Silmarillion-movie?
 

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 :)

A few of us are working on a project to make an animated Silmarillion...the website can be found here: The Silmarillion Film Project

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!

Silmarillion-movie?
 

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.

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).

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
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'.

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?

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. ;)

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.

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.

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).

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!

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.

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.

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?

from me

Quote:
from William CH
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

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.

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

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

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).

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.....

You're not the only one, m'dear.
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=281

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

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.

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?

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.

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


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.

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

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...

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....
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.

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.

from davem

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

from Lalwende

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.

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.

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....

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.

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

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.

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)

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

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'?

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.

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.

Lets take this in very small doses davem.

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.

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

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.