Silmarillion-movie?

[Moophopolis]

Regarding an adaptation of the Silmarillion - and not to offend those who want to see an adaption - but can I suggest taking a moment for a different perspective?

A couple of things:

The basic danger with "purple" material, ie., well-known and much loved: Any attempt by an individual to cinematically define the world of the Silmarillion will invariably be at odds with some part of the existing fan base. What can a film adaptation do that the novel doesn't do? Bring the world to life? I don't know about others, but the film adaptation of LOTR, while a fun adventure film, was in no way, shape or form representative of the To me, it was a cartoonish monster movie, exactly like the rest of Jackson's work. I'm not knocking PJ & crew - that's just his style, and what makes his films fun to watch. But it's not LOTR by any stretch. I would be horrified to do that to someone's favorite book.

Secondly, why is having this wonderful literature not enough? As a filmmaker, I more than understand the overwhelming desire to express my love of literary material by adapting it into film. But, as a filmmaker, I have to ask: Given a the nearly limitless toolset of modern filmmaking and a (very) ample budget, could I equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work in some way? Of course not, and I would feel foolish to try.

So why not let these wonderful books be what they are? Are we really that unimaginative that we can do nothing else but strip-mine the literary world for all it's worth? I know the film rights to Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony and many others' work is trading high on Sunset Blvd., given the financial success of LOTR. Rather than trying to adapt Tolkien's work, why can't we simply be inspired by it and turn that creative energy into developing our own stories?

I know I am.

[Mirandir]

Originally Posted by Moophopolis

Secondly, why is having this wonderful literature not enough? As a filmmaker, I more than understand the overwhelming desire to express my love of literary material by adapting it into film. But, as a filmmaker, I have to ask: Given a the nearly limitless toolset of modern filmmaking and a (very) ample budget, could I equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work in some way? Of course not, and I would feel foolish to try.

I agree completely. There are some stories that lend themselves very well to film adaptations, the LotR trilogy being among them (as we all know ). However, there are others that do not. The Simarillion is one of them. Yes, it would be absolutely epic. However, there most likely isn't the fan base necessary to be able to justify pouring the kind of money that such a production would require into something that isn't going to sell. Besides, like Moophopolis said, would it even be possible to equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work? Methinks not.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Moophopolis

To me, it was a cartoonish monster movie, exactly like the rest of Jackson's work. I'm not knocking PJ & crew - that's just his style, and what makes his films fun to watch. But it's not LOTR by any stretch.

I am glad to hear another film-person say it.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

It is funny how much fans can protest when their favourit books gets made into movies, yet we hear no cries of dispair when they are made into theater plays. . .

I think we have to ask our selves "what is the harm?". Why should we object to a wider audience getting to know the work that we love so much? Obviously it would only be an intepritation of the work, but still. . .
Are we special because we have read the books 47 times and does that make us better judges of what can be turned into a move and what cannot?

Anyways I for one really like the movies, but at the same time I like you find it annoying. There are many weird things in them and they totaly changed the way I imagined some of the characters. If this had been too big an issue for me to accept, then surely I would just stay home with my books and not watch the movies. . .one does not have to watch them, you know.

And a last thing before I leave: I did not get that "cartoonish monster movie" feel from the movies at all, infact I was very impressed with PJ.(except for that skull scene)

[Feanor411]

Originally Posted by Moophopolis

Regarding an adaptation of the Silmarillion - and not to offend those who want to see an adaption - but can I suggest taking a moment for a different perspective?

A couple of things:

The basic danger with "purple" material, ie., well-known and much loved: Any attempt by an individual to cinematically define the world of the Silmarillion will invariably be at odds with some part of the existing fan base. What can a film adaptation do that the novel doesn't do? Bring the world to life? I don't know about others, but the film adaptation of LOTR, while a fun adventure film, was in no way, shape or form representative of the To me, it was a cartoonish monster movie, exactly like the rest of Jackson's work. I'm not knocking PJ & crew - that's just his style, and what makes his films fun to watch. But it's not LOTR by any stretch. I would be horrified to do that to someone's favorite book.

Secondly, why is having this wonderful literature not enough? As a filmmaker, I more than understand the overwhelming desire to express my love of literary material by adapting it into film. But, as a filmmaker, I have to ask: Given a the nearly limitless toolset of modern filmmaking and a (very) ample budget, could I equal or improve on the richness and complexity of Tolkien's work in some way? Of course not, and I would feel foolish to try.

So why not let these wonderful books be what they are? Are we really that unimaginative that we can do nothing else but strip-mine the literary world for all it's worth? I know the film rights to Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony and many others' work is trading high on Sunset Blvd., given the financial success of LOTR. Rather than trying to adapt Tolkien's work, why can't we simply be inspired by it and turn that creative energy into developing our own stories?

I know I am.

Excellent point, and one I have considered myself. However, I would love to see a Silmarillion project (my friend Randy and I talk about it incessantly). I know I would inevitably be disappointed, because turning a book into a movie is essentially and act of translation, and the story cannot ever be translated the way I picture it in my head. 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!

Did anyone else catch PJ's little "joke" on the commentary of FotR about the Silmarillion movie? When he reveals that Fran provided the voice of the Ringwraiths, he said that it was the sound she made when he told her he had bought the rights to the Sil. He WAS joking, wasn't he?

[Moophopolis]

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.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I've always thought that the most successful adaptation of the Silmarillion would have to be done as a TV mini-series. There is just entirely too much information to cover in one or two or even three movies. I think if the BBC or HBO or something did a mini-series they would be able to pick out one theme or thread and clearly focus on just that one over 6 or whatever episodes and then just introduce the new characters in each episode. There also wouldn't be the enormous pressure from Hollywood for the Silmarillion to make a killing at the box-office, which is obviously the main motivation to dramatize any of Tolkien's works in the first place.

I think that the problem with dramatizing the Silmarillion is just that it doesn't have the same wide appeal as The Hobbit or LOTR because of the sheer amount of information and names etc. I mean, I know many, many people who are fans of LOTR and TH, but when they tried to get into Sil they couldn't. (Incidently, has anyone read the Sillymarillion? They illustrate this point brilliantly by literally just having entire chapters that are just names of places or characters.) And because of this fact, the Sil would never make it as a movie, but something like the BBC adaptation of Hitchhiker's Guide would do just fine. I mean, I think the likelihood of this happening is very close to 0, but for the sake of this thread we'll pretend.

[Morthoron]

There are folks who have gone to great lengths to criticize the manner in which Christopher Tolkien edited the published form of the Silmarillion. I can only imagine the fits of apoplexy if the tale (series of tales, rather) was plopped indecorously into a Sci-fi channel mini-series. I still recall how dreadful Sci-fi's take on Dune was.

But really, the discussion is academic. As WCH has mentioned, it is unlikely we'll be seeing the Sil in the next few decades.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But really, the discussion is academic. As WCH has mentioned, it is unlikely we'll be seeing the Sil in the next few decades.

It wouldn't trouble me if it waited a few centuries.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It wouldn't trouble me if it waited a few centuries.

Hmmm...I wouldn't mind a film presentation of The Silmarillion in about the year 2019 or 2020. By that time, I will be just about finished bitching about the atrocities strewn through the Hobbit movies, and so will be quite ready to complain about something else.