[Macalaure]

Not a lot enthusiasm on this thread, as it seems.
Though I can understand that many of you are sceptic, I don’t share the frustration of some. I like watching movies, and it's almost natural to me to ponder how my favourite stories and books would appear on screen, and how they could be made to appear well. Nobody here wants to see the Children of Húrin (or anything else Tolkien-related)-movie at all costs, but I would greatly appreciate a well-made one. I think this thread is not so much about ‘I want it now!’ but simply for the fun of speculation.

So let's go!

Originally Posted by Lommy

This made me wonder what kind of movie the story would make. I know it'll be easier to speculate once we have the book in our hands, but I think we can still discuss some things here now already. What (if something) things could be left out? What scenes would you definitely want to see? Who should play the main roles? Who should direct it? And so on... I'm interested to hear your opinions about these things.

First off, echoing Squatter among others, nothing should be invented and nothing significantly changed. It’s a dark story and therefore has to be a dark movie. There is very few lightheartedness and it should not be forced upon it, just maybe a little dry humour here or there. It won't be a typical blockbuster movie and definitely no family film like LotR, but then: there have been dark movies that became successful, despite, or even due to, their darkness. The target audience will be smaller than with LotR, but it's there. The label Tolkien might make the film companies desire a lower rating, but if none could be convinced otherwise, I indeed would rather want no CoH on screen at all. Then again, it does have the label Tolkien on it, which will probably automatically make it more interesting to many people - now. I think many people give Peter Jackson too little credit for the risk he (and New Line) took with LotR. It could have turned out to be a grand failure. Now, after the success, the makers of possible further Tolkien-movies might have the 'freedom' to stay closer to the original, because it will sell in either way. Of course, the Hobbit adaptation could prove me horribly wrong on this.
What I'm trying to say is, that there are enough people who would like to watch this kind of movie, and a Children of Húrin true to the original is not be bound to be only a loss of money for a studio - on the contrary, even.


In Letter 210, Tolkien repeatedly says that if a scene cannot be treated properly in the given time, it’s better to cut it out and spend the time on other things. This is a good advice, I think. If you do something, do it properly, or better don’t do it at all. What then could be sacrificed in an adaptation and what not? What is so important that one should spare the time to even expand it?

What could be shortened, in my mind, is:
The Nirnaeth (I love the Nirnaeth, but it isn’t needed in all the detail we know about it. The important things are those related to Húrin and Turgon, and also to Glaurung, Gwindor, Beleg and Mablung)
Túrin among the Outlaws, before Amon Rûdh (There are other passages which are simply more important)
Túrin's return to Dor-lómin (A shortening won’t work here, it’s a do or don’t. Is it really that central to the story?)
The Wanderings of Húrin (The story of Húrin in Brethil needs to go)
Characters that could be dropped: Nellas (As intriguing as she is, she’s a very underdeveloped character), Huor and Rían (As important as they are for the Silmarillion, they have little significance within CoH)

What should not be shortened, if time permits:
Túrin's childhood in Dor-lómin (This could even be expanded, especially for introductorial reasons)
Húrin and Morgoth (It should never be forgotten, as easy as it is, that, all the time, Húrin sits on his place and suffers through it)
Túrin’s relationship to Níniel
Beleg (Since, for a time, he’s even the main character of the story)
Mîm (It’s too easy to just make him into an average villain, but this would take a lot of suspense from the Amon Rûdh scenes)

In between:
Túrin in Doriath (Túrin’s youth is not so important, I think. But from the time when Túrin joins Beleg on, there’s nothing to be left out)
The story of Morwen and Nienor
Túrin in Nargothrond (Personally, I think Finduilas is more important because of the impact she has on the friendship of Túrin and Gwindor, than because of her relationship with Túrin. Additionally, it’s important that it is made plausible how Túrin was able to rise so quickly in Orodreth’s favour, otherwise this might look strange)


The importance of the special effects has been mentioned. They’re a two-sided knife indeed. On the one hand, it’s bad when the effects take over the main focus, on the other hand, nothing destroys the illusion more properly than bad effects. We need a convincing CGI Menegroth and Nargothrond and Angband, and I think that a convincing Glaurung might prove more difficult than a convincing Gollum did, because he's less human-like. The best special effects are those which are so good that the audience isn’t aware of them.

