscapes in the illustrations, but other motives where picked. That is too bad, but I doubt that it is because of some plot against these particular landscapes.

Don't blow things out of porportion

And just for the record: I belive that it does matter if the battles and killings are written in great graphic detail or not. If a writter finds something important they will put extra focus on the event, point it out to you.
Now Tolkien seldom goes into great detail about the killings and battles, but yet there is quite a lot of them. The thing is that war is what drives these kind of stories about heros and their deeds, that Tolkien wanted to write. If you look at what he spends time on, it is what goes on between charachters (and sometimes he likes to descripe a landscape), he seldom uses alot of time on the battle itself. The battle is there because it needs to be in order to drive the story forth.

Yes killings has a place in the story, but the main focus does not lie on how many orcs Turin killed and how he killed them.

At least that is my take on it, not having given it very much thought.

[davem]

Simply because Tolkien does not describe the step by step process in the killing of each of tens of thousands of beings, does not mean that it is not violent in its own right. How can you write a book with all of that killing, battles, wars, destruction, murder and mayhem and then take the high road saying its really not his cup of tea? To suggest otherwise is to put on a nice shiny pair of the rosiest glasses ever invented. The action and darker side of the Middle-earth stories are as much as what Tolkien is as anything else in the books.

I simply disagree with both your sanitized view of what is in the books and the Tolkien Estates carrying out of such a viewpoint creating less than complete illustrated editions.

Yes but you still haven't told us exactly what kind of imagery you'd like to se in the books. As Rune points out, there are a number of images of Glaurung, of Orcs of dead warriors in the book, & the imagery (particularly the black & white imagery) is quite dark.

Tolkien made a conscious decision not to go into explicit detail as regards the depiction of violence (& made the same decision as regards 'Orcish' speech) & the Estate have made the same decision as regards its depiction in the imagery used. In fact, he didn't go into much detail in the description of his monsters - hence the arguments re Balrog's wings. Personally, I don't want such lurid images in Tolkien's books so I'm happy with that decision.

[Sauron the White]

Yes but you still haven't told us exactly what kind of imagery you'd like to se in the books

Perhaps it would help if I use but a single chapter from the latest book THE CHILDREN OF HURIN. Lets use an early chapter - II The Battle of Unnumbered Tears. The only illustration in this entire chapter is the very small b&w heading peice above the chapter title on page 52 featuring a group of soldiers standing still and doing what? Watching a soccer game? Waiting for the lunchline to move a bit faster? Asked to all say cheese in the group photo? Who knows since there is no story element or drama to this piece of any kind.

Here is a list of possible scenes in this chapter which would make far better illustrations cappturing great moments that JRRT writes of.

p. 53 - Fingon looks north and beholds Thangorodrim
p. 54 the host of Morgoth marching out of Angband
p. 55 Gwindor slaying the heralds of Angband
p. 56 the light of drawing of swords of the Noldor like a filed of reeds
p. 56 fighting in the courts of Angband
p. 57 Turgon hewes through ranks of orcs to get to the side of his brother
p. 58 Turgon vs. Gothmog
p. 59 All the hosts of Angband encircle the House of Haldor
p. 60 Hurin slaying the trolls as they attempt to capture him... or
p. 60 a bound Hurin being led by Gothmog to Angband

There are ten different ideas for illustrations which would be dramatic and have great possibility. I am not suggesting that each be illustrated and the book turned into a comic novel. Any one would have been far better than the lead in illustration which was selected. Several would have made beautiful color plates especially the drawing of swords on page 56.

[davem]

There are ten different ideas for illustrations which would be dramatic and have great possibility. I am not suggesting that each be illustrated and the book turned into a comic novel. Any one would have been far better than the lead in illustration which was selected. Several would have made beautiful color plates especially the drawing of swords on page 56.
There is a painting by Lee of the assault on Angband in the CoH Calendar, so its there if you want to see it.

Lee's approach to illustrating Tolkien's work has been consistent since he took on LotR - he finds out where the plates will go in the book & paints an image based on the events described on the facing page. This is why one of the illustrations for LotR (facing page 576) is just a painting of a stream, rather than an action shot. In other words, he puts his illustrations in the service of the text.

While your suggestions are interesting, there's no evidence that Lee had any desire to paint those pictures but was stopped from doing so. Lee has stated that his approach is to let the author tell the story, & that his images are designed to help establish the 'mood' of the story rather than dominate it - which I suspect your suggestions would. You have to keep in mind that Lee is providing illustrations for a book, rather than stand alone works of art to be shown in a gallery ( a trap Naismith has a tendency to fall into sometimes - as does John Howe). I honestly feel that the kind of graphic images you're suggesting would have been in danger of overwhelming the text.

Actually, the three paintings which appear only in the calendar (the 'Nargothrond' painting (sans Glaurung), the one of the assault on Angband, & (my personal favourite of all the images Lee produced for CoH) Morwen, Nienor & the Elves riding through an autumn landscape of reeds & willows (no blood or monsters:( ) are wonderful, & I wish they had been included in the book. None of them 'over emphasise' the dark & monstrous, but they didn't fit with Lee's 'rule' - there wasn't a plate available opposite the pages where those events are described.

