Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor411
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.