As I already said, I would sacrifice the Nirnaeth for the sake of getting the plot going, but allow me a short tangent here: I really love the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. I adore it. Unlike more or less all other battles I have ever seen in a movie, the Nirnaeth isn’t just a series of hacking and whacking and in the end somebody wins. It has a whole plot of its own, strategy and tragedy, even beyond the slow forging of the Union of Maedhros and the painful aftermath. It’s a long battle whose fortunes ever change, where hope and despair take turns and everybody who takes part in it has a proper story of his own which needs to be tracked. Add to this Elves and Men and Dwarves and Orcs and Balrogs and Dragons and you have something which could be an “Epic Fantasy Battle how it is really supposed to be”. Were we not so restricted in time, I could imagine the Nirnaeth to almost serve as a kind of opening battle, which worked so fine for example in Saving Private Ryan. In fact, I could imagine a fascinating movie which is about nothing else but the Nirnaeth.
The Battle of Tumhalad is closer to an average battle and therefore more boring. Yet, there is more to it than just Túrin and Glaurung, as it features also the deaths of Orodreth and Gwindor, which shouldn’t be treated just as an aside.
My point is that a battle can be much more than a waste of time if it is done well.


There are two problems I see, which would be challenging for a director and a script-writer. One is, there are many locations, and in each Túrin stays not just a short time, but several years. There’s Dor-lómin, Doriath, Amon Rûdh, Nargothrond, Brethil - they all need to be dealt with in detail and the audience has to be made to tie themselves to these places, because Túrin does. This needs much time, for each. The story is the story of a whole life, which means many time jumps, and these rarely do favours to a movie.
The second is a difficulty with the relationship between Túrin and Nienor. It begins at a time when we’re already, approximately, two thirds or even three fourth through the movie. This is not the ideal timing to begin the introduction of a completely new relationship, when the audience already awaits the rise to the climax. Yet it has to be done since it is most central to the story.

Originally Posted by Squatter

The central family grouping of Húrin, Morwen Eledhwen, Túrin, Níenor and Lalaith, then a court group including Thingol and Saeros; the Outlaws, which essentially revolve around the central pairing of Túrin and Beleg, the last of the Petty-dwarves in the persons of Mîm and his sons, another court group at Nargothrond and the Brethil group, particularly Brandir and Dorlas. For antagonists you have Morgoth, Glaurung and Gothmog. Everyone else is essentially a supporting rôle.

Ah! The cast!
I disagree with Squatter, a little. To me, the central characters are Húrin and Morwen, Túrin (young and grown-up) and Nienor, Beleg, Mîm, Gwindor(!), Brandir and of course Morgoth and Glaurung. These are pretty much the only ones who really have depth and need to be casted carefully. Then there’s Sador, Mablung, Thingol and Melian, Saeros, Orodreth and Finduilas, Hunthor and Dorlas. They are supporting roles, though important ones.
Lalaith dies early on and has only few lines. Maybe one or two of the Outlaws could have an increased role, but they don’t really have important individual characters (at least not if the Outlaw part before they find Mîm is shortened, *sharpens scissors*). The people from Nargothrond and Brethil, except the ones already mentioned, won’t be very important and have few lines.
I think Gothmog can be cut entirely. He kills Fingon and is then never seen again, but I fear the audience would expect him to have another appearance, so he will only distract. I would include Sauron as a minor minor character though, just to show that he’s a servant of Morgoth. By this comparison, no other explanation of the status of Morgoth is needed.


One last thing, which many will disagree with. I think it is important that the director has his own vision of the story. If this means he alters the story at some points, I'm fine with it, even though I would (of course) vehemently disagree with the respective instances. One major fault one could do is, in my opinion, to stay too close to the original. If a CoH-movie turned out to be just a retelling of the story as Tolkien wrote it, I fear it will end up being lifeless, dull and empty.
They say you have to be a poet yourself if you want to translate a poem into a different language. I think this holds for the 'translation' of a book to a film as well.


Concerning directors, what about Ang Lee?


Looking at all this, I suddenly feel the urge to apologise for the excessive length...