What I would say about your choice of images is that none of them 'breaks the rules' - any of those scenes could be depicted - it would depend on how explicit & lurid the images were (Lee has a couple of 'battle scenes' in TH & LotR). My question wasn't what images you wanted to see, but what kind of images - ie, whether you really wanted to see close ups of graphic violence & such or not. All the images you suggest could be depicted in long/medium shot, either just before the actual event, or moments after it - which is more in line with Tolkien's approach - focussing on the effects of violence & exploring its consequences, rather than reveling in the act itself.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

This is why one of the illustrations for LotR (facing page 576) is just a painting of a stream, rather than an action shot. In other words, he puts his illustrations in the service of the text.

If an illustrator does their job correctly, EVERY ILLUSTRATION should be in the service of the text. None of the ones I suggested violate this rule. Perhaps you and I have a different approach to illustration. The Lee illustration in LOTR of a stream may serve as an example. I have no problem with Lee wanting to do that scene. However, I would ask for a simple addition to give it some meaning within the realm of Middle-earth. What makes this stream stand out as something in Middle-earth as opposed to just any old stream illustration that the artist may have had laying in a drawer? In other words, make it related to Middle-earth or something very specific that can be identified by the reader. I do concede that in a massive undertaking such as the illustration of the complete LOTR, one can get away with several purely atmospheric shots that do not necessarily depict key or dramatic moments in the text.

While your suggestions are interesting, there's no evidence that Lee had any desire to paint those pictures but was stopped from doing so. Lee has stated that his approach is to let the author tell the story, & that his images are designed to help establish the 'mood' of the story rather than dominate it - which I suspect your suggestions would.

My list of suggestions was merely to comply with you asking me what illustrations I would have preferred. I made no charge that Lee wanted to do any of these or was stopped from doing any of the ones on my list of ten. Of course, we do not know if he wanted to do any of these or not. I suspect that you and I want different things in illustration. It seems - and correct me if I am wrong - that you favor some type of setting the mood or getting the atmosphere of the tale. I first want the more dramatic moments depicted and then a minority of mood pieces to flesh things out a bit. Perhaps our priorities are reversed. If so, that would explain some things and why we have such differing opinions.

None of them 'over emphasise' the dark & monstrous, but they didn't fit with Lee's 'rule' - there wasn't a plate available opposite the pages where those events are described.

While that explaination may suffice for the color plates, there are no such restrictions on the b&w pieces. The illustrator seemed to have a free reign in that regard. The color plates do appear after every 16 pages. I really have no objection to having an illustration on one facing page while the text may be a few pages apart from it. Some of the greatest book illustrators in history such as N.C. Wyeth and Arthur Rackham worked that way and it worked out wonderfully for both illustrator and reader. Speaking for myself, I would think it is far more important to come up with a great illustration of a key scene than it is merely to have an illustration fall opposite the text. Are we that stupid that we cannot accept an illustration if the text is not right there with arrows pointing to it? I certainly hope not.

My question wasn't what images you wanted to see, but what kind of images - ie, whether you really wanted to see close ups of graphic violence & such or not.

That would depend on the scene. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there are some gruesome images and descriptions in JRRT's writings. In CofH, on page 55 -

"And they hewed off Gelmir's arms and legs, and left him". Now that is pretty up front in your face gruesome.

I greatly prefer more panoramic shots which get in lots of figures, landscape or architecture and other elements. Alan Lee's Helms Deep illustration is my idea of a perfect battle illustration. I am not looking for a close-up of Gelmir's chopped off limbs in a perfect cross section so we can see blood pumping from veins and see the bone as if in a Christmas ham. But I do not want scenes with violence to be ignored altogether or shoved to the back of the bus. They can be handled with taste and class as JRRT wrote them. Perhaps we can agree on that.

[davem]

Alan Lee:

My chief concern in illustrating LotR was in attempting to provide a visual accompaniment for the story without interfering with, or dislodging, the pictures the author is carefully building up in the reader's mind. i felt that my task lay in shadowing the heroes on their epic quest, often at a distance, closing in on them at times of heightened emotion but avoiding trying to re-create the dramatic high points of the text.....

Such considerations were made simpler by technical ones. Printed seperately on a coated art paper, the pictures had to be positioned at intervals of sixteen or thirty two pages throughout the book. This limitation was recieved gratefully & probably saved weeks of fruitless agonising over which moments to illustrate.

It was important that every picture should be relevant to the text on the opposite page. (from 'Tolkien's World: Paintings of Middle-earth')

As to the B&W illustrations in CoH, Lee has chosen to top & tail the chapters with 'mood pieces'. Its clearly been his approach to Tolkien illustration all along, so I don't see how we can criticise his choice. If you choose AL to illustrate a Tolkien book this is the kind of illustration you'll get. You can complain about the choice of AL as artist, but not about the way he'll illustrate the book.

