The Children of Hurin - The Film

[tumhalad2]

Oh, okay I really had no idea that such a logical fallacy was called by the name "begging the question". *Prostrates himself in front of Nerwen*

To be honest though, at least where I'm from, it's used in rather polite discourse to mean something essentially *raises* the question. Go figure...

[Nerwen]

*graciously accepts your surrender*

Well, now that we've settled that–

How theoretical are you being here? It doesn't seem likely that anyone will be making a film version of CoH in the next few decades (and goodness knows what cinema will have mutated into by the time it finally goes out of copyright).

[tumhalad2]

Well, I'm being completely theoretical. This is not about whether they will make a film or not, it's about the effects such a project might have upon Tolkien's image as a popular author.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Well, I'm being completely theoretical. This is not about whether they will make a film or not, it's about the effects such a project might have upon Tolkien's image as a popular author.

That would depend, in part, on the film– my guess is that any such adaptation would end up being completely butchered.

But even if it wasn't, how many people judge an author solely by the film versions of his or her novels? It would be rather silly of them, don't you think?

Of course, a successful film version will encourage people to read the original novel– but that's a two-step process, which isn't what you've described.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That would depend, in part, on the film– my guess is that any such adaptation would end up being completely butchered.

But even if it wasn't, how many people judge an author solely by the film versions of his or her novels? It would be rather silly of them, don't you think?

Of course, a successful film version will encourage people to read the original novel– but that's a two-step process, which isn't what you've described.

Going back to my original post, I'm interested in how a film version might change the kinds of "memes" that 'pop up' in people's heads when the hear the word "Tolkien". Put it another way; how might a film version of CoH inculcate itself into popular culture, and what effect would this have on ideas that are held about Tolkien atm? Would our perception of him change radically? This of course assumes CoH is a very different story to LoTR in many respects, which I contend it is, particularly in its stand alone form.

As I explained, film has the power to reach a far greater audience than a book does. When the novel was released, many reviewers were surprised or astonished at the contents, which were unfamiliar "memes" that one usually wouldn't associate with Tolkien, at least not in popular culture. An academic study of Tolkien can of course be far more perceptive, and we may tease out layers of convergance or similarity, but I still contend that there is a fundemental metaphysical difference between the universes depicted in LoTR and CoH. One is fully providential, the other is atheistic (this is in no way meant to be a pejorative term).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Going back to my original post, I'm interested in how a film version might change the kinds of "memes" that 'pop up' in people's heads when the hear the word "Tolkien". Put it another way; how might a film version of CoH inculcate itself into popular culture, and what effect would this have on ideas that are held about Tolkien atm? Would our perception of him change radically? This of course assumes CoH is a very different story to LoTR in many respects, which I contend it is, particularly in its stand alone form.

As I explained, film has the power to reach a far greater audience than a book does. When the novel was released, many reviewers were surprised or astonished at the contents, which were unfamiliar "memes" that one usually wouldn't associate with Tolkien, at least not in popular culture. An academic study of Tolkien can of course be far more perceptive, and we may tease out layers of convergance or similarity, but I still contend that there is a fundemental metaphysical difference between the universes depicted in LoTR and CoH. One is fully providential, the other is atheistic (this is in no way meant to be a pejorative term).

Well, as I've said elsewhere, I don't agree that there is this "fundamental metaphysical difference", and having already given my reasons for this at some length on the "Turin the Hopeless" thread, I can't be bothered restating them here. So I wouldn't be particularly excited about promoting what to my mind is just an opinion of some readers. Certainly the story is, as you say very different anyway, and might change the view a good many people have of Tolkien as simply the Father of Fantasy Cliché... but I think that's more if it were widely read. When people have only seen a film version, most of their associations tend to concern the director or the actors– which is fair enough, since they have no way of telling what the source was like. If they do know the author's name, they'll usually think of him more-or-less as "that guy that wrote the book [film title] was based on". Well, then: I suppose if all you want to do is influence whatever vague notions people may have about the authors of books they haven't read, it can be done– but how much point is there to that?

[Galadriel55]

Personally, I am against the making of COH movie. It is quite different than LOTR, and addresses much more powerful themes. I consider the LOTR movie a disaster - and I'm afraid to think what COH could turn into .

I don't think that COH contradicts with LOTR. It is my belief that Tolkien (unintentionally, perhaps) summarised our world in his books. Although LOTR is not exactly a "hobbit walking-party", jokes are added in good measure, and lighten the atmosphere (as a whole) significantly. COH is totally different: although there is less description, it goes deeper. To say that - I'm not saying that LOTR isn't deep, - even the hobbit-jests are deep in a way - but it's in a different way than COH. I don't see how adding a different theme to his creation would make a dent in Tolkien's works, especially if you see the as I do.

[Formendacil]

I think any speculation on the possible effects of a Children of Húrin movie needs to first make fairly clear what the movie itself would look like.

I mean, Tumhalad seems to be saying that a CoH movie would necessarily present a different sort of story than LotR. Now, one could agree with Nerwen in stating that Tolkien does not have a fundamentally different moral landscape in these two books (an assertion that I, personally, only agree with if you see CoH as a part of the Silm). However, that does not mean that a movie CoH would actually differ from a movie LotR in this respect. Adaptation is the key--or the problem.

For example, I don't really think that Peter Jackson's movie version of the LotR actually got the metaphysical aesthetic of Middle-earth right--or, if you differentiate them, the metaphysical aesthetic of the LotR, specifically. Well, it's actually a mixed bag on this score--I think FotR succeeded mostly, but that TTT and RotK both have major failings--and these failings are especially strong when looked through the lens of the "metaphysical aesthetic."

So... if there was a movie-version of CoH, how do we know it would present Tolkien's metaphysics at all? Granted, we may see something new from Jackson and Co. in The Hobbit that may ameliorate my evaluation of their ability to present Tolkien's metaphysical aesthetic, but on the basis of the LotR, I would be concerned that any attempt Jackson et al might make on the CoH would get the externals right and the metaphysics wrong. In other words, in the hands of the wrong movie-makers, CoH would not change the public's perception of Tolkien, but reinforce it.

Of course, the argument goes the other way... let's try to imagine what a Pixar version of CoH would look like--okay, I admit that one is more amusingly incongruous than anything else--or imagine a Tim Burton version (whoa! bizarre... though maybe a better fit than Pixar)... and that's just naming two recognisable styles.

My whole point is that this is a speculative topic at best, and without some really clear vision of what a CoH movie would look like (which can only be decided arbitrarily), it's impossible to really have a constructive discussion about it.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

So... if there was a movie-version of CoH, how do we know it would present Tolkien's metaphysics at all?

Let's assume it is a reasonably faithful adaptation - this thread shouldn't need to concern itself with too many specifics. Let's assume it is faithful, encapsulates the "metaphysic" of the standalone novel, and is favourably reviewed. Director? Peter Weir, perhaps. But for the purposes of this discussion, we can safely imagine a scenario a few years (or decades) down the track; Jackson isn't directing, the Hobbit films are a nice memory, etc. Really, its entirely hypothetical though - I'm not asking for speculations about the nature of the film itself. We can make those assumptions for the purposes of my main question.