If the Children of Húrin was filmed... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem · 03-28-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I ask again, if anyone knows -- were ALL film profits used in this manner or do the charity contributions represent a PARTIAL amount of the profits from increased royalty revenue as a result of the films popularity?

Well, you can email the Estate via their web site & ask them if its important - http://www.tolkienestate.com/. Personally I prefer not to enter into questions of personal finances. It may be that all the profits went straight into the Trust's coffers or it may be that most went into the family's secret off-shore bank account to be used in their nefarious plan to genetically engineer an army of killer Hobbit clones to take over the world.

Sauron the White · 03-28-2007, 04:58 PM

davem --- since I am new here and do not have the information that may have been given in many previous discussions I simply am trying to get my facts straight. People here know so much more than I could ever hope to and I was trying to learn.

davem · 03-29-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem --- since I am new here and do not have the information that may have been given in many previous discussions I simply am trying to get my facts straight. People here know so much more than I could ever hope to and I was trying to learn.

I understand, & a few of us have tried to answer your questions. But I don't think anyone except members of the family know what has happened to the movie profits, other than they've gone to those who deserve them & that in the main they are a very decent bunch. Why is it so important to know who's got what & what they've done with it?

Estelyn Telcontar · 03-29-2007, 02:52 AM

The financial concerns of the Tolkien family and Estate are not our concerns here on the Barrow-Downs. We have not discussed them in detail in the past, since we have no inside information, so you haven't missed anything, Sauron. Nor do we have any right at all to judge private persons on what they do with their private revenue. Nothing more than hearsay, rumours and other unfounded speculations can be contributed, so let's stop talking about this and get back to the main issue of the thread - discussing possibilities for filming the CoH. Thank you!

Sauron the White · 03-29-2007, 06:19 AM

A serious question regarding possible filming of CHILDREN OF HURIN directed at a special audience. I ask this of people who are the most critical of the LOTR films, For lack of a better word - the Purists - those who seem to want a nearly exact page by page translation of the book to the screen... or at least that is how it has sometimes appeared over the last few years.

What would make a successful HURIN film for you?

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh · 03-29-2007, 12:57 PM

As I said above, it's very premature to be talking about a film version of a book none of us has even had a chance to read yet. There's no guarantee that the Tolkien Estate will ever sell the film rights, which means that a film might not be forthcoming for several decades. If this were the case, I wouldn't shed any tears.

That being said, if you want a purist view, then I suppose mine is it. I don't hate the Jackson films, but I don't like them very much either.

What would make an ideal film version of The Children of Hurin for me? Well, for a start it would have to refrain from making any of the changes I pointed out above. That's the sine qua non of making me happy with the film: keep the plot and characters the same. In other words, if the author takes risks and defies convention, then the film-makers must do that too. Characters must have the same personalities and motivations that they do in the original story, doing the same things for the same reasons, regardless of what the producer may think the audience wants. Most importantly, since space is at a premium it should never contain completely invented scenes, particularly if others have been dropped from the original story due to space constraints.

Nothing wastes time without moving the story along more than a battle scene. There are two major battles in The Children of Hurin: the Nirnaeth Arnoediad and the Fall of Nargothrond, but neither has to be dwelt on too much. The respective key scenes are Hurin's rearguard against Morgoth's forces and his subsequent capture by orcs, and Turin's encounter with Glaurung. Ideally for the sake of run-time the battles should be reduced as nearly as possible to those two pivotal scenes, with the time saved being devoted to the important character pieces between, for example, Hurin and Morgoth, Turin and Morwen, etc. and the key death of Lalaith. A truly great film version would not rely on CGI battles to make an impact. Perhaps it would even give more space to the development of Turin's relationship with Finduilas; certainly it would spend time and creative energy on portraying Turin's growing romantic love for Nienor. Much of the story's tragedy hinges on the fact that those two characters love each other as husband and wife without realising that they are brother and sister.