As to the 'Gelmir' thing, I find it actually more horrible in Tolkien's stark description than it could ever be in any illustration. Also, & I think this is a significant point, some readers have both a more graphic imagination & a stronger stomach than others, & what would be a perfectly acceptable illustration for some readers would be totally unnacceptable to others. Even reading about the death of Gelmir some readers will visualise that in long shot (or not at all) while others picture it in the most extreme & gory close up with blood spurting, hacked off limbs twitching & Gelmir's face contorted in an agonised scream. The text leaves the reader free to imagine the scene as they will, but any illustration would fix a particular image for the reader - which is why AL prefers (according to what he has said) to 'keep his distance'.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Interesting discussion (and I guess I posted in it once upon a time), though I'm not sure it's going anywhere. Incidentally, davem, your quote from the JRRT Letter at the end of page 1 made me smile; that letter is one of my absolute favorites. "Why is such a woman let loose?" makes me want to burst out laughing every time I read it. Tolkien is delightful to read in correspondence as well as in mythmaking.

[davem]

Interesting discussion (and I guess I posted in it once upon a time), though I'm not sure it's going anywhere.

It doesn't have to go anywhere if its interesting. The utilitarian approach to threads usually leads to a dead end. You discuss till you reach a consensus & then it stops & everyone toddles off to find another topic to reach a consensus on. Humour, challenge, taking your opponents points off at tangents, dismantling them & throwing them right back. Much more interesting. The original point of this thread was left behind a long time ago, because there wasn't much anyone could do with it - or at least there wasn't much anyone wanted to do with it. When StW & I started our little discussion it took off.

Ultimately, of course, our argument can't go anywhere but round in circles, because we're arguing over matters of personal taste. If, however, we manage to do it entertainingly people will read it. Luckily (as you've probably noticed) we're both sharp enough & clever enough (though I say meself, as shouldn't) to be able to keep interest in the debate. I join in debates like this (as I've stated on numerous occasions) because I find them entertaining & because I genuinely like & respect the person I'm arguing with. If I didn't I'd just ignore what they had to say & do something else.

Anyway, back to the topic:

StW is completely wrong about this subject, I'm right & I'm pretty sure Tolkien would agree with me on this one......

[Sauron the White]

davem .. I agree with you 100% that JRRT himself would agree with your position on illustration. And as has been well established, JRRT was a first rate writer, a genius when it came to creating worlds, and a rather mediocre to poor illustrator.
;)

[DuncanIdaho]

But we saw with the BBC radio production of LotR that the scripts were sent to CT for approval & he responded positively, & even sent a cassette of pronunciations to enable them to get it right. It strikes me that CT (& by extention the Estate) is not wholly against dramatisations, just that, if they are to be done with his approval they should be done right.

CoH would be a particularly difficult story to adapt, for the reasons I've given. You can't introduce light moments into the story because they would jar, & you can't have any sense of victory at the end because that would destroy the effect. And tacking on a reference to Turin's killing of Morgoth at the end would seem fake (bit like the ending of the original version of Blade Runner)

Beren & Luthien would bring other problems. This story was so personal to JRRT that I suspect CT would be most loathe to see that touched. FoG is most likely to succeed as a movie.

Hollywood is looking for profits, & tends to put any thoughts of art to the back of its mind, & goes out of its way to avoid anything controversial - look at what they've done with the adaptation of Pullman's HDM - the 'anti-Christian' aspect of the story is gone purely to avoid upsetting the Christian lobby in the US. An unpleasant hero who marries his sister & kills himself at the end is hardly likely to appeal to studio execs. Of course, another 'Tolkien' story would attract them, but I suspect that the studios who are probably still desperate to buy the movie rights know nothing about CoH beyond the Tolkien name.

Are you forgetting that a good ending to a movie is subjective? There are many people who look for dark, tenebrous endings in a film. (There are many dark films.)

Hollywood, the film industry is also looking for innovatory, inventive ways of approaching a film. CoH would present a challenge.

[Lothriel]

I was wondering what the legality would be behind a non-profit, fan based project based on one or more stories from The Silmarillion?

Looking around I've found conflicting views on it. Some say it's fine as long as you don't quote directly from the books. But then again the Tolkien Estate has taken people to court simply for having part of a "Tolkien" name in a web address. ("Shire" supposidly being exclusively the intellectual property of Tolkien Estate. Wonder if my beloved home of Ayrshire knows this?)

I know that this may have been discussed in several topics already, but it would take far longer to look through this massive forum than to just dredge it up here. ^^

[princeimrahil2]

Those are two really good ideas and they both are ideas that i have thought of it is interesting to think how long it would take to make them. Probably the only major roadblock i could for see is putting the first two parts of the book on to the creeen, but can you imagine how awsome they would look if the creators weould be able to succeed in that attempt.
I have not finished the book yet but it really seems like just what i have read could be turned into a number of moivies.

[Mithalwen]

I was wondering what the legality would be behind a non-profit, fan based project based on one or more stories from The Silmarillion?

Looking around I've found conflicting views on it. Some say it's fine as long as you don't quote directly from the books. But then again the Tolkien Estate has taken people to court simply for having part of a "Tolkien" name in a web address. ("Shire" supposidly being exclusively the intellectual property of Tolkien Estate. Wonder if my beloved home of Ayrshire knows this?)

