Silmarillion-movie?

[davem]

Originally Posted by StW

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.

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)

However, I prefer not to get too close to the characters because the author is delineating them much more carefully than I can, and I'm wary of interfering with the pictures that the text is creating in the reader's mind.

In the illustrations I tried to show some of the fragile beauty of the landscapes and create an atmosphere that would enhance the sense of foreboding and impending loss. I try to get the setting to tell its part in the story, as evidence of what happened there in the past and as a hint at what is going to occur. My usual scarred and broken trees came in handy.

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

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 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'?

[ninja91]

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.

[Sauron the White]

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'?

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

[Sauron the White]

Lets take this in very small doses davem.

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.

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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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

“Bob Weinstein had obviously read the treatment, or skipped through it, but I remember this moment as if a lightbulb had gone on and there was almost a palpable moment of sudden understanding. Bob said: ‘Wait! So the Elf is like a bowman, shooting arrows, yeah? And the Dwarf has got axes and he can throw axes? And Sam, he’s got this magic rope, right? And Frodo’s got this light thing?’ Then he got really excited and you could see there was this moment of utter revelation and he said: ‘It’s like that movie where they had the explosives expert and the code expert and the marksman and they all had their own special skill . . . It’s the f****** Guns of Navarone!’

[davem]

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....

[Sauron the White]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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....

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.