But a great film adaptation would have more to learn from Peter Jackson than what to avoid. Jackson's films are visually stunning, with famous Tolkien artists being consulted on costume and set design. This was definitely a good move, and would be vital for such important items as the Dragon-Helm and Gurthang; also the engagement of theatrically trained actors would be essential due to the operatic intensity of the story. Anyone who relies on playing themselves repeatedly should be avoided in favour of character actors, even at the expense of an easily recognisable cast. A great film would not be afraid to introduce talented unknowns. Overall, the Jackson films were well cast.

Since I've mentioned dialogue above I'll add the thing that I consider even more important than casting the right people: use Tolkien's dialogue. Whenever people try to re-write his characters' words they start to sound like every other film character you've ever heard. A great film would make Tolkien's words work instead of just re-casting them in a modern idiom.

Basically, then, my ideal film would have at its core an assumption: the assumption that Tolkien can sell on his own terms without concessions to received film-making wisdom. It would not be afraid to take risks in order to portray faithfully the spirit of his story, no matter how unlikely it might be to play well to a cinema audience. It would be emotionally and intellectually articulate and it would have the voice that Tolkien gave it, not the voice of movie consensus. It would be imaginative and artistic in its visual techniques, employ a less-is-more approach to special effects, and would be based on a screenplay which followed the book as closely as run-times allowed.

Such a film would never be made. I would rather see the budget cut to the bone and lose all the gorgeous visuals if I could hear a talented actor speaking Turin's words as Tolkien wrote them, but gorgeous visuals sell films and poetic language doesn't. I'm pretty sure that incest and punished hubris don't sell films either, so I shan't be disappointed if someone films this story to be a Christmas blockbuster. 'Cash or kudos?' was the question Tolkien asked of a film adaptation. Realistically, cash wins nine times out of ten, but if someone were to make The Children of Hurin into a film, it would be wonderful if that were the one time when kudos won the argument.

Sauron the White · 03-29-2007, 01:36 PM

That is a very well thought out answer to my question. Thank you Squatter of AR. And allow me a follow-up.

It is a common device in films to combine two characters into one or combine two events into one to move things along and not repeat elements of the same scene twice. Do you object to doing that?

And regarding this

Most importantly, since space is at a premium it should never contain completely invented scenes, particularly if others have been dropped from the original story due to space constraints.

In TTT, Jackson had the Elves come to Helms Deep. Of course, this was a deviation from the book. One reason given was that Jackson did not have the time to show actual book-based battles that the Elven Warriors were engaged in so he "moved them" to the battle he was focusing on. Many viewers joined me in rating that innovation as a very positive one.

Is that the type of thing you would seriously object to?

03-29-2007, 02:52 AM	#4
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	The financial concerns of the Tolkien family and Estate are not our concerns here on the Barrow-Downs. We have not discussed them in detail in the past, since we have no inside information, so you haven't missed anything, Sauron. Nor do we have any right at all to judge private persons on what they do with their private revenue. Nothing more than hearsay, rumours and other unfounded speculations can be contributed, so let's stop talking about this and get back to the main issue of the thread - discussing possibilities for filming the CoH. Thank you! __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'