I know that this may have been discussed in several topics already, but it would take far longer to look through this massive forum than to just dredge it up here. ^^


I think that all the name trademarks belong to Saul Zaentz - however as to fan projects this is from the ESTATE's website http://www.tolkienestate.com/faq/p_2/

Can I / someone else write / complete / develop my / their own version of one of these unfinished tales ? (or any others)
The simple answer is NO.
You are of course free to do whatever you like for your own private enjoyment, but there is no question of any commercial exploitation of this form of "fan-fiction".
Also, in these days of the Internet, and privately produced collectors’ items for sale on eBay, we must make it as clear as possible that the Tolkien Estate never has, and never will authorize the commercialisation or distribution of any works of this type.
The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.

So the answer is that you can do what you like as long as it is purely for your own amusement but try to profit from it in anyway and the estate will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Which is fair enough - especially since the recent legislation seems to indicate that the Jackson trilogy was non-profit. :rolleyes:;)

[Miss Squadilla]

THAT WOULD BE SOOOO EPIC!

OME I so want to see that

[Moophopolis]

Regarding an adaptation of the Silmarillion - and not to offend those who want to see an adaption - but can I suggest taking a moment for a different perspective?

A couple of things:

The basic danger with "purple" material, ie., well-known and much loved: Any attempt by an individual to cinematically define the world of the Silmarillion will invariably be at odds with some part of the existing fan base. What can a film adaptation do that the novel doesn't do? Bring the world to life? I don't know about others, but the film adaptation of LOTR, while a fun adventure film, was in no way, shape or form representative of the To me, it was a cartoonish monster movie, exactly like the rest of Jackson's work. I'm not knocking PJ & crew - that's just his style, and what makes his films fun to watch. But it's not LOTR by any stretch. I would be horrified to do that to someone's favorite book.

Secondly, why is having this wonderful literature not enough? As a filmmaker, I more than understand the overwhelming desire to express my love of literary material by adapting it into film. But, as a filmmaker, I have to ask: Given a the nearly limitless toolset of modern filmmaking and a (very) ample budget, could I equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work in some way? Of course not, and I would feel foolish to try.

So why not let these wonderful books be what they are? Are we really that unimaginative that we can do nothing else but strip-mine the literary world for all it's worth? I know the film rights to Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony and many others' work is trading high on Sunset Blvd., given the financial success of LOTR. Rather than trying to adapt Tolkien's work, why can't we simply be inspired by it and turn that creative energy into developing our own stories?

I know I am.

[Mirandir]

Secondly, why is having this wonderful literature not enough? As a filmmaker, I more than understand the overwhelming desire to express my love of literary material by adapting it into film. But, as a filmmaker, I have to ask: Given a the nearly limitless toolset of modern filmmaking and a (very) ample budget, could I equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work in some way? Of course not, and I would feel foolish to try.

I agree completely. There are some stories that lend themselves very well to film adaptations, the LotR trilogy being among them (as we all know ;)). However, there are others that do not. The Simarillion is one of them. Yes, it would be absolutely epic. However, there most likely isn't the fan base necessary to be able to justify pouring the kind of money that such a production would require into something that isn't going to sell. Besides, like Moophopolis said, would it even be possible to equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work? Methinks not.

[Gwathagor]

To me, it was a cartoonish monster movie, exactly like the rest of Jackson's work. I'm not knocking PJ & crew - that's just his style, and what makes his films fun to watch. But it's not LOTR by any stretch.

I am glad to hear another film-person say it.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

It is funny how much fans can protest when their favourit books gets made into movies, yet we hear no cries of dispair when they are made into theater plays. . .

I think we have to ask our selves "what is the harm?". Why should we object to a wider audience getting to know the work that we love so much? Obviously it would only be an intepritation of the work, but still. . .
Are we special because we have read the books 47 times and does that make us better judges of what can be turned into a move and what cannot?

Anyways I for one really like the movies, but at the same time I like you find it annoying. There are many weird things in them and they totaly changed the way I imagined some of the characters. If this had been too big an issue for me to accept, then surely I would just stay home with my books and not watch the movies. . .one does not have to watch them, you know.

And a last thing before I leave: I did not get that "cartoonish monster movie" feel from the movies at all, infact I was very impressed with PJ.(except for that skull scene)

[Feanor411]

Ok, now there's a challenge. I can't remember, actually, Turin being mentioned in LotR. But can the many Tolkien scholars here who are wiser than I am, confirm this?

I am currently re-reading LOTR and just came across a passage that mentions Turin in passing--I think there are a couple fleeting references throughout....

[Feanor411]

Regarding an adaptation of the Silmarillion - and not to offend those who want to see an adaption - but can I suggest taking a moment for a different perspective?

A couple of things:

The basic danger with "purple" material, ie., well-known and much loved: Any attempt by an individual to cinematically define the world of the Silmarillion will invariably be at odds with some part of the existing fan base. What can a film adaptation do that the novel doesn't do? Bring the world to life? I don't know about others, but the film adaptation of LOTR, while a fun adventure film, was in no way, shape or form representative of the To me, it was a cartoonish monster movie, exactly like the rest of Jackson's work. I'm not knocking PJ & crew - that's just his style, and what makes his films fun to watch. But it's not LOTR by any stretch. I would be horrified to do that to someone's favorite book.

