Silmarillion-movie?

[Gothmog]

Making movies of LoTR must have been one of the biggest challenges a director can face. The books have been read, re-read and loved by so many people that everyone have different views of them and different expectations. No matter how many minor faults and discussable scenes (balrog with wings? Wargs almost killing Aragorn? Frodo sending Sam away etc...) I think most of us are rather content with the movies.

And now The Hobbits's coming (it is, isn't?).

Only one big project remains: the Silmarillion, the bible of "Tolkinism" .

But is it possible to make Silmarillion into a movie/movies? Or would that destroy the "magic"? It might be impossible to make ONE silm. movie, but how about a few, representing different stories. For example: Turin Turambar or Luthien and Beren.

I do realize that this might primarly interest tolkienfans and that it would be hard to make it an other blockbuster and Hollywood might not be too interested in making movies which won't sell. But you can always dream, can't you?

So what do you think? Is it possible? What would you like to see? How should it be done? Actors? Every opinion regarding the subject is welcome.



And if there already is a similiar thread, I'm sorry. Feel free to send this to the Dark Void

[Anguirel]

A few of us are working on a project to make an animated Silmarillion...the website can be found here: The Silmarillion Film Project

If you can draw and have access to a scanner, if you can act and have access to a microphone, or if you'd like to edit scripts, you'll be exceedingly welcome.

[Boromir88]

Looks cool Anguirel, I'll have to get my hands on a microphone, I was in a fair share of highschool and college plays.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

IMHO, stories like Children of Hurin and Lay of Leithian would make phenomenal movies. The catch being that probably, only Tolkien fans would consider them phenomenal. But still...

There are so many scenes in those tales as well as some of the rest of the Silmarillion that I can just picture how awesome they'd look on the screen. Sadly, movies based on The Silmarillion are just not feasible. To do justice to the stories you'd have to make extremely long movies, movies that would make LOTR look like sneezing. And plus, the Tolkien Estate (I believe) still has the rights to Silmarillion, and I don't think they'd let them go for all the money in the world.

The Silmarillion Film Project sounds like an interesting concept, and I've visited the messageboard several times, but it's just hard to make, what, four movies? out of the Silmarillion. For one thing, I simply cannot picture how the Valar are to be depicted. Or anything in Valinor, for that matter. If you guys can, more power to you. I sincerely hope you succeed; I'm just saying you've got your work cut out for you. It's a mammoth work. May Elbereth protect you!

[Tuor of Gondolin]

While I believe I'm in a minority, my view is that a series of movies
based on The Silmarillion would be quite doable, and profitable, somewhat on the
pattern of the Planet of the Apes or Star Trek series. Prime candidates
for such a series would be Beren and Luthien, Turin, Tuor, and the Battle of the Valar (the latter including a kid Elrond cameo and Earendil's voyage.
But the first one could begin with a prologue somewhat like the beginning of PJ's FOTR and then focus on the first two battles of Beleriand.

Of course, such a project might have to wait for an okay by literary successor guardians to CT.

[Oroaranion]

in all fairness, i would have to have the silmarillion in one film. LOTR had to be made in three films, for obvious reasons, but the silm is a relatively short book in comparsion. and besides, there were many stories being followed in LOTR movies, and it kept jumping between these stories, but it took nothing away from the overall experience.
i realise i havent posted for almost 19 months, but i hope people still value my opinion. it has been quite a while since i read th silm, but i amto read it again soon, and i may have to revise my opinion.

The best way to do a movie of the Silmarillion is to pick up where LOTR left off: Frodo is on his way to Elvenhome and begins asking quesitons and, soon enough, the stories of the Silmarillion are told to him: Beren and Luthien (told by Gandalf, who was always concerned with Aragorn's ancestry); Turin (told by Galadriel, who was close with Melian in Doriath where Turin was fostered) and The Fall of Gondolin (told by Elron, whose grandfather, Tuor, was involved with. Tolkien, himself, laid out these three stories as the most important of all his Eldar Days legends according to his son, Christopher. Why not follow his own outline with a prologue about Feanor and the making of the jewels to the fall of Fingolfin which would lead to the story of Luthien for the first film? Turin's story is the most completely developed and acts as a natural bridge to the third movie, the Fall of Gondolin and then an epilogue concerning Elrond's father and brother that lay the seeds for the future conflicts with Sauron.

Naturally, it would have to be three movies with the same budget or more that LOTR had.

Or, you could do an HBO series, ala "Rome" and cover everyone.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[princeimrahil2]

Those are two really good ideas and they both are ideas that i have thought of it is interesting to think how long it would take to make them. Probably the only major roadblock i could for see is putting the first two parts of the book on to the creeen, but can you imagine how awsome they would look if the creators weould be able to succeed in that attempt.
I have not finished the book yet but it really seems like just what i have read could be turned into a number of moivies.