03-29-2007, 12:57 PM	#6
The Squatter of Amon Rûdh Spectre of Decay Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bar-en-Danwedh Posts: 2,178	Fantasy film production As I said above, it's very premature to be talking about a film version of a book none of us has even had a chance to read yet. There's no guarantee that the Tolkien Estate will ever sell the film rights, which means that a film might not be forthcoming for several decades. If this were the case, I wouldn't shed any tears. That being said, if you want a purist view, then I suppose mine is it. I don't hate the Jackson films, but I don't like them very much either. What would make an ideal film version of The Children of Hurin for me? Well, for a start it would have to refrain from making any of the changes I pointed out above. That's the sine qua non of making me happy with the film: keep the plot and characters the same. In other words, if the author takes risks and defies convention, then the film-makers must do that too. Characters must have the same personalities and motivations that they do in the original story, doing the same things for the same reasons, regardless of what the producer may think the audience wants. Most importantly, since space is at a premium it should never contain completely invented scenes, particularly if others have been dropped from the original story due to space constraints. Nothing wastes time without moving the story along more than a battle scene. There are two major battles in The Children of Hurin: the Nirnaeth Arnoediad and the Fall of Nargothrond, but neither has to be dwelt on too much. The respective key scenes are Hurin's rearguard against Morgoth's forces and his subsequent capture by orcs, and Turin's encounter with Glaurung. Ideally for the sake of run-time the battles should be reduced as nearly as possible to those two pivotal scenes, with the time saved being devoted to the important character pieces between, for example, Hurin and Morgoth, Turin and Morwen, etc. and the key death of Lalaith. A truly great film version would not rely on CGI battles to make an impact. Perhaps it would even give more space to the development of Turin's relationship with Finduilas; certainly it would spend time and creative energy on portraying Turin's growing romantic love for Nienor. Much of the story's tragedy hinges on the fact that those two characters love each other as husband and wife without realising that they are brother and sister. But a great film adaptation would have more to learn from Peter Jackson than what to avoid. Jackson's films are visually stunning, with famous Tolkien artists being consulted on costume and set design. This was definitely a good move, and would be vital for such important items as the Dragon-Helm and Gurthang; also the engagement of theatrically trained actors would be essential due to the operatic intensity of the story. Anyone who relies on playing themselves repeatedly should be avoided in favour of character actors, even at the expense of an easily recognisable cast. A great film would not be afraid to introduce talented unknowns. Overall, the Jackson films were well cast. Since I've mentioned dialogue above I'll add the thing that I consider even more important than casting the right people: use Tolkien's dialogue. Whenever people try to re-write his characters' words they start to sound like every other film character you've ever heard. A great film would make Tolkien's words work instead of just re-casting them in a modern idiom. Basically, then, my ideal film would have at its core an assumption: the assumption that Tolkien can sell on his own terms without concessions to received film-making wisdom. It would not be afraid to take risks in order to portray faithfully the spirit of his story, no matter how unlikely it might be to play well to a cinema audience. It would be emotionally and intellectually articulate and it would have the voice that Tolkien gave it, not the voice of movie consensus. It would be imaginative and artistic in its visual techniques, employ a less-is-more approach to special effects, and would be based on a screenplay which followed the book as closely as run-times allowed. Such a film would never be made. I would rather see the budget cut to the bone and lose all the gorgeous visuals if I could hear a talented actor speaking Turin's words as Tolkien wrote them, but gorgeous visuals sell films and poetic language doesn't. I'm pretty sure that incest and punished hubris don't sell films either, so I shan't be disappointed if someone films this story to be a Christmas blockbuster. 'Cash or kudos?' was the question Tolkien asked of a film adaptation. Realistically, cash wins nine times out of ten, but if someone were to make The Children of Hurin into a film, it would be wonderful if that were the one time when kudos won the argument. __________________ Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh; 03-29-2007 at 02:44 PM. Reason: Grammar and punctuation

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-28-2007, 04:58 PM	#2
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	davem --- since I am new here and do not have the information that may have been given in many previous discussions I simply am trying to get my facts straight. People here know so much more than I could ever hope to and I was trying to learn.

03-29-2007, 06:19 AM	#5
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	A serious question regarding possible filming of CHILDREN OF HURIN directed at a special audience. I ask this of people who are the most critical of the LOTR films, For lack of a better word - the Purists - those who seem to want a nearly exact page by page translation of the book to the screen... or at least that is how it has sometimes appeared over the last few years. What would make a successful HURIN film for you?

03-29-2007, 01:36 PM	#7
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	That is a very well thought out answer to my question. Thank you Squatter of AR. And allow me a follow-up. It is a common device in films to combine two characters into one or combine two events into one to move things along and not repeat elements of the same scene twice. Do you object to doing that? And regarding this Most importantly, since space is at a premium it should never contain completely invented scenes, particularly if others have been dropped from the original story due to space constraints. In TTT, Jackson had the Elves come to Helms Deep. Of course, this was a deviation from the book. One reason given was that Jackson did not have the time to show actual book-based battles that the Elven Warriors were engaged in so he "moved them" to the battle he was focusing on. Many viewers joined me in rating that innovation as a very positive one. Is that the type of thing you would seriously object to?