Secondly, why is having this wonderful literature not enough? As a filmmaker, I more than understand the overwhelming desire to express my love of literary material by adapting it into film. But, as a filmmaker, I have to ask: Given a the nearly limitless toolset of modern filmmaking and a (very) ample budget, could I equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work in some way? Of course not, and I would feel foolish to try.

So why not let these wonderful books be what they are? Are we really that unimaginative that we can do nothing else but strip-mine the literary world for all it's worth? I know the film rights to Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony and many others' work is trading high on Sunset Blvd., given the financial success of LOTR. Rather than trying to adapt Tolkien's work, why can't we simply be inspired by it and turn that creative energy into developing our own stories?

I know I am.


Excellent point, and one I have considered myself. However, I would love to see a Silmarillion project (my friend Randy and I talk about it incessantly). I know I would inevitably be disappointed, because turning a book into a movie is essentially and act of translation, and the story cannot ever be translated the way I picture it in my head. Nevertheless, my imagination has been captured to such an extent, that I am willing to risk the disappointment if it means I can see the two trees of Valinor, the Silmarils, and Gondolin with my own eyes. I know it isn't logical, but there it is.

I think the story could be served by splitting it into three parts: The first part, the elves waking up through their return to Middle Earth. The second would concentrate on the Beren & Luthien story and end at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad (sp?). The third would concentrate on the fall of the Elvish kingdoms and conclude the tale.

I really like the idea someone (sorry no direct quote!) put forth that the project be done as a series ala Rome. That would give so much more time, and you might have a shot at getting all the major characters in the story!

Did anyone else catch PJ's little "joke" on the commentary of FotR about the Silmarillion movie? When he reveals that Fran provided the voice of the Ringwraiths, he said that it was the sound she made when he told her he had bought the rights to the Sil. He WAS joking, wasn't he?

[-silverqueen666]

few whispers here and an unknown director poking their head out there and plans have been put in place to film select stories out of the silmarillion that can make a connection enough to provide a story line that can continue to the hobbit and lotr movies. The unknown director is rumored to be DC Anderson or an AJ Walkin.

(sorry my cousin wont stop bugging me until i write this on every tolkien forum,but i and i'm also speaking for my cousin hope this little rumor she heard from her production team boyfriend is true)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

few whispers here and an unknown director poking their head out there and plans have been put in place to film select stories out of the silmarillion that can make a connection enough to provide a story line that can continue to the hobbit and lotr movies. The unknown director is rumored to be DC Anderson or an AJ Walkin.

Sorry, not true. The Silmarillion film rights have not been sold and are not for sale. Period. (And, no, that's not going to change when Christopher Tolkien passes Over Sea).

[-silverqueen666]

you know saying something will never happen is just pure ignorance...what will you be doing in ten years and you better be correct.

sorry but people who say something will never happen or that something is impossible really get to me

[William Cloud Hicklin]

SQ:

1) The Simarillion rights have not been sold. That's simple fact.

2) Christopher Tolkien has declared that he will never sell them so long as he is alive.

3) Adam Tolkien shares his father's position

Since I'm in personal contact with both Tolkiens, I think I am in a rather better position to know than your cousin with her little rumor she heard from her production team boyfriend.

Sure, the unforseen can always arise. The world might end. Hollywood might get nuked by al-Qaeda. Christopher's lawyer son Simon might launch a campaign to seize control of the estate from his stepmother and half-brother. But the notion that right now, March 2009, anybody in the film industry has 'plans' for a Silmarillion project is, in a word, bogus.

[Moophopolis]

Excellent point, and one I have considered myself. Nevertheless, my imagination has been captured to such an extent, that I am willing to risk the disappointment if it means I can see the two trees of Valinor, the Silmarils, and Gondolin with my own eyes. I know it isn't logical, but there it is.

I think the story could be served by splitting it into three parts: The first part, the elves waking up through their return to Middle Earth. The second would concentrate on the Beren & Luthien story and end at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad (sp?). The third would concentrate on the fall of the Elvish kingdoms and conclude the tale.

I really like the idea someone (sorry no direct quote!) put forth that the project be done as a series ala Rome. That would give so much more time, and you might have a shot at getting all the major characters in the story!

Know the feeling well. I actually did an adaptation in college in 1992, while studying screenwriting (much more fun than actual schoolwork), and upon completion, I came to the conclusion that it simply wasn't a viable piece of cinema. Doing the work was actually really fun, though, and excellent practice. Visualizing these characters coming to life was an insanely cool experience.

I used three primary stories to make up a trilogy (yeah, stuck thinking in trilogies), Beren/Luthien, Tuor and Earendil, with as much reference as I could manage to the earlier parts of the story, and still try to make it somewhat comprehensible. Obviously, this only covered a small fraction of the book. It was really 'Stories from the Silmarillion', rather than any reasonable representation of the book.

The main problem, I came to understand: Dramatizing the Silmarillion is like dramatizing Bullfinches Mythology. LOTR had a similar problem - I don't know if I would have been able to follow the LOTR film if I hadn't been exceedingly familiar with it. As if they didn't have enough material to cover, they added a part of the appendices to further confuse the story - er? Anyway PJ and Co. can always say, "My friend Oscar disagrees with you".

