Silmarillion-movie?

[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?

[Feanor411]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

* 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.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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?

[DuncanIdaho]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. ^^

[Galadriel]

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. 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?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by 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?'

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]

Originally Posted by Rune

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...

Originally Posted by StW

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.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.