[Archaic Elf]

Originally Posted by joeneri

The best way to do a movie of the Silmarillion is to pick up where LOTR left off: Frodo is on his way to Elvenhome and begins asking quesitons and, soon enough, the stories of the Silmarillion are told to him: Beren and Luthien (told by Gandalf, who was always concerned with Aragorn's ancestry); Turin (told by Galadriel, who was close with Melian in Doriath where Turin was fostered) and The Fall of Gondolin (told by Elron, whose grandfather, Tuor, was involved with. Tolkien, himself, laid out these three stories as the most important of all his Eldar Days legends according to his son, Christopher. Why not follow his own outline with a prologue about Feanor and the making of the jewels to the fall of Fingolfin which would lead to the story of Luthien for the first film? Turin's story is the most completely developed and acts as a natural bridge to the third movie, the Fall of Gondolin and then an epilogue concerning Elrond's father and brother that lay the seeds for the future conflicts with Sauron.

Naturally, it would have to be three movies with the same budget or more that LOTR had.

Or, you could do an HBO series, ala "Rome" and cover everyone.

I guess I wouldn't mind seeing The Silmarillion as a very long miniseries, be it live action or animated (I haven't seen "Rome," but I guess that's the course to take). Any film on the Silmarillion must be given plenty of time for the story to play out or it will be doomed. Never mind making a Hollywood film. That would be nonsense, and I still haven't seen Peter Jacksons' films (though I'll get too it eventually).

I would prefer to see a Silmarillion documentary more so than a movie. In the US, the History Channel has put out some really good documentaries over the last few years, and I think their style could carry over quite well for the Silmarillion. Take the documentary "The Dark Ages" from 2007 as an example. Just round up some Tolkien scholars to tell the stories in the Silmarillion, interweave their interviews with art work and dramatic reenactments with a solid cast. No need for costly actors or anything like that. The budget would mostly go to wardrobe, special effects, and things like that.

No, I'm not going anywhere near the discussion about the Tolkien Estate. It's okay to be hypothetical in conversations like this.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I've had the idea for a while now that probably the best way to make any sort of live action account of The Silmarillion would be rather though something not too dissimilar than a History Documentary. It would be amusing if nothing else. I mean, the Quenta Silmarillion more than Ainulindule, really. Little dramatisations of key scenes in between short narrations by a presenter (probably Simon Schama or someone like that) stood in a field saying 'and it was here in Beleriand that the outlaws discovered that things wouldn't always go their way.'

I did, a while back, write a script for such a venture, but due to lack of time and attention span, it never got past a few pages.

[Miss Squadilla]

THAT WOULD BE SOOOO EPIC!

OME I so want to see that

[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.

[Vilvarine]

My personal opinion is that there can` t be created so perfect and unique movie based on the Tolkien` s book (LOTR could have been made much better actually, but I wanna tell to Gothmog that actually the Balrogs have wings ( see the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog in Moria) because so many characters have been missed like Glorfindel, Imrahil, Tom Bombadil and etc . ) In the beginning ( as you know I hope) there is shown the creation of the perfect Tolkien` s world - the Valars and their Heaven from their song; after that begins the whole drama- the betrayal of Melkor ; I dont think someone can imagine who can play the firstborn elves who are the most beautiful creation of Iluvatar And I dont think someone can get into their roles so good as we imagine So, I think that the movie will destroy our idea and conception about the whole meaning

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Vilvarine

My personal opinion is that there can` t be created so perfect and unique movie based on the Tolkien` s book (LOTR could have been made much better actually, but I wanna tell to Gothmog that actually the Balrogs have wings ( see the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog in Moria) because so many characters have been missed like Glorfindel, Imrahil, Tom Bombadil and etc . ) In the beginning ( as you know I hope) there is shown the creation of the perfect Tolkien` s world - the Valars and their Heaven from their song; after that begins the whole drama- the betrayal of Melkor ; I dont think someone can imagine who can play the firstborn elves who are the most beautiful creation of Iluvatar And I dont think someone can get into their roles so good as we imagine So, I think that the movie will destroy our idea and conception about the whole meaning

Ooo, I do hope they hire you to write the screenplay, Vilvarine.

[Inziladun]

I can see it now: Leonardo DiCaprio as Melkor, Scarlett Johansson as Varda, and maybe Hugh Jackman as Manwë.

[Vilvarine]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ooo, I do hope they hire you to write the screenplay, Vilvarine.

Mmm, I don`t want to hire me as a scenery writer .. I`m just saying that even Peter Jackson (who I must confess did good job for LOTR but could be better as I said ) can`t make it perfect .. Well , we`ll see how will be The Hobbit But movie based on Silmarillion... I personally find it impossible to make

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Vilvarine

Mmm, I don`t want to hire me as a scenery writer .. I`m just saying that even Peter Jackson (who I must confess did good job for LOTR but could be better as I said ) can`t make it perfect .. Well , we`ll see how will be The Hobbit But movie based on Silmarillion... I personally find it impossible to make

Good heavens, you're real! I honestly thought you were one of those copy-pasting spambots. (Failed to noticed you weren't linking to anything.) That was the joke, not, "Ha, ha, think you can do better than Peter Jackson?" Sorry if it came across like that.

–Welcome to the Downs, Vilvarine!

[Vilvarine]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Good heavens, you're real! I honestly thought you were one of those copy-pasting spambots. (Failed to noticed you weren't linking to anything.) That was the joke, not, "Ha, ha, think you can do better than Peter Jackson?" Sorry if it came across like that.

–Welcome to the Downs, Vilvarine!

Thanks a lot !! I`m glad that here are people who are actually interested of Tolkien`s literature!!