It's heartening to hear that the Tolkien estate seems to be drawing the line here. I've heard things about the Hobbit being two scripts (OMFG), and I'm seriously wondering why these guys didn't just come with a monster movie of their own. I think we saw PJ in his element with King Kong - and hours-long, crashem smashem orgiastic monster movie. I get a distinct feeling that Hobbit is headed in the same direction. That stuff is all good fun, but all of the depth and subtlety that Tolkien has to offer is completely lost.

The obvious question is why the hell doesn't Hollywood, with its legions of scriptwriters come up with some original material, for crying out loud? Sadly, the answer is that the industry does not choose projects based on merit, they choose based on viability studies. So LOTR was greenlit, I'm guessing, based on a study that provided overwhelming evidence that millions of people WILL run out and see this film. Tens of millions, actually, so hell, let's make it 'these films'. This explains not only the strip-mining of the literary world for material, but also delightful cultural contributions like 'Dukes of Hazzard, The Movie'. After all, the cardinal sin in Hollywood is not bringing those dollars back home, preferably with friends.

I guess the point is that seeing something novel at a theater near you is small, while seeing some inane version of The Silmarillion isn't so small, maybe the Renny Harlin or Michael Bay version.

'Hobbits Of The Caribbean' (or more likely 'Jurassic Shire') will be here shortly. Oh what the hell, I know I'm going on opening night. Or both opening nights. Whatever.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I've always thought that the most successful adaptation of the Silmarillion would have to be done as a TV mini-series. There is just entirely too much information to cover in one or two or even three movies. I think if the BBC or HBO or something did a mini-series they would be able to pick out one theme or thread and clearly focus on just that one over 6 or whatever episodes and then just introduce the new characters in each episode. There also wouldn't be the enormous pressure from Hollywood for the Silmarillion to make a killing at the box-office, which is obviously the main motivation to dramatize any of Tolkien's works in the first place.

I think that the problem with dramatizing the Silmarillion is just that it doesn't have the same wide appeal as The Hobbit or LOTR because of the sheer amount of information and names etc. I mean, I know many, many people who are fans of LOTR and TH, but when they tried to get into Sil they couldn't. (Incidently, has anyone read the Sillymarillion? They illustrate this point brilliantly by literally just having entire chapters that are just names of places or characters.) And because of this fact, the Sil would never make it as a movie, but something like the BBC adaptation of Hitchhiker's Guide would do just fine. I mean, I think the likelihood of this happening is very close to 0, but for the sake of this thread we'll pretend.

[Morthoron]

There are folks who have gone to great lengths to criticize the manner in which Christopher Tolkien edited the published form of the Silmarillion. I can only imagine the fits of apoplexy if the tale (series of tales, rather) was plopped indecorously into a Sci-fi channel mini-series. I still recall how dreadful Sci-fi's take on Dune was.

But really, the discussion is academic. As WCH has mentioned, it is unlikely we'll be seeing the Sil in the next few decades.

[Inziladun]

But really, the discussion is academic. As WCH has mentioned, it is unlikely we'll be seeing the Sil in the next few decades.

It wouldn't trouble me if it waited a few centuries.

[Morthoron]

It wouldn't trouble me if it waited a few centuries.

Hmmm...I wouldn't mind a film presentation of The Silmarillion in about the year 2019 or 2020. By that time, I will be just about finished bitching about the atrocities strewn through the Hobbit movies, and so will be quite ready to complain about something else.;)

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Hmmm...I wouldn't mind a film presentation of The Silmarillion in about the year 2019 or 2020. By that time, I will be just about finished bitching about the atrocities strewn through the Hobbit movies, and so will be quite ready to complain about something else.;)

Hmm, have you finished with the LotR films, then? :D I know I haven't. I just haven't said much about it on this board. The grief is still too near. :( (I think I need an emoticon with a lot of tears, here....)

[Morthoron]

Hmm, have you finished with the LotR films, then? :D I know I haven't.

Reiterating the litany of complaints I have regarding the LotR films would, at this time, be superfluous...redundant even.

[Archaic Elf]

The best way to do a movie of the Silmarillion is to pick up where LOTR left off: Frodo is on his way to Elvenhome and begins asking quesitons and, soon enough, the stories of the Silmarillion are told to him: Beren and Luthien (told by Gandalf, who was always concerned with Aragorn's ancestry); Turin (told by Galadriel, who was close with Melian in Doriath where Turin was fostered) and The Fall of Gondolin (told by Elron, whose grandfather, Tuor, was involved with. Tolkien, himself, laid out these three stories as the most important of all his Eldar Days legends according to his son, Christopher. Why not follow his own outline with a prologue about Feanor and the making of the jewels to the fall of Fingolfin which would lead to the story of Luthien for the first film? Turin's story is the most completely developed and acts as a natural bridge to the third movie, the Fall of Gondolin and then an epilogue concerning Elrond's father and brother that lay the seeds for the future conflicts with Sauron.

Naturally, it would have to be three movies with the same budget or more that LOTR had.

Or, you could do an HBO series, ala "Rome" and cover everyone.

I guess I wouldn't mind seeing The Silmarillion as a very long miniseries, be it live action or animated (I haven't seen "Rome," but I guess that's the course to take). Any film on the Silmarillion must be given plenty of time for the story to play out or it will be doomed. Never mind making a Hollywood film. That would be nonsense, and I still haven't seen Peter Jacksons' films (though I'll get too it eventually).

I would prefer to see a Silmarillion documentary more so than a movie. In the US, the History Channel has put out some really good documentaries over the last few years, and I think their style could carry over quite well for the Silmarillion. Take the documentary "The Dark Ages" from 2007 as an example. Just round up some Tolkien scholars to tell the stories in the Silmarillion, interweave their interviews with art work and dramatic reenactments with a solid cast. No need for costly actors or anything like that. The budget would mostly go to wardrobe, special effects, and things like that.

No, I'm not going anywhere near the discussion about the Tolkien Estate. It's okay to be hypothetical in conversations like this.

[Vilvarine]

My personal opinion is that there can` t be created so perfect and unique movie based on the Tolkien` s book (LOTR could have been made much better actually, but I wanna tell to Gothmog that actually the Balrogs have wings ( see the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog in Moria) because so many characters have been missed like Glorfindel, Imrahil, Tom Bombadil and etc . ) In the beginning ( as you know I hope) there is shown the creation of the perfect Tolkien` s world - the Valars and their Heaven from their song; after that begins the whole drama- the betrayal of Melkor ; I dont think someone can imagine who can play the firstborn elves who are the most beautiful creation of Iluvatar And I dont think someone can get into their roles so good as we imagine So, I think that the movie will destroy our idea and conception about the whole meaning

[Nerwen]

My personal opinion is that there can` t be created so perfect and unique movie based on the Tolkien` s book (LOTR could have been made much better actually, but I wanna tell to Gothmog that actually the Balrogs have wings ( see the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog in Moria) because so many characters have been missed like Glorfindel, Imrahil, Tom Bombadil and etc . ) In the beginning ( as you know I hope) there is shown the creation of the perfect Tolkien` s world - the Valars and their Heaven from their song; after that begins the whole drama- the betrayal of Melkor ; I dont think someone can imagine who can play the firstborn elves who are the most beautiful creation of Iluvatar And I dont think someone can get into their roles so good as we imagine So, I think that the movie will destroy our idea and conception about the whole meaning

Ooo, I do hope they hire you to write the screenplay, Vilvarine. :cool:

[Inziladun]

I can see it now: Leonardo DiCaprio as Melkor, Scarlett Johansson as Varda, and maybe Hugh Jackman as Manwë. :rolleyes:

[Vilvarine]

Ooo, I do hope they hire you to write the screenplay, Vilvarine. :cool:

Mmm, I don`t want to hire me as a scenery writer .. :) I`m just saying that even Peter Jackson (who I must confess did good job for LOTR but could be better as I said ) can`t make it perfect .. Well , we`ll see how will be The Hobbit :) But movie based on Silmarillion... I personally find it impossible to make

[Nerwen]

Mmm, I don`t want to hire me as a scenery writer .. :) I`m just saying that even Peter Jackson (who I must confess did good job for LOTR but could be better as I said ) can`t make it perfect .. Well , we`ll see how will be The Hobbit :) But movie based on Silmarillion... I personally find it impossible to make
Good heavens, you're real! I honestly thought you were one of those copy-pasting spambots.:o (Failed to noticed you weren't linking to anything.) That was the joke, not, "Ha, ha, think you can do better than Peter Jackson?" Sorry if it came across like that.

–Welcome to the Downs, Vilvarine!

[Vilvarine]

Good heavens, you're real! I honestly thought you were one of those copy-pasting spambots.:o (Failed to noticed you weren't linking to anything.) That was the joke, not, "Ha, ha, think you can do better than Peter Jackson?" Sorry if it came across like that.

–Welcome to the Downs, Vilvarine!

Thanks a lot !! I`m glad that here are people who are actually interested of Tolkien`s literature!!

[Galadriel]

Are you forgetting that a good ending to a movie is subjective? There are many people who look for dark, tenebrous endings in a film. (There are many dark films.)

Hollywood, the film industry is also looking for innovatory, inventive ways of approaching a film. CoH would present a challenge.

Yes. Movies don't necessarily need to have a happy ending. Why, just look at The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. It was really really sad. CoH would be a good try, but I think the fans ought to make it, like they did that one, The Hunt for Gollum. Anyone out here seen it?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by DuncanIdaho
Are you forgetting that a good ending to a movie is subjective? There are many people who look for dark, tenebrous endings in a film. (There are many dark films.)

Hollywood, the film industry is also looking for innovatory, inventive ways of approaching a film. CoH would present a challenge.

Yes. Movies don't necessarily need to have a happy ending. Why, just look at The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. It was really really sad.
Yes, but even if we ignore the copyright issue, I can't see The Children of Hurin being a major studio release, at least not without being more hacked around than Gelmir of Nargothrond. (Sorry.)

A fan film is a possibility, though.

CoH would be a good try, but I think the fans ought to make it, like they did that one, The Hunt for Gollum. Anyone out here seen it?

You may be interested in the thread discussing it here. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15426)

[Galadriel]

Yes, but even if we ignore the copyright issue, I can't see The Children of Hurin being a major studio release, at least not without being more hacked around than Gelmir of Nargothrond. (Sorry.)

A fan film is a possibility, though.



You may be interested in the thread discussing it here. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15426)

Actually, you're quite right. CoH would be nice for us Tolkien fans, but for anyone who isn't familiar with ME is going to hate it. It's not really a book that can be made into a triumph. It will probably end up like one of those old Macbeth movies.

[Arvegil145]

I think Peter Jackson should make a movie out of Silmarilion , beacuse there is The Lord of the Rings movie, soon it will be The Hobbit movie, so why not Silmarilion movie? I read both silmarilion and LOTR and I would give anything to see this movie, I mean it would be awsome :D

[Morthoron]

I think Peter Jackson should make a movie out of Silmarilion , beacuse there is The Lord of the Rings movie, soon it will be The Hobbit movie, so why not Silmarilion movie? I read both silmarilion and LOTR and I would give anything to see this movie, I mean it would be awsome :D

Jackson will never get the rights to the Silmarillion. No one will. Not in our lifetimes. Or at least my lifetime, I don't know how old you are. ;)

[Adaneth]

Yes, but even if we ignore the copyright issue, I can't see The Children of Hurin being a major studio release, at least not without being more hacked around than Gelmir of Nargothrond. (Sorry.)

I can't see The Children of Hurin (or for that matter, any part of the Silmarillion) as a studio release either, but what I can see it as is a miniseries on a premium cable channel like HBO. (Aforementioned copyright aside). A miniseries on premium cable would eliminate potential problems of a mainstream release. There would be no qualms about the incest, the suicides, the dark mood, and a hero that isn't squeaky-clean. (As a matter of fact, cable seems to actively embrace kind of material.)

That said, there's also the issue of actual adaptation of the material (which will likely include newly-written dialogue) and casting for a movie/miniseries. Done well, it would be be absolutely epic. Done wrong, it would be downright terrible. And the possibility alone of a horrible adaptation makes me kind of not want one at all.

I'm not holding my breath for any adaptations; it's something I'd like to see if it's ever possible, but I'm sure that I could live without it. :D

[Galadriel]

Jackson will never get the rights to the Silmarillion. No one will. Not in our lifetimes. Or at least my lifetime, I don't know how old you are. ;)

True that. There's a rumour that after The Hobbit no Tolkien related movies will be released, and anyway, making a movie out of The Silmarillion is nearly impossible. It's like trying to put The Bible on film. NOT a very good idea.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

It's like trying to put The Bible on film. NOT a very good idea.

Tell that to Chuck Heston's ghost. :D

Actually, the idea of a cable miniseries could work,
but not while CT is still around.

[Arvegil145]

well, i think too that silmarilion is realy complexed, and there are too many stories and just like somebody before said, it is like filming the entire Bible

i mean, it would take three days to watch the movie from the begining to the end

well, they could make a TV series

but, you never know, hope dies last :D

[Galin]

The idea will also have to wait in 2043, when JRRT's copyright expires; or, conceivably 70 years after Christopher dies, since h is quite arguably a co-author of the Silmarillion.

I was wondering, is this unknown? Meaning, does anyone know if the 70 year detail pertains to Christopher Tolkien or not?

I would think WCH would know if anyone knew, so does this have to be decided by a court or something (if CJRT can be considered as author)?

[malickfan]

I'd rather it never happened, at least not as a film-its a book primarily written for hardcore fans, and I can't see a film retaining this, yet still being commercial. Not only is very complex (meaning most of the dialogue and structure would have to be re-written...it would also require a collosal budget) its more or less unconnected to the angle Jackson's films have taken, and with its grim tone (it features incest and mass murder-with betrayal and greed being the main catalysts for the plot) and the fact that almost no LOTR characters are featured it would be extremely hard to market and still please fans and novices at the same time.

Tolkien himself doubted whther readers would find the sil interesting, for people weaned soley on the films this would be even more true ('Wait so Elrond's dad is the magical starlight that Frodo uses to fend off shelob in ROTK film???). Its also something very personal to Tolkien (Beren and Luhtien were engraved as his and his wives tombstones-and his religous beleifs are very evident) and is really more of a historical chronicle than a narrative.

That said as high budget TV series such as Game of Thrones etc, it could work:

This would give the producers more room, and time to tell the stories, whilst allowing to make it for a diferrent audience. With the increased time and detail a TV series would allow it would also be alot closer to the book.

Personally I hope it never happens, but it I was given a choice I'd vote for a TV series (incluDing relevant stuff from Unfinisihed Tales and the HOME)- with Peter Jackson and co still writing...BUT

I'd also like Christopher Tolkien (or other Tolkien accademics such as Tom Shippey or Robert Foster) to be direclty involved in execuitive producer and screenwriting roles-you get the best of both worlds, Jackson's visual and storytelling no-how plus the advice and guidance of the Tolkien estate. :)